"Comparing apples to bowling balls and chainsaws"

Based on the extremely limp-dicked response to his clarion call for his perceived servants of Morder to show up in Miami and wreak havoc, I would say that the Trump Train either passed the station or had a major, ähm, breakdown.

Breaking news: Trump train sighted having a very bad hair day!



Poor trumpy train.

Also, I have no idea what the hell wokism is supposed to be, but I do see a lot of usually almost reasonable Republicans having an automatic kneejerk response to things that are actually common sense.

Srsly, first come up with a real definition of "wokism" and then we can talk.

 

Gross negligence is not a felony offense. It's a criminal offense, but not necessarily a felony offense. Also:

Under United States law, proof of gross negligence involves proving all of the elements of an ordinary negligence action, plus the additional element that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of, or with a lack of substantial concern for, the rights of others. For some causes of action that might trigger defenses such as governmental immunity, it may be necessary to prove gross negligence in order to overcome the defense.

So, why did Bill Barr not prosecute Hillary Clinton, who is absolutely not the subject of this thread, Mr. Whataboutism? Bill Barr became AG AFTER Strzok left the FBI, he had ample time to bring an indictment against the former Secretary of State, and yet, did did not. Neither did Jeff Sessions, that little Keebler elf.

 

Yepp.

 

Then Hillary should be prosecuted.

 

If Trump is prosecuted, then Hillary should be prosecuted.

 

It was not certified for classified information nor properly protected and the FBI IG said it was most likely hacked.

 

It was a criminal offense which should be prosecuted, if Trump is prosecuted. There is no legal argument otherwise.

 

You stated no protection. When did the FBI say it was most likely hacked? I remember them saying that the DNC server was hacked, that same server that those attacking Clinton say she should have used. I don't remember them ever saying that Clinton's server was hacked. No one knew about it so very unlikely it was hacked

 

The FBI IG said it in their report. The server could be hacked without anyone knowing it.

Why do you believe Hillary should not be prosecuted?

 

Lol you keep changing your claims!

 

The FBI IG said her server was likely hacked. There is one major difference between the DNC server and Hillary's server. The DNC server had people who monitored the server. No one was watching Hillary's server.

Why do you believe Hillary should not be prosecuted?

 

It may take an actual World War to wake up the sheep who blindly allow those like a most lifelong corrupt politicians like Biden be president in the first place. To me, he is no better than Trump.

 

How did that work out for them?

 

So no evidence, investigation, trials, ect needed. Got it.

 

Why do you believe she should not be prosecuted? She clearly broke the law according to the FBI IG report.

 

Because there was no criminal case. I supported the investigation. I supported not voting for her because she was under federal investigation -- and I didn't vote for her because of that. But, ultimately, there was no criminal prosecution case. There was no evidence of intent that would survive in court. And, yes, intent matters.

Comey explained that no other person had ever been convicted under these statues for criminal intent alone, and SC decisions indicated that it would probably be unconstitutional to do so. That's the difference here. There's CLEAR evidence of intent with Trump.

 

DJT = to the actual criminal acts, guilty as sin = only saves > Judge Cannon puts her chubby thumb on the scale AND/OR a Trump sycophant gets onto the jury!

 

She broke the law. 2000 classified documents on a server not certified for classified and the server was not properly protected. If she handles classified documents, she is required by law to handle them in accordance with the law.

 

For breaking the law in this case to rise to the level of being CRIMINAL, there would need to be demonstrable intent.

 

How do you not intentionally put a server in your closet? It would have to be intentional or she was blind and stupid.

 

It isn't illegal to put a server in your closet, intentionally or otherwise. They would have had to have shown intention of mishandling classified information. Not intention to have a server. Only a handful of emails were actually marked in any classified way, and I don't think any of those emails were sent by Clinton. And these emails were sent by people with security clearances to people with security clearances. I can't imagine anything dumber than pretending this is the same as what Trump did.

 

Do you think that with over 2000 classified documents on her server that she did not realize that least some of them were classified? Do you really think she is that stupid? If she was that stupid, she should not have been secretary of state or president.

Looking at this from a security standpoint, it more serious than what Trump did. Someone thousands of miles away could have and probably did hack that server and we will never know what classified information that they acquired. That is the worse kind of security breech because it can not be mitigated.

 

From what I recall, only 5 emails or so were actually marked as having classified information (and far less obviously so than ANY of Trump's documents). And these were emails containing classified information, not actual classified documents. Many of the others weren't marked or were not even determined to have classified information except retroactively. So, yes, this argument makes no sense. There was no evidence of intent. And, again, these are worlds apart from Trump's actions in so many other ways. And I never said she should have been Secretary of State, but by your logic, Trump should have never been President and should never hold that office ever again. He was, objectively, far more stupid when it comes to handling classified information.

 

An email containing classified information is a classified document. As I have explained numerous times. A document is not classified because of the markings. It is classified because of its content. The classified information in those documents came from somewhere. They almost certainly came from documents which were classified and marked properly or the information came from a classified briefing which is always preceded by a warning that the briefing is classified. The fact that the classified markings were omitted shows intent.

I don't give a crap about Trump. As far as I am concerned, they can occupy adjoining cells. My point is that I see no discernable difference between Trump and Hillary except that Hillary's could be potentially worse because of the vulnerability.

 

The markings are a big means of establishing INTENT. A concept you still don't understand.