For those who think Trump has committed crimes and should be locked up.

[Underdog]

One has to give you credit. You do do irony extremely well. Evidence lacking in specifics, indeed.

All my evidence was early on in this thread. what evidence specifically do you want me to repeat?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If I recieve an item that is classified on my nonsecure system there is a specific protocol to safeguard and report the incident.

Now you are getting into the absurd. If you receive an item that is not clearly marked classified and you don't know it is classified, how did you commit any crime?

for the documents marked "Secret" and below, there are certain protocols and safeguards for such information and even a private network for the transmission of such:

I happen to notice the requirement that it be marked "Secret". That's the funny thing about crimes. You don't get to make up facts that don't exist to fit the law you want to use to convict someone.

what evidence specifically do you want me to repeat?

You can start by pointing to any document Clinton received on her server that was clearly marked as "Secret" or below.

 

[Underdog]

Now you are getting into the absurd. If you receive an item that is not clearly marked classified and you don't know it is classified, how did you commit any crime?

She received numerous documents clearly marked and in fact instructed an aide to strip the classified header markings from one fax.

I happen to notice the requirement that it be marked "Secret". That's the funny thing about crimes. You don't get to make up facts that don't exist to fit the law you want to use to convict someone.

When she directed her aide who was having trouble with the classified fax machine she directed that aide to strip the classification headers off the message and send "NONSECURE" that is a felony, with intent.

You can start by pointing to any document Clinton received on her server that was clearly marked as "Secret"

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...-three-clinton-aides-received-top-secret-info

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

She received numerous documents clearly marked and in fact instructed an aide to strip the classified header markings from one fax.

So you claim but you have provided not a scintilla of evidence. The FBI could find no evidence of her receiving any emails clearly marked as classified.

When she directed her aide who was having trouble with the classified fax machine she directed that aide to strip the classification headers off the message and send "NONSECURE" that is a felony, with intent.

Repeating an absurd claim doesn't make it less absurd.
1. You have provided no law that would provide intent to send a classified document in a nonsecure fashion is a felony. The only law that would apply only allows for administrative responses.
2. You have provided no evidence that the document in question was in fact classified. We can assume it was but assumptions don't count for squat.
3. There is no evidence that her request was ever carried out. If asking someone to commit a crime and them not doing it is itself a crime than Trump would be guilty of multiple felonies. He's not because the law still requires actual evidence.






https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...-three-clinton-aides-received-top-secret-info[/QUOTE]
I see you can't provide any documents marked "Secret". Your link does not list a single document marked classified. It states the emails chains discussed topics that were classified.

Was that a violation of the regulations? Yes.
Did it rise to the level of a felony? No.
Does it provide evidence of any document marked classified being mishandled? Not even close.
Does it point to you not being able to support your contention she committed a felony? Very clearly.

The emails may have contained information that was considered classified but that doesn't mean the document was marked "Secret".
I am still waiting for you evidence to support your claim.

Hint: You should read your sources before you claim they support what you said.

 

[Underdog]

So you claim but you have provided not a scintilla of evidence. The FBI could find no evidence of her receiving any emails clearly marked as classified.







Repeating an absurd claim doesn't make it less absurd.
1. You have provided no law that would provide intent to send a classified document in a nonsecure fashion is a felony. The only law that would apply only allows for administrative responses.
2. You have provided no evidence that the document in question was in fact classified. We can assume it was but assumptions don't count for squat.
3. There is no evidence that her request was ever carried out. If asking someone to commit a crime and them not doing it is itself a crime than Trump would be guilty of multiple felonies. He's not because the law still requires actual evidence.






https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...-three-clinton-aides-received-top-secret-info

I see you can't provide any documents marked "Secret". Your link does not list a single document marked classified. It states the emails chains discussed topics that were classified.

Was that a violation of the regulations? Yes.
Did it rise to the level of a felony? No.
Does it provide evidence of any document marked classified being mishandled? Not even close.
Does it point to you not being able to support your contention she committed a felony? Very clearly.

The emails may have contained information that was considered classified but that doesn't mean the document was marked "Secret".
I am still waiting for you evidence to support your claim.

