The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis - WSJ Op Ed

@metal-brain said
That is not the same link and you know it.

Yes it is, you damn fool. You probably just stupidly added "at Page 5" which was meant to direct you to the specific place in the document, not be placed in the box.

@no1marauder said
Screw you. I don't know what your insane problem is with Google but it's the UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND ADDITIONAL RELIEF in the case Trump filed.

I'm sure it's on zerohedge somewhere.

That is not the same link and you know it. Your first one does not open.

They knew about the Mar a Lago raid last February? Explain.

@metal-brain said
That is not the same link and you know it.

They knew about the Mar a Lago raid last February? Explain.

No, they said there was no raid last February. Read your own article:

"Newsweek reported that the Washington Post claimed that documents from Mar-a-Lago were obtained last month in a raid."

NARA was saying the documents obtained earlier in the year were not gathered in a "raid". That's all your February article says.

@metal-brain said
That is not the same link and you know it. Your first one does not open.

They knew about the Mar a Lago raid last February? Explain.

Are you trying for a stupid Academy Award?

Of course it is.

@no1marauder said
No, they said there was no raid last February.

Who said there was a raid last February?
What did I miss?

@metal-brain said
Who said there was a raid last February?
What did I miss?

Reading your own article apparently.

@no1marauder said
Are you trying for a stupid Academy Award?

Of course it is.

Are you trying for a multiple lying award?
It will not open. Your other one did.

Okay. They referred it to the DOJ. Why?
HRC did a lot worse and nobody raided her.

Clinton’s documents were even more vulnerable to being compromised via her unclassified email account and, according to the FBI, “hostile actors gained access” to some of the information. Yet she was never subjected to a raid, let alone a charge.

@metal-brain said
Are you trying for a multiple lying award?
It will not open. Your other one did.

Okay. They referred it to the DOJ. Why?
HRC did a lot worse and nobody raided her.

Clinton’s documents were even more vulnerable to being compromised via her unclassified email account and, according to the FBI, “hostile actors gained access” to some of the information. Yet she was never subjected to a raid, let alone a charge.

As anyone can see, it's the exact same link. Which, if you would read, would answer your question:

"The NARA Referral was made on two bases: evidence that classified records had been stored at the Premises until mid-
January 2022, and evidence that certain pages of Presidential records had been torn up.

Related to the second concern, the NARA Referral included a citation to 18 U.S.C. § 2071."

That Statute reads:

"(a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

@no1marauder said
As anyone can see, it's the exact same link. Which, if you would read, would answer your question:

"The NARA Referral was made on two bases: evidence that classified records had been stored at the Premises until mid-
January 2022, and evidence that certain pages of Presidential records had been torn up.

Related to the second concern, the NARA Referral included a ci ...[text shortened]... fficer of the Armed Forces of the United States."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

The 1st link had page 5 at the end. It did not open. Don't ask me why.

HRC did far worse. She destroyed some top secret emails when under investigation. The FBI said hostile actors gained access to accounts of people HRC was in contact with.

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

The FBI report also says this:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since they did not charge HRC with a crime they cannot do that with Trump without breaking precedent. It would be a clear double standard that republicans would notice. They would be outraged and rally behind Trump.

@metal-brain said
The 1st link had page 5 at the end. It did not open. Don't ask me why.

HRC did far worse. She destroyed some top secret emails when under investigation. The FBI said hostile actors gained access to accounts of people HRC was in contact with.

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clint ...[text shortened]... clear double standard that republicans would notice. They would be outraged and rally behind Trump.

So you’re saying the headlines should read,
TRUMP TRUMPS TRUMPED UP TRUMPERY!

@kmax87 said
So you’re saying the headlines should read,
TRUMP TRUMPS TRUMPED UP TRUMPERY!

Hostile actors likely gained access to HRC's emails. Some of her classified material was found on the laptop of former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — 49,000 emails potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/29/state-releases-huma-abedins-work-docs-found-anthony-weiners-computer/990912001/

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

Hillary did far worse than Trump. Democrat's wet dreams of Trump getting charged with a crime is unlikely to come true and if it does Republicans will just support him more than ever. It will change nothing.

@metal-brain said
Who said there was a raid last February?
What did I miss?

You probably missed puberty.
Do you have a life of any kind ?

@mghrn55 said
You probably missed puberty.
Do you have a life of any kind ?

You are learning from people that do not have a life. Are you complaining I am doing the work for you?

Hillary refused to turn over her laptop and other evidence to State Department and DOJ investigators. The FBI had to cut deals with her aides to secure their cooperation. Perhaps she should have been charged with obstruction of justice.

@metal-brain said
The 1st link had page 5 at the end. It did not open. Don't ask me why.

HRC did far worse. She destroyed some top secret emails when under investigation. The FBI said hostile actors gained access to accounts of people HRC was in contact with.

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clint ...[text shortened]... clear double standard that republicans would notice. They would be outraged and rally behind Trump.

MB: The 1st link had page 5 at the end.

OMFG. That wasn't part of the link, moron.

There are sufficient differences to draw a contrary conclusion. For one, whatever the carelessness of HRC's handling, she was Secretary of State and authorized to be in possession of such materials whereas Donald Trump as ex-President was not. For two, we do not know what Trump intended to do with such documents though that will surely be a prime focus of the investigation.

So it's simply too early to tell no matter what zerohedge tells you.

EDIT: From Comey's statement: "or efforts to obstruct justice."

It's quite clear that false statements were made to DOJ and the FBI in Trump's case particularly his lawyer's claim that no classified materials remained at Margo Largo after materials surrendered pursuant to the May Grand Jury subpoena. This is another difference that prosecutors may weigh.

@metal-brain said
Hostile actors likely gained access to HRC's emails. Some of her classified material was found on the laptop of former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who was married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin — 49,000 emails potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/29/state-releases-huma-abedins-work-docs-found- ...[text shortened]... o come true and if it does Republicans will just support him more than ever. It will change nothing.

You neglected to give a link to Comey's statement and it's not hard to guess why:

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system