Post New

CNN has released the audio recording of the 2021 meeting in Bedminster, New Jersey, where president Donald Trump discusses holding secret documents he did not declassify.

You'll recall Trump told Bret Baier: "There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. I didn't have a document, per se. There was nothing to declassify."

His own words prove he was lying.

Trump was annoyed over a New Yorker article about Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley that said Milley argued against striking Iran and was concerned Trump would set in motion a full-scale conflict.

TRUMP: "He said that I wanted to attack Iran, Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this -- this is off the record but -- they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him."

As his conversation with people working on the memoir of Mark Meadows go on, they laugh about Clinton's mishandling of documents as they mishandle top secret documents. ('Hillary would print that out all the time, you know. Her private emails,' Trump's staffer said. 'No, she'd send it to Anthony Weiner,' Trump responded, referring to the former Democratic congressman, prompting laughter in the room.)

Trump finds the top secret documents.

"These are the papers," Trump continues, according to the audio file.

"This was done by the military and given to me," Trump continues, before noting that the document remained classified.

"See as president I could have declassified it," Trump says. 'Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.'

"Now we have a problem," his staffer responds.

"Isn't that interesting," Trump says.

While that's the last line included in the indictment, the audio recording obtained by CNN includes several additional lines from the conversation:

Trump: "It's so cool. I mean, it's so, look, her and I, and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me."

Writer: "No, I believed you."

Trump: "It's incredible, right?"

Writer: "No, they never met a war they didn't want."

Trump: "Hey, bring some, uh, bring some Cokes in please."


So, Trump cult... what say you?

Just a nothingburger when the former president says: Hey, just look at these top secret documents, folks. So cool!!!! Now that you've seen these top secret documents, you believe me, right?

And hey, bring me a Coke.


https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-clas...

So, Trump cult... what say you?

------------------

I find it "interesting" that CNN has obtained a copy of an audio tape within a month or two of its existence becoming known. Yet, somehow the House Judiciary Committee still cannot get a copy of the whistleblowers report that was requested in Nov 2022.

bighairymike: I find it "interesting" that CNN has obtained a copy of an audio tape within a month or two of its existence becoming known. Yet, somehow the House Judiciary Committee still cannot get a copy of the whistleblowers report that was requested in Nov 2022.

Trump is on tape committing a crime, acknowledging that he had secret military information that he knows was not declassified, sharing it with civilians, six months after leaving office and that's your response?

Imagine for a moment that on the Nixon tapes, we heard Nixon say: "Hey, fellas, I Richard M. Nixon, am authorizing the cover-up of the illegal burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Washington, D.C., Watergate Office Building. Get it done."

You'd say: "Yeah, but whatabout..."

Jeebus. Heaven protect us from the Trump Cult.

>>bighairymike: I find it "interesting" that CNN has obtained a copy of an audio tape within a month or two of its existence becoming known. Yet, somehow the House Judiciary Committee still cannot get a copy of the whistleblowers report that was requested in Nov 2022.<<

Trump is on tape committing a crime, acknowledging that he had secret military information that he knows was not declassified, sharing it with civilians, six months after leaving office and that's your response? - co

---------------------

Trump is so obviously a scumbag and should be executed immediately without a trial I that didn't feel it necessary to acknowledge that. So I used the opportunity to point out yet another example of the FBI letting politics determine their transparency with respect to evidence.

So I used the opportunity to point out yet another example of the FBI letting politics determine their transparency with respect to evidence.

Why assume they came from the FBI? They're not the only ones who have the tapes. They've already been turned over to the Trump team, of course. But also, all the people who had access to the tapes before all this became a thing are a potential source - the authors who conducted the interviews, their editors, and potentially any number of people at their publishing house.

bighairymike: o I used the opportunity to point out yet another example of the FBI letting politics determine their transparency with respect to evidence.

Right. Are we talking about the "whistleblowers" that Kash Patel paid? Hard to keep all the Jim Jordan whistleblowers straight, especially the ones who've disappeared.

albaby1: But also, all the people who had access to the tapes before all this became a thing are a potential source - the authors who conducted the interviews, their editors, and potentially any number of people at their publishing house.

I'm guessing John Barron.

Trump is on tape committing a crime, acknowledging that he had secret military information that he knows was not declassified, sharing it with civilians, six months after leaving office and that's your response?

