Donald Trump Jr Coordinated with Wikileaks

[Sapidus]

Are you suggesting Comey's statement on the investigation was not factual? He actually found stuff on Hillary. Where's the smallest shred of evidence that the Trump Administration did something illegal with Russia?

Let’s see it

 

[This_person]

Not if it was just used as a campaign tool
To rally uneducated voters and there is no evidence of any wrong doing

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

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.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

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.

I'm not actually worried about what Trump said. I'm concerned about the violation of law that made Top Secret information available on a completely unsecured e-mail account/server.

Do you know what information is Top Secret - the information that gets that particular classification.

"Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

Thus, she knew (or should have known) that she likely caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Exceptionally Grave Damage.



This is according to Director Comey, after the investigation.


She was clearly unfit. Trump may be a buffoon to you, totally ill-equipped to handle the job of president. I can easily accept that as a reasonable view of Trump's clownish actions before being elected, the unstatesman-like qualities he possesses in his tweets and administration in-fighting, etc. Clinton, as demonstrated by the Obama administration actively working to "clear" Clinton, proved she was beyond unfit. She is treasonous and likely caused exceptionally grave damage to national security.

 

[This_person]

Not if it was just used as a campaign tool
To rally uneducated voters and there is no evidence of any wrong doing

Well, except for the investigation into the e-mail server, and a cubic sh!t-ton of uninvestigated stuff, yeah.

 

[This_person]

Let’s see it

You really don't learn, do you. Other than whether or not black people have more interactions with police (they're actually less likely, as I proved my assumption wrong previously), I have proven you wrong on everything you've tried to argue with me about. Don't you get tired of it?

 

[Sapidus]

I'm not actually worried about what Trump said. I'm concerned about the violation of law that made Top Secret information available on a completely unsecured e-mail account/server.

Do you know what information is Top Secret - the information that gets that particular classification.




Thus, she knew (or should have known) that she likely caused exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Exceptionally Grave Damage.



This is according to Director Comey, after the investigation.


She was clearly unfit. Trump may be a buffoon to you, totally ill-equipped to handle the job of president. I can easily accept that as a reasonable view of Trump's clownish actions before being elected, the unstatesman-like qualities he possesses in his tweets and administration in-fighting, etc. Clinton, as demonstrated by the Obama administration actively working to "clear" Clinton, proved she was beyond unfit. She is treasonous and likely caused exceptionally grave damage to national security.

Reread the first sentence of your quote.

End of story. Nice try though

 

[Sapidus]

You really don't learn, do you. Other than whether or not black people have more interactions with police (they're actually less likely, as I proved my assumption wrong previously), I have proven you wrong on everything you've tried to argue with me about. Don't you get tired of it?

You can claim that but your own evidence never backs it up. As your previous example about Hillary proves.

Do you know what group is disproportionately killed more than any other in the US?

Did you read the recent review of audio samples in LA that proves officers escalated language , threats and insults faster with POC than whites?

 

[Sapidus]

Well, except for the investigation into the e-mail server, and a cubic sh!t-ton of uninvestigated stuff, yeah.

Which one is that? The imaginary one you claim Sessions just announced conveniently on a day he was testifying about lying about Russia yet again? Hmm. He couldn’t possible be trying to distract with the rumors of this new investigation.

 

[This_person]

Reread the first sentence of your quote.

End of story. Nice try though

So, you're saying that because I am more concerned with the law than a politician's ever-shifting position, the real facts presented by the FBI don't matter?

 

[This_person]

You can claim that but your own evidence never backs it up. As your previous example about Hillary proves.

Do you know what group is disproportionately killed more than any other in the US?

Did you read the recent review of audio samples in LA that proves officers escalated language , threats and insults faster with POC than whites?

I can show you facts, but I can't understand them for you.

 

[This_person]

Which one is that?

The one Comey's statement is about, linked and quoted above.

I can show you facts, but I can't understand them for you.

 

[Sapidus]

So, you're saying that because I am more concerned with the law than a politician's ever-shifting position, the real facts presented by the FBI don't matter?

Read the first sentence again. End of story

 

[This_person]

Read the first sentence again. End of story

You quoted a question not a sentence.

It's interesting, though, that you are defending Clinton by quoting Trump. You have repeatedly called him a liar, but you want me to listen to the one line with which you agree as if it is gospel.

I've stepped in deeper puddles.

 

[Sapidus]

You quoted a question not a sentence.

It's interesting, though, that you are defending Clinton by quoting Trump. You have repeatedly called him a liar, but you want me to listen to the one line with which you agree as if it is gospel.

I've stepped in deeper puddles.

Read the first sentence of your quote of Comeys statement.

He said she was careless but not criminal.

I️ have no idea what line of Trumps you are talking about.

 

[This_person]

Read the first sentence of your quote of Comeys statement.

He said she was careless but not criminal.

I️ have no idea what line of Trumps you are talking about.

Oh!!!! You mean the sentence that said he couldn't prove that she INTENDED to break the law, just that she DID break the law?

That's something you think helps your point in some way?

 

[Sapidus]

Oh!!!! You mean the sentence that said he couldn't prove that she INTENDED to break the law, just that she DID break the law?

That's something you think helps your point in some way?

Yeah. The first part of your statement is correct. “No proof she intentionally broke the law but that she was careless. “

Only the second part is true in your imagination

 

[This_person]

Yeah. The first part of your statement is correct. “No proof she intentionally broke the law but that she was careless. “

Only the second part is true in your imagination

Actually, it's further down in the quote.

But, here's Comey when confronted on the whole "intent" question:

[video=youtube_share;ChgcYHISvTM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ[/video]

 

[littlelady]

Give it up, Sap. Trump could never surpass what the Clintons have done. There is no comparison between them. You are spinning your wheels. Stay safe, and be sure you have your emergency essentials...pacifier, blanket, crayons, diapers, teddy bear, mommy, safe space (preferably nuclear bomb proof), but I draw the line at puppies. Puppies should not be included in the crying fest. They depend on humans, and you are, clearly, in your own posts, not a fit pet owner. You are welcome.

 

[Sapidus]

Actually, it's further down in the quote.

But, here's Comey when confronted on the whole "intent" question:

[video=youtube_share;ChgcYHISvTM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ[/video]

Still no smoking gun but good attempt.

Sorry you fell for yet another attempt by Sessions to distract from his multiple
appearances before committees to clarify his lies on Russia.

You just keep lapping up all the spoon fed narratives they want you to believe and keep chasing after non government employees while not holding the current administration accountable. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[littlelady]

Still no smoking gun but good attempt.

Sorry you fell for yet another attempt by Sessions to distract from his multiple
appearances before committees to clarify his lies on Russia.

You just keep lapping up all the spoon fed narratives they want you to believe and keep chasing after non government employees while not holding the current administration accountable. Makes a lot of sense.

Actually, you make no sense. Think on that for a while. And, you didn’t reply to my most recent post, Mr. Trigger Finger. What’s up with that? Did I get cha?

 

[Sapidus]

Actually, you make no sense. Think on that for a while. And, you didn’t reply to my most recent post, Mr. Trigger Finger. What’s up with that? Did I get cha?

What are you taking about?