Hint: You should read your sources before you claim they support what you said.[/QUOTE]




I'm sorry, you seem like an intelligent individual, far more intelligent than a poster like bourbon, and many here. That said, I gave you EXAMPLES that go against your first sentence and if you are knowingly and willingly going to ignore facts we are done here.

 

[countryboy]

Here us another example of how to show a crime has been committed.

We have testimony under oath to law enforcement that Individual-1 directed payment to 2 persons to influence the outcome of an election.
https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen...emo-d664b3a5-81ff-413a-ba3a-024d8cda1815.html
Page 11 of the charging memo.

US campaign law has several aspects.
52 U.S. Code § 30104
Requires that a campaign for President file monthly reports of expenditures. (a)3(A)
Requires that a candidate report any use of personal funds Section (a)6(A)
Requires that a campaign report any loans to the campaign (b)3(e)

252 U.S. Code § 30116
Limits contributions to $2,000 (a)1(A)
Any expenditure made in coordination or by direction of candidate is a contribution (a)7(A)



The undisputed facts are as follows:
Cohen made a payment to Stormy Daniels and coordinated another payment to McDougal.
Cohen admits those payments were to influence the election
Cohen claims those payments were made at the behest of Individual-1.
Individual-1 was a candidate for President and required to file monthly campaign reports.
Cohen was repaid at a later date for the payments he made. (This would be considered a loan under Campaign law.)
The payments to Cohen were hidden as to their true nature by claiming them as legal work that was not performed.


Likely facts:

The Trump campaign didn't report the payment to Daniels as a campaign expenditure.
The Trump campaign didn't report a loan from Cohen for the payment to Daniels.
Trump knew about the payment but didn't tell his campaign treasurer.


This leaves us with the following possible violations of Campaign finance law:

The campaign didn't report the expenditure of the payment to Daniels
The campaign accepted a donation in excess of $2,000 when Cohen made the payment.
The campaign accepted a loan from Cohen and didn't report it.


Most campaign violations, and a campaign violation is breaking the law, result in a civil fine.



However campaign finance law does allow for this:


We have the following criminal penalties found in 52 U.S. Code § 30109


This leaves with the following.
Cohen made payments to Daniels and McDougal.
Trump knew about the payments and likely directed that they happen.
Cohen made an illegal contribution to the campaign when he made the payments.
Trump's only defense for the crime is that he didn't knowingly or willfully commit the offense and he is willing to pay the civil penalties.

Would you care to bet on Trump not talking to anyone else about needing to keep them quiet in order to win? If I were Trump, I would be sweating that.

The facts do lead to another possible crime. The payments to Cohen may be a violation of tax law depending on how they were accounted for by the Trump organization. You can write off lawyer fees but not payments to mistresses. By claiming they were lawyers fees Trump may have committed tax fraud on $420,000 of income. I would hazard a guess that this is already being looked into as part of the ongoing investigation.

Lol, no amount of verbose spin will ever make non-disclosure agreements illegal, let alone, a campaign finance violation.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

From FoxNews -

None of these emails had classification markings.

But then FoxNews gets a little deceptive when it claims 3 were marked as confidential.

According to the DoJ, 3 emails contained a paragraph marked with "(c)". (I have no idea why it took you so long to get to this but it is not evidence of a document clearly marked as classified. The law you linked to earlier contains "(c)" and it isn't classified. Clearly "(c)" is used for many things beyond marking something classified. I have now used "(c)" four times in this post and it doesn't make this post classified.)

So.. let me ask you again. Provide us with any evidence of a document clearly marked "secret". Didn't you provide us with a picture of a proper cover page earlier for a secret document? So when did someone send something to Clinton with that cover page?

Throwing out random claims that don't tie together doesn't make your case for a felony, it only proves how you have no case. As I said, you wouldn't make it past the courtroom janitor with your nonsense.

 

[Underdog]

From FoxNews -

But then FoxNews gets a little deceptive when it claims 3 were marked as confidential.