Do we know that Trump showed the classified document contents to others, or just that he held up such documents and perhaps only showed the folder(s) they were in and/or their cover sheets? It seems to me that would be crucial to establish that Trump actually disclosed classified info to others.

Why assume they came from the FBI? They're not the only ones who have the tapes. They've already been turned over to the Trump team, of course. But also, all the people who had access to the tapes before all this became a thing are a potential source - the authors who conducted the interviews, their editors, and potentially any number of people at their publishing house. - albaby

=================

Good point. The FBI and DOJ revert to their well deserved status of devoid of political influence.

You'd say: "Yeah, but whatabout..."

Jeebus. Heaven protect us from the Trump Cult.

Exactly, whatabout ________
You know who....

Every One, including you knows if Trump was not running for president the witch hunt would disappear. It would be Trump? Trump who?

The left, dems, liberals and the Devil will never get over the fact Hillary, the chosen one lost, Trump won.
There will never be any forgiveness.

g0177325: Do we know that Trump showed the classified document contents to others, or just that he held up such documents and perhaps only showed the folder(s) they were in and/or their cover sheets?

Read the indictment. There are witnesses.

In July 2021, at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey ('The Bedminster Club'), during an audio-recorded meeting with a writer, a publisher, and two members of his staff, none of whom possessed a security clearance, TRUMP showed and described a 'plan of attack' that TRUMP said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense and a senior military official. TRUMP told the individuals that the plan was 'highly confidential' and 'secret.' TRUMP also said, 'as president I could have declassified it,' and, 'Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.'

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_2...

trump's lies and real-world evidence is blase. i dont think he will go to jail over this, or even greater crimes, whether new or prior.
a major sociopath tell ; normal people, when falsely accused of a serious crime, would at least plead that their 'friends' like nauta have nothing to do with anything and that at least THEY should not be persecuted in a political fight. not our trump.

(as for others, even agents and military, that have already been jailed over far minor espionage crimes...this is not the 'double standard' that MAGA is talking about)

so far his day 1 strategy of being a loudmouth in public and a silent coward in court has been a winner.
21m of his cult support violence to overthrow biden, and probably more that didnt want to comment.
either he will be allowed to contest\delay everything indefinitely (given his age), or some sort of deal served up to 'heal' the country. equally likely from dems, if they feel a benefit from NOT jailing trump once he no longer has formal political viability.

bighairymike: o I used the opportunity to point out yet another example of the FBI letting politics determine their transparency with respect to evidence.<

emptywheel @emptywheel
Probably a good time to remind people that as SDNY was about to obtain access to the recording Michael Cohen made of Trump ordering a hush payment (which will be used in NYS trial), Trump released it preemptively.
It happened at the equivalent time, too: Trump got access to what had been seized from Cohen by intervening in that Special Master process. And then, voila! the tape got released.

Underscoring potential different sources BHM.

Read the indictment. There are witnesses.

I read it, but "show" can mean different things: were the contents of the document actually visible to anyone?

The second charge seems worse though:

In August or September 2021, at The Bedminster Club, TRUMP showed a
representative of his political action committee who did not possess a
security clearance a classified map related to a military operation and told
the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and
that the representative should not get too close.

Due to the "not to get too close" warning, perhaps implying that the map was indeed open for easy viewing. But even here, even if the map were in fact open for all to see, unless the person(s) he showed it to was actually able to discern anything, it would not seem to be so harmful to national security. Or at least that's what I would argue if I was one of Trump's third-rate lawyers.

Regardless, I hope it's irrelevant according to "the rules of classified document disclosure" and what Trump did here is in fact enough to convict him on all counts.

But even here, even if the map were in fact open for all to see, unless the person(s) he showed it to was actually able to discern anything, it would not seem to be so harmful to national security. Or at least that's what I would argue if I was one of Trump's third-rate lawyers.

They shouldn't argue that - because it's not relevant to the case. Trump wasn't charged with revealing classified information to an unauthorized party. He was charged with unlawfully retaining defense information after the government demanded its return - and then a bunch of charges from his efforts to hide the fact that he did that.

It doesn't matter whether the interviewer was able to see the map clearly. The tape will be used to show that Trump retained possession of national defense information long after he left office and that he was aware that there were rules governing those documents that still applied to him.

