Page 7 of 9
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:30 am
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:OK, I am done here. Sorry I offended you, bob.
I think my last post wasn't clear. I was treating your previous post as an apology and accepting it. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:13 am
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:[A]Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. A crime requires intent.
[A]Correct
Incorrect
Grade 50%
Fail!
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:06 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:Bob78164 wrote:[A]Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. A crime requires intent.
[A]Correct
Incorrect
Grade 50%
Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:38 pm
by BackInTex
Nevermind
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:15 pm
by Beebs52
Bob78164 wrote:BackInTex wrote:Bob78164 wrote:[A]Extreme carelessness in handling classified material isn't a crime. A crime requires intent.
[A]Correct
Incorrect
Grade 50%
Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob
793f doesn't require intent
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:54 pm
by Bob Juch
Beebs52 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:BackInTex wrote:
[A]Correct
Incorrect
Grade 50%
Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob
793f doesn't require intent
Right, so Trump should be prosecuted under that section.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:38 pm
by tlynn78
Bob Juch wrote:Beebs52 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob
793f doesn't require intent
Right, so Trump should be prosecuted under that section.
Don't quit your day job, skippy.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:39 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:BackInTex wrote:
[A]Correct
Incorrect
Grade 50%
Fail!
In this statute (as confirmed by jarnon's experience), a crime does require intent. I agree that there are plenty of contexts where that's not the case. --Bob
793f doesn't require intent
But it only applies to someone who "permits [classified material] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed." That doesn't apply to receipt or sending of e-mails, particularly where the people receiving the e-mails were in fact cleared to receive the information. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:53 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:
793f doesn't require intent
But it only applies to someone who "permits [classified material] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed." That doesn't apply to receipt or sending of e-mails, particularly where the people receiving the e-mails were in fact cleared to receive the information. --Bob[/quote]
Weren't a lot of Clinton's email (possibly containing such classified information, we may never know) lost or destroyed? Plus, because the servers were destroyed, we don't know who all received them, forwarded them, or to who. Also, Wiener was not cleared.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:08 pm
by Beebs52
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or bot
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:24 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:Bob78164 wrote:Beebs52 wrote:
793f doesn't require intent
But it only applies to someone who "permits [classified material] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed." That doesn't apply to receipt or sending of e-mails, particularly where the people receiving the e-mails were in fact cleared to receive the information. --Bob
Weren't a lot of Clinton's email (possibly containing such classified information, we may never know) lost or destroyed? Plus, because the servers were destroyed, we don't know who all received them, forwarded them, or to who. Also, Wiener was not cleared.
Secretary Clinton didn't permit Wiener to get anything. And the information in the e-mails wasn't destroyed. That provision is intended to cover situations like some idiot who does something incredibly stupid that results in destruction of, say, the one-time cipher pad.
And if you don't know (and can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt) that Secretary Clinton provided the e-mails to someone who wasn't supposed to get them (deliberately or otherwise), then you can't charge her with a crime for having done so.
And let's get real here. No one has suggested that anything in the e-mails actually put our national security at risk. It's not like she revealed the location of our nuclear submarines to a hostile foreign government. That would have been a real problem. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:38 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote: No one has suggested that anything in the e-mails actually put our national security at risk.
She was Secretary of State. If she was not communicating with people about top secret information that may put American lives in danger if it got out, she was not doing her job.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:05 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:Bob78164 wrote: No one has suggested that anything in the e-mails actually put our national security at risk.
She was Secretary of State. If she was not communicating with people about top secret information that may put American lives in danger if it got out, she was not doing her job.
The unsecured e-mail server was not her only means of communication. The evidence was clear that she was sensitive to the need not to put classified information on that server. The issue arose because some got there anyway.
But this was a political issue because it supported the inference that as President, she wouldn't take sufficient care to protect classified information. Given what's actually happened with Donny in the White House (to the sound of a deafening Congressional silence), in retrospect that argument was a bad joke. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:12 pm
by Beebs52
Nevermind.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:09 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote: The evidence was clear that she was sensitive to the need not to put classified information on that server.
Clear to you, but that is a really really low bar with regards to Clinton. In fact, I believe the bar is laying on the ground.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:06 am
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:Bob78164 wrote: The evidence was clear that she was sensitive to the need not to put classified information on that server.
Clear to you, but that is a really really low bar with regards to Clinton. In fact, I believe the bar is laying on the ground.
There were lots of e-mails to the effect of, "We can't discuss that subject via this e-mail." --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:32 am
by silverscreenselect
And now Devin Nunes has admitted that the FBI did disclose in a footnote that some of the information in the Page warrant application was contained in a footnote. He now claims that the footnote wasn't calling sufficient attention to the fact.
“A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,”
As
New York Magazine put it,
Notice how “The FBI LIED about the Steele dossier” has been scaled back to, “The FBI did not highlight the truth about the Steele Dossier in the part of the application we bothered to read.” So now the main attack on the FBI is about font size.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... small.html
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:11 pm
by Bob78164
To the surprise of absolutely no one,
Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:33 pm
by Beebs52
Bob78164 wrote:To the surprise of absolutely no one,
Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob
Probably due to purposeful jacking around of dems to thwart.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:00 pm
by silverscreenselect
Beebs52 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:To the surprise of absolutely no one,
Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob
Probably due to purposeful jacking around of dems to thwart.
The Republicans orchestrated the entire fiasco in the first place with Nunes' decision to publish a memo based on material he hadn't actually read. And, ever since he did that, the Republicans have had to walk back several of their claims, like the one about the FBI not informing the court about the political nature of some of the information.
"Purposeful jacking around" by the Democrats in this case probably means providing a far more accurate view of what's actually in the records.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:34 pm
by Beebs52
silverscreenselect wrote:Beebs52 wrote:Bob78164 wrote:To the surprise of absolutely no one,
Donny refused to release the Democratic response. I'd ask what he's afraid of, but I think we already know the answer. --Bob
Probably due to purposeful jacking around of dems to thwart.
The Republicans orchestrated the entire fiasco in the first place with Nunes' decision to publish a memo based on material he hadn't actually read. And, ever since he did that, the Republicans have had to walk back several of their claims, like the one about the FBI not informing the court about the political nature of some of the information.
"Purposeful jacking around" by the Democrats in this case probably means providing a far more accurate view of what's actually in the records.
I shall respectfully disagree.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:50 pm
by Bob78164
But of course there's no way to know for sure because Donny released the memo he thought would help him while continuing to hide the memo he thinks will hurt him. It sure looks to me like an abuse of the classification process for political gain, triggered by Donny's insecurity because he knows he has lots to hide. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:19 am
by Bob78164
Here is the Democratic memo. It sure looks like there was a reason the Republicans didn't want this one read at the same time as the memo that Donny had Devin Nunes ghost-write for him. --Bob
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:07 am
by jarnon
Bob78164 wrote:Here is the Democratic memo. It sure looks like there was a reason the Republicans didn't want this one read at the same time as the memo that Donny had Devin Nunes ghost-write for him. --Bob
This memo debunks Nunes’s allegations, which were flimsy to begin with. The Trump campaign brought scrutiny on itself by employing so many advisors with with foreign business dealings. Trump supporters will still argue that the biased Justice Dept. looked for any pretext to go after Republicans, while giving Democrats with foreign connections a free pass.
Re: More interference with the FBI
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:26 pm
by BackInTex
jarnon wrote:Bob78164 wrote: Trump supporters will still argue that the biased Justice Dept. looked for any pretext to go after Republicans, while giving Democrats with foreign connections a free pass.
And they'd be correct.