Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
NO, they're not, and that's a problem.
For those who think Trump has committed crimes and should be locked up.
- Thread starter Underdog
- Start date
NO, they're not, and that's a problem.
Guy threatens to beat me up, then hides from me, posts in my thread but is too much a cowardly bitch to respond to me.
I got your "Strength and leverage" right here, cunt.
montgomery
Verified User
Naming the laws broken is beside the point and a really ridiculous question considering all we know now. Much more important is that Mueller/the FBI have no intention of taking Trump down publicly and directly. That would have too much bad effect on the GOP. Trump will be taken down by threat from Mueller/the FBI, both personal threats to Trump as well as his family.
No it's not, we are a nation of laws, and if you want to jail and imprison someone, you need to find a law they broke, unless you are some kind of fascist.
I think where we are missing each other here is in the possibility of a conviction.
You think Hillary Clinton committed a felony. The problem is in order to convict her you have to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt based on facts and evidence provided to an impartial judge or jury. Before any prosecutor files charges they are going to look at both sides and decide what their chances are of getting a conviction. I think the chances of a conviction are 10% or less because there is a lot of room for reasonable doubt. A prosecutor doesn't get to present a case without rebuttal.
With what we have discussed so far, do you think you could convince 12 of 12 people that there is little doubt that Clinton committed a felony when they are required to presume she didn't commit it until you can prove she did?
Do you think you can convince 12 people that any and every time (c) is in a document it should be considered confidential? Whether a judge would allow it may be a question, but you will have opened the door. The defense can easily raise doubts about your claim by presenting you with 3 paragraphs that start with (c) and then ask you to tell the jury which of the 3 are considered confidential and which are not.
It is one thing to see (c) in a document that comes with a "top secret" cover sheet. It is something else entirely to see (c) in an email that has nothing else signifying classification. Any reasonable person would see lots of room for doubt. But the defense only needs one of 12 to have doubts to prevent conviction.
Do you think you can convince 12 people that you can read Hillary Clinton's mind about her intent when she is free to testify what she really thought at the time? She is a pretty compelling witness even under hostile interrogation as she proved in her Congressional testimony.
The congressional investigation didn't convince a majority of the country and didn't even seem to convince too many she committed a crime. Even the FBI felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict when they had no one defending her. Do you seriously think your arguments would convince a jury when others who have a reason to want her guilty couldn't make the argument.
You think Hillary Clinton committed a felony. The problem is in order to convict her you have to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt based on facts and evidence provided to an impartial judge or jury. Before any prosecutor files charges they are going to look at both sides and decide what their chances are of getting a conviction. I think the chances of a conviction are 10% or less because there is a lot of room for reasonable doubt. A prosecutor doesn't get to present a case without rebuttal.
With what we have discussed so far, do you think you could convince 12 of 12 people that there is little doubt that Clinton committed a felony when they are required to presume she didn't commit it until you can prove she did?
Do you think you can convince 12 people that any and every time (c) is in a document it should be considered confidential? Whether a judge would allow it may be a question, but you will have opened the door. The defense can easily raise doubts about your claim by presenting you with 3 paragraphs that start with (c) and then ask you to tell the jury which of the 3 are considered confidential and which are not.
It is one thing to see (c) in a document that comes with a "top secret" cover sheet. It is something else entirely to see (c) in an email that has nothing else signifying classification. Any reasonable person would see lots of room for doubt. But the defense only needs one of 12 to have doubts to prevent conviction.
Do you think you can convince 12 people that you can read Hillary Clinton's mind about her intent when she is free to testify what she really thought at the time? She is a pretty compelling witness even under hostile interrogation as she proved in her Congressional testimony.
The congressional investigation didn't convince a majority of the country and didn't even seem to convince too many she committed a crime. Even the FBI felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict when they had no one defending her. Do you seriously think your arguments would convince a jury when others who have a reason to want her guilty couldn't make the argument.
(C) literally by definition marks a portion of a classified document as "confidential" yes, I think a jury would find her guilty.
I also can't fathom how you can think the SECTATE did not know what she was doing was a felony.
(C) by definition does not mark a portion of an email as "confidential". The jury is going to see through your claims.