It doesn't matter whether the interviewer was able to see the map clearly. The tape will be used to show that Trump retained possession of national defense information long after he left office and that he was aware that there were rules governing those documents that still applied to him. - albaby

------------------

OK, time for another lesson.....

Why is Trump a criminal for possession but Hillary's possession was not a crime. Earlier you explained that Hillary did not commit a crime because there was no intent to disclose inherent in her possession.

Here we have Trump actually disclosing but now disclosure is not even a factor.

Color me confused....

Why is Trump a criminal for possession but Hillary's possession was not a crime. Earlier you explained that Hillary did not commit a crime because there was no intent to disclose inherent in her possession.

Trump isn't a criminal for possession. He's a criminal because he didn't return the documents in response to the government's demand that they be returned.

There is a specific statute that makes it a crime to do that. If you have national defense information (whether classified or not), and the government demands its return, it is illegal to keep it. 18 USC 793(e)** provides:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

That's the statute Trump was charged with as the initial crime. He had national defense information, and he willfully retained it and failed to deliver it to the U.S. officers or employees that were entitled to receive it. As noted above, he was also charged with additional crimes relating to his efforts to conceal the fact that he had committed that crime. Clinton could not have been charged with violating this statute, because there was no evidence that she "willfully retain[ed]" any national defense information.

Albaby


** He might end up being convicted under subsection (e) instead of (d). That's basically the same crime, but it applies to people who have "authorized" instead of "unauthorized" possession of national defense information. Because it's a lesser included offense (ie all the elements of that crime are included in the (e) crime), the indictment didn't name both subsections - you don't have to list lesser included offenses separately.

Why is Trump a criminal for possession but Hillary's possession was not a crime.

Because James Comey was sticking to the strict wording of USC 1924 (IIRC) instead of the Espionage Act. They could have NAILED her on a million counts there but he didn't want to. Not to mention her destruction of evidence.

Trump isn't a criminal for possession. He's a criminal because he didn't return the documents in response to the government's demand that they be returned.

Ok, so why ISN'T Trump being charged with disclosure based on the two incidences cited in the charges, aka, the "showing to another" behavior that we hear on the audio tape? Does it not prove anything adequately enough?

Because James Comey was sticking to the strict wording of USC 1924 (IIRC) instead of the Espionage Act. They could have NAILED her on a million counts there but he didn't want to.

How could they have nailed her on that? Here's the operative language of that section:

a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

In order to convict someone of a crime (any crime), you have to prove that all of the elements of the crime are present. If you can't prove one of the elements, then you can't get a conviction.

With Clinton, there's no way they could have proved one of the elements of this statute: to wit, the requirement that the person "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority." This crime can't be committed just by having possession of or receiving classified information in an unauthorized location. You have to have also removed them from where they were supposed to be.

But these are emails. These are things that were sent to her, by other people. Any classified information that was appended to or included in the emails would have been removed from their proper location by the sender, not Clinton (as the recipient).

Not to mention her destruction of evidence.

She didn't destroy evidence within the meaning of any criminal statute. That's section 18 USC 1519, which provides:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

There are two elements of that crime that can't be met if you want to prosecute Clinton: "knowingly" and "department or agency." The first, because Clinton claims - with corroborating witnesses - that she gave the order to delete the emails on her server before the Congressional subpoena was issued, and thus did not have knowledge that those materials (or any materials) were being sought for an investigation. The second, because Congress isn't a department or agency - so their investigations don't trigger this statute (or any duty to preserve documents).

With Clinton, there's no way they could have proved one of the elements of this statute: to wit, the requirement that the person "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority." This crime can't be committed just by having possession of or receiving classified information in an unauthorized location. You have to have also removed them from where they were supposed to be.

You've argued this for years, but you have no idea how all that classified material got on her server in the first place.

Ask yourself this. Did Huma have the same security clearances Hillary! did? Did any of her staff? The answers are NO and NO.

So who put the material there? Had to have been...Herself.

But these are emails. These are things that were sent to her, by other people. Any classified information that was appended to or included in the emails would have been removed from their proper location by the sender, not Clinton (as the recipient).

You can't send that kind of material from a classified network to an unclass network.
When you have access to that kind of material, you can only send it to people who are inside that particular network. Someone has to remove it and put it someplace else.

