FBI Loses Secret Documents

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

the fbi didnt lose any documents. The documents in question were stolen/seized from trump and destroyed or given to the proper folks . These documents were evidence on the stolen election hills emails hunter and the un's final objective!
Folks be needeen to pay attention.

Are there any supporting facts for this, suh. (Sir)

You 'member?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Is tis it?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...-2-years-later

I thought this might go here.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Stealing is a criminal act. Ignoring a subpeona is a criminal act. Misuse of highly classified information, which Trump should not have had in his possession, is a criminal act. No, this is not final but if The DOJ decides to bring this to trial, which I doubt will happen, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming.

What Trump did is far worse than what Clinton did in the opinion of every legal expert I can find who made a judgement on the case.

Let me put on my Democrat hat before I proceed. OK, ready.

Stealing is a criminal act.

No such decision has been made in a court of law. This is your opinion and you have a right to express it. You don't have a right to state as fact what hasn't been adjudicated. Isn't that exactly what we are being told about allegations against Biden? No guilty verdict so he didn't do any of this?

Ignoring a subpoena is a criminal act.

Well sometimes and I'll point to Eric Holder in the Obama administration. And at the risk of complaints by 1BM1 about "whataboutism", here are the facts.


https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/w...sting-subpoena

When someone receives a subpoena, they can either comply or challenge the subpoena on certain legal grounds or claim the documents are privileged. What they cannot do is ignore the subpoena and that is what Holder did. For months, Holder has ignored the subpoena. When Darryl Issa asked if the documents had been assembled within the Justice Department, Holder refused to answer. In short, he was thumbing his nose at the committee.

But back to Hillary disregarding a subpoena.


https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

However, they have denied that they deleted the emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015. But an August 2016 FBI report on its investigation shows that Trump’s claim has some merit.

And No such decision has been made by a court of law on this matter regarding Trump. Merely your opinion that a criminal act rather than a civil violation occurred.

Misuse of highly classified information, which Trump should not have had in his possession, is a criminal act.

Also not found guilty in a court of law. And I would argue that you are using the word "misuse" incorrectly in this matter. Misuse in this case, as well as Hillary's case, would be giving or selling such information, using for nefarious purpose. James Comey told us at least 6 times that Hillary lied under oath, that she broke the law but that she didn't intend to "misuse" that information. So unless Trump can be found guilty of "misuse" he should get the same outcome as Hillary if we indeed have equal justice under the law.

No, this is not final but if The DOJ decides to bring this to trial, which I doubt will happen, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming.

And so is the evidence against Biden "overwhelming". So if you have the right to say that against Trump, I have the right to say that against Biden even though neither has been charged in a court of law and found guilty, YET.

What Trump did is far worse than what Clinton did in the opinion of every legal expert I can find who made a judgement on the case

I guess I'll have to assume you didn't hear the opinion of the ones I heard from. If the Director of the FBI says that Hillary lied on multiple occasions ( would you like me to produce the Youtube clip for the 10th time ) then she obstructed justice no matter what else happened. Figured I'd do a little research and came across this from the Washington Post that wait for it, seems to agree with you. Shocker huh? You can read it but what most interested me was this tidbit about "whataboutism" that I found interesting and thought I would share since it seems to be an ongoing theme from the left.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ts-comparison/

The debate over what is to be done with Donald Trump and his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents has landed in the zone where it was inevitably headed: whataboutism. Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution for using a private email server as secretary of state in 2016, the right argues, so why should Trump be indicted?

In this case, we use “whataboutism” non-judgmentally. Oh, one can do that, use it non-judgmentally? Indeed, it might be fitting and instructive to compare the two situations, especially given that their central figures occupy similar positions in our national politics — as de facto figureheads of their parties who had access to highly sensitive information. A core principle of our justice system, after all, is that the law be applied equally. Yeah, but 1BM! disagrees

The article goes on to make comparisons which I'm not going to take apart individually but will say, I disagree with much of the analysis. And have heard from former prosecutors that an absolute comparison can be made and just because Hillary had all that information on a server, that she wasn't allowed to have and Trump had "paper", is also ridiculous.