According to the DoJ, 3 emails contained a paragraph marked with "(c)". (I have no idea why it took you so long to get to this but it is not evidence of a document clearly marked as classified. The law you linked to earlier contains "(c)" and it isn't classified. Clearly "(c)" is used for many things beyond marking something classified. I have now used "(c)" four times in this post and it doesn't make this post classified.)

So.. let me ask you again. Provide us with any evidence of a document clearly marked "secret". Didn't you provide us with a picture of a proper cover page earlier for a secret document? So when did someone send something to Clinton with that cover page?

Throwing out random claims that don't tie together doesn't make your case for a felony, it only proves how you have no case. As I said, you wouldn't make it past the courtroom janitor with your nonsense.

Everyone who deals with classified information knows that (c) means the paragraph is classified. One would think the fucking SECSTATE would know that as well.


110 emails in 52 email chains were found “to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.” That contradicted her claim about information classified “at the time,” and her earlier, general claim that there “is no classified material” in her emails.
Eight of the chains contained information that was “top secret” at the time they were sent. Thirty-six chains contained “secret” information. Eight contained “confidential” information, the lowest classification.
Another 2,000 emails were “up-classified” (emails that have reason to be classified now, even if they were not classified at the time they were sent).
“A very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.” This contradicted Clinton’s claim that she did not send or receive materials “marked” classified.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...llary-clintons-emails/?utm_term=.7b9505b32477



Just one marked classified is a felony.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Everyone who deals with classified information knows that (c) means the paragraph is classified. One would think the fucking SECSTATE would know that as well.

The (c) does not denote that it is classified. The "classified" stamp does that. The (c) denotes that it is classified confidential...the lowest classification of classified material.

On base, the Commander's parking space is classified as "confidential."

Just one marked classified is a felony.

No it is not.

In fact, the entire of the Hillary email bullshit is just that...bullshit.

That is why the 6 or 34 or 68 or 114 investigations into it...turned up not one goddam thing worth prosecuting.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Lol, no amount of verbose spin will ever make non-disclosure agreements illegal, let alone, a campaign finance violation.

Non-disclosure agreements aren't illegal. How the money was paid is what was illegal when the payment was coordinated with and under the direction of individual 1 who was running for President in order to help individual 1 in his campaign.

We know it was illegal because the prosecutor charged it as a crime, Cohen pled guilty to it and a court accepted the guilty plea.

Courts don't accept guilty pleas for something that isn't a crime. No amount of denial will make the court's acceptance of the guilty plea go away.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Thanks for proving that you have committed a felony.

You linked to this-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

You have stated this -

Everyone who deals with classified information knows that (c) means the paragraph is classified.

I am curious, why you think the third paragraph of 18 U.S. Code § 1924 is classified. I am even more curious why you would link me to something that you know is classified.
If (c) means what you claim it means then clearly you are in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 798 when you provided a link knowingly and willingly making available to me a document that has a paragraph that starts with (c).

There is more evidence of you committing a felony than Clinton because you have stated you know that (c) means something is classified. Clinton can claim (c) could mean she took it to mean the third paragraph of a bullet pointed argument someone had copied and pasted. You have no such defense.

Remember, just one marked (c) is a felony.

Let me know when you are ready to give up because the court bailiff is prepping his handcuffs as soon as he stops laughing at your nonsense.

 

[Underdog]

The (c) does not denote that it is classified. The "classified" stamp does that. The (c) denotes that it is classified confidential...the lowest classification of classified material.

On base, the Commander's parking space is classified as "confidential."



No it is not.

In fact, the entire of the Hillary email bullshit is just that...bullshit.

That is why the 6 or 34 or 68 or 114 investigations into it...turned up not one goddam thing worth prosecuting.

Incorrect, the headers denote the classification level, the (c) denotes confidential level of classification, it does not speak to the overall level of classification of the document. If you are in posession of any classified material it must be kept and safeguarded on secure systems. You can't have "confidential" materials (dod marked) on nonsecure systems.

note page 5 is a "Secret" level example document, there is (U) unclassified, (c) confidential, and (s)secret on each paragraph to denote it's level.


The law I quoted includes everything marked confidential on up.

 

[Underdog]

Thanks for proving that you have committed a felony.