There are two elements of that crime that can't be met if you want to prosecute Clinton: "knowingly" and "department or agency." The first, because Clinton claims - with corroborating witnesses - that she gave the order to delete the emails on her server before the Congressional subpoena was issued, and thus did not have knowledge that those materials (or any materials) were being sought for an investigation. The second, because Congress isn't a department or agency - so their investigations don't trigger this statute (or any duty to preserve documents).

That's hilarious.

Ok, so why ISN'T Trump being charged with disclosure based on the two incidents cited in the charges, aka, the "showing to another" behavior that we hear on the audio tape? Does it not prove anything adequately enough?

I expect it's because they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was actually in the document.

The reporter and/or staffers in the room can probably confirm that Trump was holding/gesturing with a document or documents during that part of the interview. But I suspect that they can't tell investigators exactly what the documents said or showed, either because they didn't get a good look or because they don't remember.

We do have Trump's oral statements about what the documents showed. But you can't introduce those statements as evidence to show the contents of those documents, because it's hearsay. Hearsay general is defined to mean someone's oral or written out-of-court statements that are being offered as proof of the matter asserted in the statement. So if someone in an audio tape says, "This document is a classified document that I can't show you because it's classified," you can't introduce that statement as evidence that the document is actually a classified document.

However, you can introduce out-of-court statements to prove a defendant's state of mind. So in the statement above, you can't use the statement to prove the document was classified - but it is evidence that the defendant thought it was classified and that the defendant was aware that classified documents couldn't be shown to third parties.

That's why the tape is very useful. It debunks Trump's claim that he mentally declassified each and every document that he took with him from the WH. It is evidence that (at least at the time of the recording) Trump believed he still had classified information in his possession that had not been returned to the government. And it doesn't reflect well on Trump that he was showing/talking about this document with reporters, which puts a difficult choice to defense counsel whether they want to argue that Trump genuinely believed that everything he had in his possession was innocuous (whether through declassification or that it wasn't defense information) - they would prefer that tape not be played in open court.

either he will be allowed to contest\delay everything indefinitely (given his age), or some sort of deal served up to 'heal' the country. equally likely from dems, if they feel a benefit from NOT jailing trump once he no longer has formal political viability.

Perhaps FatDon could be offered an asylum deal by Lukashenko in Belarus.

I hear the weather in Minsk is lovely this time of year.

Also, it's not so far from his new golf resort in Oman; like flying from El Lay to Hawaii.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/us/politics/tru...

So who put the material there? Had to have been...Herself.

What do you imagine the classified information to be? These weren't stand-alone files or documents that she brought home from the office. Per the inspector general's report, the classified information that was on her servers was information that was contained within the body of, or attachments to, emails that she received. Several instances involved classified information buried deep in the body of an email chain, many many forwards before Clinton received a copy of that email.

There's no evidence that any of it was put there by Clinton herself.

You can't send that kind of material from a classified network to an unclass network.
When you have access to that kind of material, you can only send it to people who are inside that particular network. Someone has to remove it and put it someplace else.

Perhaps - but in order to prosecute Clinton, you have to prove that the someone was Clinton. And considering that the classified information was part of or appended to incoming emails to Clinton, there's not going to be any evidence.

That's hilarious.

What's hilarious about it? You can't convict someone of a crime unless each and every element of the crime is established. The obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence statutes apply only to specific proceedings - and legislative Congressional inquiries aren't among them. They apply to agency and law enforcement proceedings, and Congress is neither. It is a legislative body. You aren't committing the specific crime of destruction of "evidence" if you delete documents in order to avoid a legislative enquiry.

Why is Trump a criminal for possession but Hillary's possession was not a crime.

You can simply reread the very detailed explanation Albaby posted in earlier threads.

He explained the differences so thoroughly and plainly even my salt-soaked head could understand the nuances of possession vs lying about possession, asking attorneys to sign false statements about possession and returning the documents, refusing to return those documents, and lying about returning those document, hiding those documents..etc etc etc.

Albaby wrote: Trump isn't a criminal for possession. He's a criminal because he didn't return the documents in response to the government's demand that they be returned.

It's just like deja vu all over again....

I had a roommate in college in college who wiped out skateboarding down a steep road. As I drove him to the hospital he asked me "Where are we going?"

I replied "To the hospital"

"Why"


"You hurt your head skateboarding"

"Oh, I've got my insurance card right here, " at which point he'd pull out his wallet to show me his Blue Cross card.

