Who Put Classified Docs in Trump’s Desk

Trump's case is significantly different than HRC's.

1. Out of 150,000 plus emails, only two paragraphs had a sentence marked with a "C" for classified.

2. The other documents that did contain classified information were not marked classified. The burden is on the sender to properly mark classified information. It's not on the recipient to figure out if a document that is not marked classified has classified material. This is what Comey based his ruling on. It was reckless for HRC to not realize she had classified material, but it was not properly marked. So, there was no intent to illegally possess classified material.

3. Even former Atty General Barr has said Trump had no business hording classified material at the MAR A lago.

4. General Petraus got into trouble for giving top secret information to his mistress so she could write a book. He did not have to go to jail. Originally Posted by adav8s28

I've posted several articles on the huge difference in the two but Trump apologists do not care.

Trump's case is significantly different than HRC's.

1. Out of 150,000 plus emails, only two paragraphs had a sentence marked with a "C" for classified.

2. The other documents that did contain classified information were not marked classified. The burden is on the sender to properly mark classified information. It's not on the recipient to figure out if a document that is not marked classified has classified material. This is what Comey based his ruling on. It was reckless for HRC to not realize she had classified material, but it was not properly marked. So, there was no intent to illegally possess classified material.

3. Even former Atty General Barr has said Trump had no business hording classified material at the MAR A lago.

4. General Petraus got into trouble for giving top secret information to his mistress so she could write a book. He did not have to go to jail. Originally Posted by adav8s28

As I wrote before, I'm not sure I'd find Edward Snowden or Julian Assange guilty if I were on a jury, especially now that Blackman's pointed out it's the judge who determines the sentence.

What Trump and Hillary Clinton did was plain stupid. From the perspective of the risk to the United States of American, what Clinton did was stupider. According to Wikipedia, 65 of the Emails on her server were retroactively deemed "Secret," and 22 deemed "Top Secret." I don't know a lot about computer security, but it seems to me that a server owned by an individual can be at high risk of being hacked, especially when that individual is the Secretary of State. Do we want our enemies, or our allies for that matter, peering into the communications of our top foreign relations official?

Trump on the other hand had top secret documents mixed in with newspaper clippings, dirty underwear, maybe an autographed photo of Stormy Daniels, in boxes in a building presumably guarded by the Secret Service. There's just no comparison.

On the other hand, from the perspective of what's stupidest considering the interests of the individuals involved, Trump takes the cake. When he didn't give over all the secret documents early this year, he was giving the finger to The Man. And you don't given the finger to The Man, even if you are the ex-president of the United States of America. The Man will fuck you.

That is not even close to what he meant. Originally Posted by WTF

Lusty’s on ignore so I won’t be explaining anything to him. Were I to believe he was a tad more honest I might remove him but nah, no need, Ive read enough of his less than honest posts in the past to know better.

As I wrote before, I'm not sure I'd find Edward Snowden or Julian Assange guilty if I were on a jury, especially now that Blackman's pointed out it's the judge who determines the sentence.

What Trump and Hillary Clinton did was plain stupid. From the perspective of the risk to the United States of American, what Clinton did was stupider. According to Wikipedia, 65 of the Emails on her server were retroactively deemed "Secret," and 22 deemed "Top Secret." I don't know a lot about computer security, but it seems to me that a server owned by an individual can be at high risk of being hacked, especially when that individual is the Secretary of State. Do we want our enemies, or our allies for that matter, peering into the communications of our top foreign relations official?

Trump on the other hand had top secret documents mixed in with newspaper clippings, dirty underwear, maybe an autographed photo of Stormy Daniels, in boxes in a building presumably guarded by the Secret Service. There's just no comparison.

On the other hand, from the perspective of what's stupidest considering the interests of the individuals involved, Trump takes the cake. When he didn't give over all the secret documents early this year, he was giving the finger to The Man. And you don't given the finger to The Man, even if you are the ex-president of the United States of America. The Man will fuck you. Originally Posted by Tiny

So you think that Hillary receiving an email that wasn’t classified or marked as such when she got it but was made classified at some later date is in a way comparable to someone that picks up a document which is clearly marked classified when they get it and mishandle it under a law they signed. Come on Tiny, I’ll let you rethink that because it’s definitely not even in same solar system of similarity.

So you think that Hillary receiving an email that wasn’t classified or marked as such when she got it but was made classified at some later date is in a way comparable to someone that picks up a document which is clearly marked classified when they get it and mishandle it under a law they signed. Come on Tiny, I’ll let you rethink that because it’s definitely not even in same solar system of similarity. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I'll take your word for it Blackman, that from a legal perspective, mishandling documents marked confidential is a lot more egregious than handling state department business on your personal server. From a legal perspective, what you say above makes sense, to me anyway. You certainly know better than I do.

However, what I said was, "From the perspective of the [national security] risk to the United States of American, what Clinton did was stupider." I'll stand by that.

Lusty’s on ignore so I won’t be explaining anything to him. Were I to believe he was a tad more honest I might remove him but nah, no need, Ive read enough of his less than honest posts in the past to know better. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

He is just bright enough to be delusional.

He can on one hand post an even handed article explaining our differences and in the very next post, exhibiting behavior that he'd just denounced!

However, what I said was, "From the perspective of the [national security] risk to the United States of American, what Clinton did was stupider." I'll stand by that. Originally Posted by Tiny

I do not agree with that but arguing about it would be like you trying to convince me that the first runner up is hotter than Miss Universe.

What really matters when it comes to prosecution is the legal perspective. ...hopefully the political perspective comes in a distant second.

But I want Trump to get convicted in Georgia, I want him convicted IN DC for not returning classified documents....convicted in NY for his misrepresentation for loans.

But most of all I'd like him to be convicted for continuing this myth that tax cuts always produce more tax revenue!