You linked to this-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

You have stated this -


I am curious, why you think the third paragraph of 18 U.S. Code § 1924 is classified. I am even more curious why you would link me to something that you know is classified.
If (c) means what you claim it means then clearly you are in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 798 when you provided a link knowingly and willingly making available to me a document that has a paragraph that starts with (c).

There is more evidence of you committing a felony than Clinton because you have stated you know that (c) means something is classified. Clinton can claim (c) could mean she took it to mean the third paragraph of a bullet pointed argument someone had copied and pasted. You have no such defense.

Remember, just one marked (c) is a felony.

Let me know when you are ready to give up because the court bailiff is prepping his handcuffs as soon as he stops laughing at your nonsense.

Derp, it's an example, if you are going to play games we can be done here.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I am hardly playing games. You are the one that is completely ignoring the meaning and intent of laws.
Someone has to knowingly and willfully transmit something that is classified to commit a felony. Since (c) does not always designate confidential, you can't come close to proving a felony. Your argument would be laughed out of court. A judge would throw out your case and probably recommend you be disbarred for such a blatant disregard for facts.

46 CFR 503.59 is the only law Clinton could have violated and that is not a felony.

 

[Truth Detector]

Non-disclosure agreements aren't illegal. How the money was paid is what was illegal when the payment was coordinated with and under the direction of individual 1 who was running for President in order to help individual 1 in his campaign.

Trump wrote a check. Why do you stupidly believe he needed to raid his campaign fund? Let's assume he did, that is a mere fine you morons.

 

[Truth Detector]

I am hardly playing games. You are the one that is completely ignoring the meaning and intent of laws.
Someone has to knowingly and willfully transmit something that is classified to commit a felony. Since (c) does not always designate confidential, you can't come close to proving a felony. Your argument would be laughed out of court. A judge would throw out your case and probably recommend you be disbarred for such a blatant disregard for facts.

46 CFR 503.59 is the only law Clinton could have violated and that is not a felony.

Moron thinks that ignorance is a defense.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Incorrect, the headers denote the classification level, the (c) denotes confidential level of classification, it does not speak to the overall level of classification of the document. If you are in posession of any classified material it must be kept and safeguarded on secure systems. You can't have "confidential" materials (dod marked) on nonsecure systems.

note page 5 is a "Secret" level example document, there is (U) unclassified, (c) confidential, and (s)secret on each paragraph to denote it's level.


The law I quoted includes everything marked confidential on up.

I understand...but the (c)...does not denote "classified." It denotes "confidential."

The (c) denotes that it is "confidential" a classification that is an absurdity. The most petty of things can be classified as confidential.

 

[Underdog]

I understand...but the (c)...does not denote "classified." It denotes "confidential."

The (c) denotes that it is "confidential" a classification that is an absurdity. The most petty of things can be classified as confidential.

yes I mispoke before sorry for the confusion.


I've seen burrito menus marked as "Secret" because of how it came to us.


It would be a felony for me to simply throw it out. You realize this right?


As petty as it may be, it's a felony to incorrectly store and disseminate confidential materials.

 

[Ross Dolan]

yes I mispoke before sorry for the confusion.


I've seen burrito menus marked as "Secret" because of how it came to us.


It would be a felony for me to simply throw it out. You realize this right?


As petty as it may be, it's a felony to incorrectly store and disseminate confidential materials.

Yup.

I like that line about the burrito menu. SO VERY RIGHT.

To anyone who has never worked with classified material...there are times you have to laugh about what comes across your desk. People who have the ability to classify something are like crossing guards at intersections...praying for a kid to come along so they can jump out and stop traffic.

Oh, look...the number of napkins in the mess hall. Classify that! Goddam Ruskiers find out how many napkins can extrapolate the number of people on the base.

 

[LV426]

I often hear people screech "Trump broke laws and should be locked up" my question is, What specific laws do you think he broke, please cite and link it, and what is your actual evidence to hold such a position. Thanks!

Trump conspired with Russia to win the election with their support in exchange for easing sanctions and getting permission to build Trump Tower Moscow.

That's Conspiracy Against the United States.