After going through that exact convo over and over during the ten minute drive. I asked him for his wallet and pocketed it lest he lose it.

At the ER admissions desk I explained to the admissions desk that my friend hit his head, at which point he said "I have my insurance card right here...." as he fumbled through all his pocket with a blank stare.

It is a legislative body. You aren't committing the specific crime of destruction of "evidence" if you delete documents in order to avoid a legislative enquiry. - albaby

---------------------

Then congressional subpoenas are useless if compliance is at the whim of the person served.

What do you imagine the classified information to be? These weren't stand-alone files or documents that she brought home from the office. Per the inspector general's report, the classified information that was on her servers was information that was contained within the body of, or attachments to, emails that she received.

...on a server that had no business receiving the information.

There's no evidence that any of it was put there by Clinton herself.

One does not find what one does not seek.

Perhaps - but in order to prosecute Clinton, you have to prove that the someone was Clinton. And considering that the classified information was part of or appended to incoming emails to Clinton, there's not going to be any evidence.

Actually, there would be stamps on where it came from and who sent it in the first place. But as I said, one does not find what one does not seek.

What's hilarious about it?

What's hilarious about it?
You think Hillary! didn't damn well know that someone was coming for that material? Of course she did. The Clintons are true-blue democrat royalty. You think the party is going to allow anyone to come after her?

And do you further think that anyone in her inner circle is going to say anything outside the planned script?

Then congressional subpoenas are useless if compliance is at the whim of the person served.

Not at all. You can be convicted for contempt of Congress if you fail to comply with a Congressional subpoena. That's what Bannon was convicted for - he refused to show up for his subpoena date.

What a Congressional subpoena doesn't do, though, is impose an obligation to retain documents you might otherwise delete in the ordinary course of business. That makes it different than judicial proceedings and law enforcement investigations, which create an affirmative obligation to preserve documents and materials that might be evidence in those proceedings. Congress is engaged in a legislative endeavor, not a judicial or law enforcement one that is bound by the rules of evidence.

Not at all. You can be convicted for contempt of Congress if you fail to comply with a Congressional subpoena.

When's Eric Holder's trial?

...on a server that had no business receiving the information.

Again - the statute prohibits removing documents and materials, not receiving classified information.

One does not find what one does not seek.

The FBI read all the material on the server. They read every single email. And they checked with all of the agencies that might have control over the information contained in those emails. They found:

From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/transcript-j...

Note that these weren't classified "documents" on her email servers - these were emails where someone had included classified information. That doesn't even mean that the classified information was "removed" or even "copied" from another location - lots of mere factual information that someone knows about is "classified" and is not properly disseminated on an open email system. For example, if Huma Abedin sent Clinton an email describing a meeting that she had the prior day with the Secretary of DOD - the occurrence of which meeting DOD considered classified - then that would be an email containing classified information that wasn't removed or copied from any other source.

Per the IG report, nearly every one of the instances of classified information met that profile. These are emails where people were writing about classified things that they shouldn't have - not people going into government files and removing and forwarding classified documents. Only three emails contained portions of documents that had (C) classified markings - all of the rest of them were just information that other agencies determined after the fact was classified and shouldn't have been sent via an open system at the time. And those were emails that Clinton received.

You think Hillary! didn't damn well know that someone was coming for that material?

The destruction of evidence and/or obstruction of justice statutes require more than just knowing that someone might want to see material someday. Absent some legal prohibition, you're perfectly free to delete your own emails or documents or any other record you have. If a judicial proceeding or enforcement investigation is commenced against you, you are then under an obligation to preserve documents. Merely being aware that Congress might be interested in you some day, months and months before a subpoena is issued, does not create that obligation.

Again, just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean that they've done something that is a criminal violation of a federal statute.

When's Eric Holder's trial?

You can be convicted of contempt of Congress. That doesn't mean you will be.

Unlike Bannon, Holder was able to offer a defense of his refusal to respond to the subpoena - a claim that the materials in question were privileged from being demanded by Congress. That makes it nearly impossible to establish the mens rea requirement of a criminal charge - if Holder is operating under a belief that the documents are subject to Executive Privilege, then getting a conviction will be nearly impossible.

Unlike Steve Bannon, Congressional efforts to subpoena an Executive official reflect a conflict between the branches of government - and the courts are generally not available to resolve those disputes. That's why the courts ruled that there was no judicial remedy available to Congress when then-President Trump ordered Don McGahn not to cooperate with a House subpoena:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/mcgahn-subpo...