Again, only looking for equal justice in this matter, not defending Trump. Trying to hold the FBI, DOJ and courts accountable which we should all be doing regardless of party or person.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If Joe Biden is guilty of any crime he should be prosecuted. IT's that simple. But I put this in the same category as "election fraud in 2020 election". Until proven otherwise, it is total BS.

Then apply that to your accusations against Trump. That's all I'm saying. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a court of law on any matter regarding Mar-a-Lago. Isn't that a fair assessment according to your own words?


I don't recall you saying whether you have heard the entire interview with Bobulinski, so I'll ask. Did you hear the original interview and the subsequent one Tues. night on Tucker which has been reprinted and discussed here? Think it is total BS just because the FBI has been sitting on this for 2 years and and have not charged any Biden.... Yet? Merely asking if you found Bobulinski's testimony credible or not whether or not it has reached a court of law or not.


After all, you seem to find the many allegations against Trump "credible" even though they have not been proven in a court of law. Just asking for the same consideration in the standards you yourself have set.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Don’t worry. This crowd just makes up shit and swears it’s facts. Then when you finally find a link it’s an opinion piece made up from whole cloth or some person was told that another person said the brother’s cousin’s friend read there might be some person who knows - kinda bullshit. But they’ll swear it’s a fact and indisputable. Then they’ll resort to the age old Russia/right wing best argument - whataboutism.

We can see the pattern every time.

Yeah, like we see "your pattern" every time labeling something whataboutism in order to shut down any debate. Label it racist or whataboutism and think you have won an argument. I sincerely hope this isn't what you do for your clients.

[biomed1]

To Return to the Original Topic

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Let me put on my Democrat hat before I proceed. OK, ready.



No such decision has been made in a court of law. This is your opinion and you have a right to express it. You don't have a right to state as fact what hasn't been adjudicated. Isn't that exactly what we are being told about allegations against Biden? No guilty verdict so he didn't do any of this?




Well sometimes and I'll point to Eric Holder in the Obama administration. And at the risk of complaints by 1BM1 about "whataboutism", here are the facts.


https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/w...sting-subpoena





But back to Hillary disregarding a subpoena.


https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/





And No such decision has been made by a court of law on this matter regarding Trump. Merely your opinion that a criminal act rather than a civil violation occurred.



Also not found guilty in a court of law. And I would argue that you are using the word "misuse" incorrectly in this matter. Misuse in this case, as well as Hillary's case, would be giving or selling such information, using for nefarious purpose. James Comey told us at least 6 times that Hillary lied under oath, that she broke the law but that she didn't intend to "misuse" that information. So unless Trump can be found guilty of "misuse" he should get the same outcome as Hillary if we indeed have equal justice under the law.



And so is the evidence against Biden "overwhelming". So if you have the right to say that against Trump, I have the right to say that against Biden even though neither has been charged in a court of law and found guilty, YET.




I guess I'll have to assume you didn't hear the opinion of the ones I heard from. If the Director of the FBI says that Hillary lied on multiple occasions ( would you like me to produce the Youtube clip for the 10th time ) then she obstructed justice no matter what else happened. Figured I'd do a little research and came across this from the Washington Post that wait for it, seems to agree with you. Shocker huh? You can read it but what most interested me was this tidbit about "whataboutism" that I found interesting and thought I would share since it seems to be an ongoing theme from the left.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ts-comparison/





The article goes on to make comparisons which I'm not going to take apart individually but will say, I disagree with much of the analysis. And have heard from former prosecutors that an absolute comparison can be made and just because Hillary had all that information on a server, that she wasn't allowed to have and Trump had "paper", is also ridiculous.

Again, only looking for equal justice in this matter, not defending Trump. Trying to hold the FBI, DOJ and courts accountable which we should all be doing regardless of party or person.

You are correct. I am making assumptions on Trump's guilt, an assumption supported by almost all legal experts on the subject.

"The FBI warrant for the search at Mar-a-Lago that was unsealed by the Justice Department on Friday revealed law enforcement was investigating Trump for three main possible infractions: the concealment, mutilation or removal of records; obstruction of justice, including the destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations; and possible violations of the Espionage Act, which can include the refusal to turn over documents relating to national security upon request as well as transmitting or losing such information."

Those are serious crimes. No, Trump has not been found guilty of any crimes as of this point in time but the investigation is in its infancy.

