The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[billmac91]

Page looks to be the real Clinton supporter here. He congratulated her on a woman being nominated.

Also, everyone has seen Clinton's emails. Whats in there that is actionable?

Peter Strzok text to Page - August 15th: I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk

Follow up text to Page on August 15th: It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40


I'm curious as to your interpretation of these texts and if you'd agree more investigation should be done as to why these conversations are being had in the Deputy Director of the FBI's office?

And why people sending these texts would both end up on Mueller's team?

And why the Head of FBI Counter-Intelligence would think is OK to send over government property?

And as a point of clarification, I haven't called for Muellers investigation to end or that Mueller is crooked. But something smells really bad here....like horribly bad. You couple this with the changed language in Comey's memo, Strzok being lead investigator into Hillary case, Strzok being lead interviewer during Flynn's FBI interview, and now senior DOJ officials being demoted for secret Fusion GPS meetings and a wife being paid on their staff for her expertise into Russia/Trump.

It all looks awful.

 

[Cavatt]

You're joking, right? Over 1000 of them were found to contain classified information, which made it illegal to transmit or store store on unsecured equipment. Open and shut.

“The basic problem here is that the relevant federal criminal laws are a patchwork, and there’s no general prohibition against basically unsecured communications,” Vladeck said. “Indeed, there isn’t even a clear prohibition of unsecure communication of classified information. So I think there’s a really wide gap between what the average person on the street assumes is illegal and what’s actually illegal in this area.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-legal-standard-criminal-charges-225139

They acknowledged that she was guilty of gross negligence, but no one has ever been tried on that alone. So? What do you want?

 

[Los216]

NPR:
Before Talking At FBI, Trump Slams The Agency, Opens Door To Pardoning Flynn

...

Trump also opened the door to pardoning Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI last month.

"I don't want to talk about pardons with Michael Flynn — yet," Trump said. "We'll see what happens. Let's see."

Flynn has not been sentenced and appears to be a cooperating witness as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. Trump called the investigation a "Democrat hoax," "an excuse for losing the election" and claimed again "there is absolutely no collusion."

...

Errrr.. last time he said this, he went ahead and did it.. This guy pardons Flynn, my guess is Mueller will bring him up on state charges, but, jeeze talk about running interference.

While it'e legally possible for trump to Pardon Flynn if he does so it will be the nail in his coffin and it will be career suicide. If his advisors and lawyers are smart (they aren't) they will not let him Pardon Flynn.

 

[billmac91]

They acknowledged that she was guilty of gross negligence, but no one has ever been tried on that alone. So? What do you want?

It was actually "extreme carelessness". Peter Strzok edited out "gross negligence". But carry on......

 

[Tlyons]

Where is the actual text of the document to which Bass was referring? Without seeing the actual language, it is impossible to judge it fairly.

My bad, forgot to put the link to the article in there.

I'm editing that post.

 

[gourimoko]

View: https://twitter.com/RepWillBailey/status/941661395493572608

Wait.. what???

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

“The basic problem here is that the relevant federal criminal laws are a patchwork, and there’s no general prohibition against basically unsecured communications,” Vladeck said. “Indeed, there isn’t even a clear prohibition of unsecure communication of classified information. So I think there’s a really wide gap between what the average person on the street assumes is illegal and what’s actually illegal in this area.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-legal-standard-criminal-charges-225139

They acknowledged that she was guilty of gross negligence, but no one has ever been tried on that alone. So? What do you want?

She violated 18 USC section 793(f), which makes it a violation of criminal law to be grossly negligent in the handling of classified material. I don't think there's a credible argument that she didn't violate that law.

Also, Huma Abedin very clearly lied to federal investigators and should have been prosecuted for that. She wasn't.

 

[Cavatt]

It was actually "extreme carelessness". Peter Strzok edited out "gross negligence". But carry on......