When Congress exercises its subpoena power against private citizens, like Bannon, that's not in play.

Again - the statute prohibits removing documents and materials, not receiving classified information.

Hillary! has always been an innocent bystander her entire life.
How'd all that material get on to Anthony Weiner's laptop?

if Huma Abedin sent Clinton an email describing a meeting that she had the prior day with the Secretary of DOD - the occurrence of which meeting DOD considered classified

Because Huma had the right tickets to have those meetings, sure. <--- Huma likely didn't have any kind of clearance above TS. And BTW it's not hard to get TS.


The destruction of evidence and/or obstruction of justice statutes require more than just knowing that someone might want to see material someday. Absent some legal prohibition, you're perfectly free to delete your own emails or documents or any other record you have.

Except for the classified stuff. She's not allowed to destroy that.

Again, just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean that they've done something that is a criminal violation of a federal statute.

The Clintons are MASTERs at blowtorching any regard for ethics or standards without actually breaking any laws. Amazing, that.

You can be convicted of contempt of Congress. That doesn't mean you will be.

Unlike Bannon, Holder was able to offer a defense of his refusal to respond to the subpoena - a claim that the materials in question were privileged from being demanded by Congress. That makes it nearly impossible to establish the mens rea requirement of a criminal charge - if Holder is operating under a belief that the documents are subject to Executive Privilege, then getting a conviction will be nearly impossible.

Will you at least admit that the DOJ aggressively nailing every Republican they can find while simultaneously going out of their way to not charge any democrats with anything - or giving dems caught dead to rights barely any slaps on the wrist - looks bad?

Do you see how Republicans just miiiiiiight be a tad suspicious at all that?

bighairymike: Then congressional subpoenas are useless if compliance is at the whim of the person served.

Didn't we learn that already when Perry, Biggs, Jordan, and McCarthy ignored their congressional subpoenas?

Hillary! has always been an innocent bystander her entire life.
How'd all that material get on to Anthony Weiner's laptop?

Rhetorical questions don't work for establishing criminal charges that can lead to a conviction. Your initial claim was that the DOJ could have nailed Clinton for the servers under 18 USC 1924. I'm pointing out to you why that's not true - because that section doesn't criminalize the mere possession or maintenance of classified information in an unauthorized place. It criminalizes the removal of documents or materials. And there's no evidence that Clinton did that.

Because Huma had the right tickets to have those meetings, sure. <--- Huma likely didn't have any kind of clearance above TS. And BTW it's not hard to get TS.

TS was the highest level of clearance of the information in the emails - and they weren't all from Abedin.

Except for the classified stuff. She's not allowed to destroy that.

Is that true? Again, we're not really talking about classified documents - like reports or satellite photos or things like that. These are emails where people were discussion topics and information that was classified, and thus shouldn't be done over an open channel. But I imagine that emails and memos and people's personal notes that contain classified information are destroyed pretty regularly, if not routinely - as long as they're not within the scope of public records that have to be preserved.

But even if we take that as a given, if you want to pursue a criminal prosecution against Clinton for destroying classified information, you have to prove that she willfully destroyed classified information. In the absence of any admissible evidence that the emails that were deleted contained classified information, and that she knew that the classified information was there, you're not even going to get past a motion to dismiss the charges.

The Clintons are MASTERs at blowtorching any regard for ethics or standards without actually breaking any laws. Amazing, that.

Many people that have access to really good legal counsel are very good at doing that. That's why you didn't see hordes of banking CEO's and VP's marching off to jail for causing a global economic meltdown. Anyone who's got good lawyers, and are willing to pay actual attention to what the laws require you to do (with an eye towards what they don't), can blowtorch any regard for ethics or standards without breaking any laws. Or at least, without breaking any criminal laws.

Will you at least admit that the DOJ aggressively nailing every Republican they can find while simultaneously going out of their way to not charge any democrats with anything - or giving dems caught dead to rights barely any slaps on the wrist - looks bad?

I might be missing it. Can you point me to where DOJ filed charges against any single Republican member of the Executive - let alone every one they can find - for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena?