Yes, Hillary Clinton was guilty of some crimes but in the opinion of most, minor compared to Trump's infractions, if found to be true. No, I never saw the u-tube video about Clinton allegedlly lying.

"The FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida residence because, as federal prosecutors said in a fiery court filing in August, they believed not only did the former president possess “dozens” of boxes “likely to contain classified information” but also that “efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.” In that search, the FBI said it did remove over 100 classified documents, some of which reportedly contained information about nuclear weapons. That’s all part of just one investigation into possible violations of the Espionage Act, the improper handling of federal records, and obstruction of a federal investigation."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...orgia-new-york

"No, the FBI's Trump investigation is not just like the Hillary Clinton email probe. Here's why

"James Comey read off a list of all ... Hillary Clinton's crimes, only to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute," Trump said of the former FBI director in a social media post this past weekend.

But a review of government documents from both investigations suggests there are key differences between the evidence uncovered in Clinton's case and the evidence already publicly documented in the Trump investigation."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbis-trump...ry?id=89069046

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Then apply that to your accusations against Trump. That's all I'm saying. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a court of law on any matter regarding Mar-a-Lago. Isn't that a fair assessment according to your own words?


I don't recall you saying whether you have heard the entire interview with Bobulinski, so I'll ask. Did you hear the original interview and the subsequent one Tues. night on Tucker which has been reprinted and discussed here? Think it is total BS just because the FBI has been sitting on this for 2 years and and have not charged any Biden.... Yet? Merely asking if you found Bobulinski's testimony credible or not whether or not it has reached a court of law or not.


After all, you seem to find the many allegations against Trump "credible" even though they have not been proven in a court of law. Just asking for the same consideration in the standards you yourself have set.

As I said, Trump hasn't even been formally accused of doing anything wrong at this point in time. It is possible that he will never be charged. Is he guilty of criminal actions? In my opinion and the opinion of almost all legal experts, yes.

No, I do not watch Fox News and I certainly do not watch Tucker Carlson. He does not report the news, he sensationalizes it to fit his POV and is usually totally incorrect. I don't care about Hunter Biden. I do care if Joe Biden is involved in criminal activity with Hunter Biden. To me, those are wild, unsupported claims by a disgruntled individual. Proof is needded to support those allegations. I get tired of hearing from Trump supporters how biased the DOJ and the FBI are in what they choose to investigate. Hillary was invetigated and almost all legal experts deemed her violations with her home server to be minor and not worthy of prosecution.

[1blackman1]

The circles the anti-Biden and Biden Crime Family crowd spin in to get to their conclusion. Bubbles got cheated (not really but that’s what he claims). Bubbles stated that Jim and Hunter told him a bunch of stuff that got him to invest time and money into what was likely a scam from the beginning. Here’s the kicker. Joe was involved because he met Joe a couple of times. Joe left the room when he talked business with Jim and Hunter. What Joe did discuss with Bubbles was his kids grandkids and loss of kid to cancer. Somehow in Bubbles mind this was all code for Joe was in on it. Now Jim and Hunter were the people he spoke and dealt with. Hunter even asked Bubbles to kick some extra funds for the big guy (whom he believes was Joe). Though he never spoke business with Joe and never saw Joe get a penny.

To the “I really wanna believe Joe is corrupt” crowd you’ll just accept Bubble’s word that he felt Joe was involved so that’s enough proof that it’s true. Looks like Jim and Hunter saw SUCKER across Bubbles forehead and decided to fleece him because he was stupid enough to cough up extra funds to a nonexistent partner. Scam 101.

Bubbles could be mostly correct in what he says. His facts could be mostly true from his point of view. But he has no proof Joe was involved at all. Maybe just maybe he’s a SUCKER that fell for a pretty simple scam.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

As I said, Trump hasn't even been formally accused of doing anything wrong at this point in time.

Really?

[D]ump is facing, by some counts, around 20 civil lawsuits and criminal investigations. Some involve the risk of financial penalties; others could lead to indictment and even a trial. That would throw American politics into tumult: Mr [D]ump is expected to run for president again in 2024. What are the most prominent inquiries—and how much trouble might the ex-president be in?

https://www.economist.com/the-econom...onald-trump-in

[biomed1]

Thread Closed