05 Sep 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI provided the link. Look again.
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
That does NOT prove she didn't intentionally delete them. They just can't prove it.
05 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidCopy and paste your own link. Does it open?
The National Archives sent a referral to the DOJ on February 9, 2022:
"1. Specifically, on February 9, 2022, the Special Agent in Charge of NARA’s Office of the Inspector General sent a referral via email to the Department of Justice (“DOJ” ) (hereinafter, the “NARA
Referral” ). MJ Docket D.E. 102-1 at ¶ 24. The NARA Referral stated that a preliminary review of the Fi ...[text shortened]... rand jury subpoena ( see p. 10 of the link above) resulted in the search warrant executed in August.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nxJHlu3jqN5njXLM8J8QTrzRsiE4M_p1/view at Page 5.
05 Sep 22
@metal-brain saidNo you didn't; the USA Today story you linked to did not contain Comey's statement.
I provided the link. Look again.
That does NOT prove she didn't intentionally delete them. They just can't prove it.
Do you know what "no evidence" means?
05 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidThat bring up another thing. Trump was supposed to give the classified documents to NARA as soon as he left office, but NARA obviously did not enforce that part of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 until recently.
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.
"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
Why wasn't the law enforced earlier? The Presidential records are supposed to be automatically transferred into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. It doesn't say 6 months after leaving office.
Why the lack of enforcement for so long? Did NARA inform Trump they would tattle on him to the DOJ before they did? You would think that would have worked to get compliance.
05 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidI am not talking about that link. I posted the link. Go back and look.
No you didn't; the USA Today story you linked to did not contain Comey's statement.
Do you know what "no evidence" means?
"Do you know what "no evidence" means?"
Yes, that is what Mueller said about Trump Russia collusion. No evidence. Then you said "that doesn't prove he didn't". Remember?
05 Sep 22
@metal-brain saidNo, I certainly don't remember Mueller saying any such thing. And I have his report in my bookcase.
I am not talking about that link. I posted the link. Go back and look.
"Do you know what "no evidence" means?"
Yes, that is what Mueller said about Trump Russia collusion. No evidence. Then you said "that doesn't prove he didn't". Remember?
05 Sep 22
@metal-brain saidAgain, how were they supposed to "enforce" the provisions? By sending the non-existent National Archive Police Force?
That bring up another thing. Trump was supposed to give the classified documents to NARA as soon as he left office, but NARA obviously did not enforce that part of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 until recently.
"Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office."
ht ...[text shortened]... tattle on him to the DOJ before they did? You would think that would have worked to get compliance.
05 Sep 22
@metal-brain saidHere's what he did say:
I am not talking about that link. I posted the link. Go back and look.
"Do you know what "no evidence" means?"
Yes, that is what Mueller said about Trump Russia collusion. No evidence. Then you said "that doesn't prove he didn't". Remember?
"The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out
the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with
confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there
was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears
in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood
coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download [end of cite, now] Page 2.
05 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidYou know how. NARA contacted the DOJ. Why did that take so long?
Again, how were they supposed to "enforce" the provisions? By sending the non-existent National Archive Police Force?
After 3 months they didn't seem motivated to telling the DOJ. Are they always so patient?
05 Sep 22
1 edit
@no1marauder said" A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
Here's what he did say:
"The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out
the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Offic ...[text shortened]... tivities."
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download [end of cite, now] Page 2.
LOL!
So having no evidence does not mean there was no evidence?
Is this NY Post article lying?
https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/justice-dept-memo-exposes-shameless-deceit-of-muellers-russiagate-probe/
Or is that supposed to mean he has evidence without facts? LOL!
Is there any more double speak you were duped into believing?
05 Sep 22
This is interesting.
"he FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago last Monday was specifically intended to recover Donald Trump's personal "stash" of hidden documents, two high-level U.S. intelligence officials tell Newsweek.
To justify the unprecedented raid on a former president's residence and protect the source who revealed the existence of Trump's private hoard, agents went into Trump's residence on the pretext that they were seeking all government documents, says one official who has been involved in the investigation. But the true target was this private stash, which Justice Department officials feared Donald Trump might weaponize."
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-sought-documents-trump-hoarded-years-including-about-russiagate-1734280
I wonder if it is true.
05 Sep 22
1 edit
@metal-brain saidExcept he didn't say there was "no evidence", did he?
" A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
LOL!
So having no evidence does not mean there was no evidence?
Is this NY Post article lying?
https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/justice-dept-memo-exposes-shameless-deceit-of-muellers-russiagate-probe/
Or is that supposed to mean he has evidence without facts? LOL!
Is there any more double speak you were duped into believing?
Barr's hack DOJ memo doesn't change what Mueller's investigation said and it certainly did not say there was "no evidence". That is different from what Comey said which was there was "no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.".
05 Sep 22
2 edits
@no1marauder saidMueller didn't find evidence. This is old news you are disputing.
Except he didn't say there was "no evidence", did he?
Barr's hack DOJ memo doesn't change what Mueller's investigation said and it certainly did not say there was "no evidence". That is different from what Comey said which was there was "no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.".
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/24/breaking-news-barr-to-release-summary-of-mueller-report-1233771
You have also digressed. Trump violated the Presidential Records Act, but apparently that is not a crime since he has not been charged.
The raid was subterfuge according to the newsweek article in my last post. Hard to say if it is true, but Trump supporters work at the FBI too, right? It would explain the inconsistencies in motive, like why now after over 6 months. Right?