If you're a private citizen and don't even bother showing up for your Congressional testimony, with absolutely no legally defensible reason why, you're likely going to jail. If you're the sitting Attorney General, and your refusal to comply with a subpoena implicates complicated and legitimate disputes over the balance of power between the two branches and the limits of Executive Privilege (which tied up the F&F documents case in federal court for years, BTW), you're probably not going to jail.

It only "looks bad" if you don't pay attention to the fact that those two cases are very different - not just in the political affiliations of the individuals, but in critical legal matters that affect the very power of the federal courts to even adjudicate these disputes.

If you only look at these instances at a very high level of abstraction ("Classified information where it shouldn't be" "Failed to respond to subpoena"), you miss the very legitimate and determinative reasons why they result in different outcomes. Both Clinton and Trump mishandled classified information - but Trump did it in a way that violates criminal law, and Clinton did not. Both Bannon and Holder failed to respond to a Congressional subpoena - but Bannon did so for no articulable reason, and Holder did so on instruction from the President exercising a claim of Executive Privilege.

L'Affaire Clinton is not an example of "Rules are for Other People." It's an example of "If You Pay Close Attention to What the Rules Don't Cover, You Can Get Away With A Lot Without Breaking Them." I think Trump made the mistake of believing the line that Clinton committed a crime and was able to get away with it because of who she was, rather than recognizing the reality that Clinton got away with no charges because she didn't violate the letter of the law, even as she trod all over the spirit of it.

Do you see how Republicans just miiiiiiight be a tad suspicious at all that?

Sort of. Except the DOJ is not a liberal entity. During the Trump years there was ample opportunity to prosecute Dems for any misdeeds, and HRC was a favorite target (of how many inquiries? Eight?). Bill Barr was not sympathetic to Dems; not in the least. Two obvious possibilities are that:

1) Dems are better at dodging the law; as albaby said "knowing what the law doesn't prohibit"
2) Reps are more frequent scofflaws, perhaps thinking their wants trump actual law

This does not preclude other options, but those two immediately pop into mind. Both of those points could be expanded, but I'm trying to keep it brief here.

Of course, comparing HRC to DJT isn't fair. DJT is a toxic narcissist and an idiot. HRC is not. HRC is really smart. So even if both committed the exact same number and severity of crimes, HRC would be smart about it and get away with more. DJT boasts about it in public. On recordings.

Your initial claim was that the DOJ could have nailed Clinton for the servers under 18 USC 1924. I'm pointing out to you why that's not true - because that section doesn't criminalize the mere possession or maintenance of classified information in an unauthorized place. - albaby

Perhaps the people who make the laws leave these tunnels they may need to crawl though some day.

Pass a get tough on corruption law with all the fanfare and publicity and voter admiration that goes with it without ever mentioning the technicalities that make it toothless when applied to a well connected politician. Is there any wonder common folks with common sense see this a two tiered?

Sort of. Except the DOJ is not a liberal entity. - 1pg

------------------

Numerous studies of the contributors to political campaigns have shown the vast majority their contributions go to democrat candidates, not only at the DOJ but throughout the federal government and public employee unions.

Perhaps the people who make the laws leave these tunnels they may need to crawl though some day.

I don't think so.

Criminal laws tend to get drafted and applied narrowly - more narrowly than civil laws, and even moreso than administrative practices. The idea is that criminal penalties are the most severe sanctions. You want to reserve them for deliberate, intentional malfeasance. You generally send people to jail for doing something intentionally wrong - or something so reckless and negligent that it's tantamount to intent. The goal is to try to draft criminal laws so that it is relatively simple to avoid breaking them.

When it comes to classified information, people who work at highish levels in certain government agencies (like Defense or State) are going to be dealing with classified materials all day long. Constantly, in almost every aspect of their job. But classification of information is complicated and imperfect - material that is classified isn't always identified as being classified, it isn't always classified at the time it is generated, and different agencies can (and do) disagree about what is classified. It is inevitable that someone who deals with a ton of classified information will make mistakes with that classified information at some point.

That's why the criminal regulations on classified materials are drafted the way they are. It's a crime to remove a classified document from a secure place and move it to an unauthorized, insecure place - because it's hard to do that without (like Sandy Berger) taking some actions that the person should know in the moment are violating that law. Receiving classified information that wasn't marked as classified (for almost all instances), which you didn't remove from anywhere, which was sent to you by someone else, and that you have clearance to receive? Less than obvious. So it's not surprising the statute isn't written in a way that would make that criminal.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.