(c) in front of a paragraph out of context that lists a commanders parking space is not going to bolster your argument. Reasonable people are not going to look at that and take your position that it is obvious that mundane things should be instantly seen as being classified when there is no other mark.
What you can fathom has little meaning in a court of law. It comes down to whether you convince other people of that when they are required to give all benefit of doubt to the defendant.
Can you fathom Trump didn't know he was committing a felony when he directed Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels? What do you think the likelihood is of convincing someone he did know? I put it at about 50/50 but that's because Trump has always argued he knows everything and would now have to argue he didn't know.
Holy fuck d00d, I've held clearances you've never heard of.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf
Start at page 16
From what I gather the stormy thing is a huge stretch. what is also a huge stretch is the argument that ignorance to the law is an excuse, when you are hillary.
The clearances you have are irrelevant. It comes down to convincing a court based on the law and the facts.
You have failed to do so because you ignore what the law actually says and instead rely on your clearances as having some legal standing. They don't.
The laws that you cited that designate felonies require someone knowingly and willingly violate them. Simply citing that (c) means something is classified doesn't meet the standard set out in the law. No reasonable prosecutor would try to lay out a case relying on that argument because they know it wouldn't pass muster with the court.
You have failed to address whether (c) always designates that something is confidential.
I have raised the doubt that would convince any reasonable person that they can't convict.
Under oath would you be willing to state that (c) always means something is confidential?
Would you be willing to testify that (c) in the laws you cited means that paragraph is confidential?
If (c) doesn't always mean confidential in every instance then we are left with the defendant MUST be given the benefit of the doubt under the law unless you can prove their state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.
The latest news on Trump is that more than one person was in a meeting with Trump, Cohen and people from AMI to discuss the payment to Karen McDougal with the express intent to influence the election.
You might like to find out the difference between classified and confidential.
YOu are simply arguing from arrogant ignorance. I pointed out clearances I've held to demonstrate I am an expert in the matter.
yes, on official gov documents the (C) always denotes "confidential" in classified documents, I would say this under oath.
I literally gave you proof of this, did you not click my .gov links?
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf
Right there, start on page 16. I gave you in the post you replied to, that which you claimed I have not. If you don't acknowledge this, I will end the conversation and write you off as a mindless nut.
Last edited:
Really? Confidential is a level of "classification".... derp
Classified consists of confidential, secret, and Top secret. There are also other clearances we can get into but is irrellevant to your claim
If you have a condifential document, it's classified... wait for it.... CONFIDENTIAL. and all the parts considered confidential will have the (C) martking.
You, another one, click the fucking link you quoted in your reply to me. start on page 16. Deliver yourself from abject ignorance.
Last edited:
I am arguing the law. If anyone is arguing from ignorance, it is you. You can't convict someone without showing the crime. Your repeated attempts to claim you know about classified documents doesn't prove anything as to the facts of what was on Hillary's server or the markings on those emails.
Asking an authorized person to remove a classification is not a felony. Someone can be fired for doing so or lose their security clearance but they can't be prosecuted.
Receiving emails that someone else copied from classified information and didn't properly mark is not a felony.
Thanks for proving Hillary didn't commit a crime. An email is not an official government document. You didn't answer the question as I asked. Does (c) in every document denote "confidential"?
Your document would prove that there was no way to know that the email contained classified information since the requirement on classified documents is that all unclassified paragraphs be marked with (U) and there be a header with an overall classification as well as an originating classifier and the date classification ends.
Perhaps you should read the rest of your document. The person sending the emails would be the one responsible for putting the proper classification markings on a document. Their failure to give a header, classify each paragraph and include their name as the classifying person is not a crime by Hillary Clinton.
Of course, I must be a mindless nut because I don't agree with you but instead follow the actual law. The law requires you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. You can't even lay out a logical case from beginning to end. You jump from email to removing the header on a fax to your own experiences without ever tying them together to show how they break a specific law.
Let me repeat. There is no way you can convince an unbiased person beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony was committed.
I wonder why your L/Cpl only lost a stripe and wasn't charged with a felony. I have stated repeatedly that Hillary could lose her job or her clearance over this just as your L/Cpl could have. Felonies require more than what she did.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
No, they don't. Reckless disregard.