Qtip is the guy reminding us no one has ever been convicted of the Logan act. He needs to show some consistency and find out who was indicted for gross negligence and classified information.

Some people say you don't need to show criminal intent, but then what the hell is the purpose? What were the effects of the hacked emails? We like to think that the result of the crime doesn't affect indictments and charges, but that is just not true. If you try to kill someone and you don't succeed you just don't get the same charges against you.

There is a difference between high level classified documents and the stuff that got out because of Clinton. No one even talks about it because it is boring and most agree a lot of it didn't even need tobe classified.

As far as we know there was more criminal intent with Trump revealing Israeli intelligence to the Russians in the Oval office.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

View: https://twitter.com/RepWillBailey/status/941661395493572608

Guys on the Intelligence Committee should not be doing that.

 

[Cavatt]

She violated 18 USC section 793(f), which makes it a violation of criminal law to be grossly negligent in the jandling of classified material. I don't think there's a credible argument that she didn't violate that law.

Also, Huma Abedin very clearly lied to federal investigators and should have been prosecuted for that. She wasn't.

Who has been prosecuted for gross negligence under that law without additional charges? Nobody. Why not be consistent with your arguments? Shouldn't Flynn be prosecuted under the logan act? That was YOUR argument. Same situation.

Huma said she didn't have any other devices with emails on them. It did turn out Weiner had how many classified documents? Hundreds of thousands like Comey said? No it was 2. How many decades should she spend in jail? That was a major fuck up, no doubt. I think Clinton and Huma paid the price for that by losing the election.

I mean do you relaly think she lied about that laptop so it could come back to haunt them 8 days before the election. What was found on Weiner's laptop that was do damning? The incriminating evidence wasn't there. I'm sorry it didn't turn out the way you wanted.

This is laughable. You are a lawyer, you know no one would pursue these weak charges.

 

[gourimoko]

Guys on the Intelligence Committee should not be doing that.

Yeah, I agree that's insane... totally inappropriate, and frankly, newsworthy if there's any merit to it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Also, everyone has seen Clinton's emails. Whats in there that is actionable?

Oh, I should add that all of those released emails had parts of them redacted out because they contained information that would harm the interests of the country if their contents became public.

So no, we haven't seen what was in them.

 

[Tlyons]

Yeah, I agree that's insane... totally inappropriate, and frankly, newsworthy if there's any merit to it.

Trump must be rubbing off on people.

That was unprofessional and idiotic.

 

[billmac91]

Yeah, I agree that's insane... totally inappropriate, and frankly, newsworthy if there's any merit to it.

Rumor this morning was Kushner would be indicted today....

Not sure if Will Bailey knows something or he just got caught up in the internet excitement. He's a junior member of the Intelligence Committee, so he kinda loses ether way. He looks like he leaked an indictment ahead of time, or he looks stupid for being wrong about an indictment today.

Bad look either way, IMO.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Who has been prosecuted for gross negligence under that law without additional charges? Nobody. Why not be consistent with your arguments? Shouldn't Flynn be prosecuted under the logan act? That was YOUR argument. Same situation.

Huma said she didn't have any other devices with emails on them. It did turn out Weiner had how many classified documents? Hundreds of thousands like Comey said? No it was 2. How many decades should she spend in jail? That was a major fuck up, no doubt. I think Clinton and Huma paid the price for that by losing the election.

I mean do you relaly think she lied about that laptop so it could come back to haunt them 8 days before the election. What was found on Weiner's laptop that was do damning? The incriminating evidence wasn't there. I'm sorry it didn't turn out the way you wanted.

This is laughable. You are a lawyer, you know no one would pursue these weak charges.

Oh, I disagree completely. I think almost anyone objective would have pursued the charges against Hillary.

As to Huma, there is no reasoned distinction between her lying to the FBI during an investigation, and Flynn doing the same.

Probably a stronger argument because her underlying action - sending classified information to her husband's computer - was illegal. Flynn's underlying action was not.