For JSO: A Tale of Forgiveness

[Ivytalk]

Now for the reason I came back to this thread. I was having a discussion with my super duper devout conservative Catholic Christian brother last night and he was defending the idea that Trump's personal morality doesn't matter because his policies are anti abortion, anti making Christians bake cakes for homosexual weddings and such.

So I asked him how far that goes. I asked him, for instance, if Trump raped an 8 year old girl would he still support him because he's getting the policies he wants? I said that I was just using an extreme example to illustrate the idea that there is a point at which one would have to say that personal morality outweighs the perception that an official is doing what someone wants policy wise.

But it didn't work because in the end he said that he would still support Trump even if he raped an 8 year old girl. I am not making this up. That is how bad it is.

Man, those St Onge family reunions must be a real fun fest!

[css75]

Now for the reason I came back to this thread. I was having a discussion with my super duper devout conservative Catholic Christian brother last night and he was defending the idea that Trump's personal morality doesn't matter because his policies are anti abortion, anti making Christians bake cakes for homosexual weddings and such.

So I asked him how far that goes. I asked him, for instance, if Trump raped an 8 year old girl would he still support him because he's getting the policies he wants? I said that I was just using an extreme example to illustrate the idea that there is a point at which one would have to say that personal morality outweighs the perception that an official is doing what someone wants policy wise.

But it didn't work because in the end he said that he would still support Trump even if he raped an 8 year old girl. I am not making this up. That is how bad it is.

Man, those St Onge family reunions must be a real fun fest!

There could be a mushroom cloud at the next one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Yes, he does. Anyone else would have been locked up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know part of the reason why Hillary got off was because she had communicated with Obama when she was on foreign soil and Obama denied it...but was later found to be lying.

Can't go after Hillary if they act like the Present didn't lie.

This is what I hope gets exposed by the whole Russia bullshit. That our government picks and chooses who gets held to the rules differently.

Hillary may not have sent a whole lot of classified ****, but she knew better. Everyone knows she set that **** up for two reasons.

1. To communicate about her quid quo pro deals with the state department.
2. So she could destroy whatever communication she felt like if ever asked to turn over emails....just like how she had all her blackberries smashed with hammers.

There is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny either.

[Ibanez]

And we all know that "knowingly" means jack ****. There are people in prison for mishandling information. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

The particular statute you cited contains the condition that materials be "knowingly" handled in certain ways. Yes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But if the language of the law says you have to "knowingly" do something in order to violate it you have to "knowingly" do something in order to violate it. It's not like if you don't know you can't shoot whooping cranes then try to use the fact that you didn't know you weren't supposed to shoot them as an excuse. In this case you have to "knowingly" do something in order to violate the law to begin with. It's right there in the language off the statute.

I mean, I quoted the statute above and provided a link to it. Does it not include the condition that the action be "knowingly" committed?

Having your own, private, unsecured, email server to handle your government emails INSTEAD of the secured, government provided email servers (and retention policies) tells me that you are "knowingly" mishandling any information that comes across. And as SecofState, that would must undoubtedly included Classified, Secret and Top Secret information.

[Ibanez]

"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Yes I know about that one. The key terminology, as you indicated in bold, is "gross negligence." That introduces a subjective determination. Apparently, the FBI concluded that Clinton's actions did not involve "gross negligence."

Note that the FBI knows what was in the e mails it looked at while we do not.

The bottom line is that Conservatives/Republicans don't like the fact that the FBI decided not to recommend charges against Clinton because they didn't get what they wanted out of it. Never mind that the FBI did about the best thing it could do to increase the chances of Trump getting elected by not recommending charges so that the Democrats didn't go to Sanders while at the same time severely wounding Clinton with the lecture on how careless she was.

I still want to hear your rational explanation for her using anything other approved communication channels for Gov't business. I'm pretty sure she didn't have her own NIPRNET or SIPRNET.

I'll be waiting here.


Here - https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp- ... df#page=30

Go to page 30 where it says all business be conducted through government channels.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... email-pra/

[CID1990]

Bob Mull told her staff - in an email to Huma Abedin - that what she was doing was a bad idea.. and he was told to STFU

That's a fact. And Ambassador Mull wasn't the only one with a little bit of administrative courage. Others brought it up as well.. and they were told to butt out too

anybody who defends her on the email is either willfully ignorant or blindly so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

Bob Mull told her staff - in an email to Huma Abedin - that what she was doing was a bad idea.. and he was told to STFU

That's a fact. And Ambassador Mull wasn't the only one with a little bit of administrative courage. Others brought it up as well.. and they were told to butt out too

anybody who defends her on the email is either willfully ignorant or blindly so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course libs defend her on the email, though it was totally illegal, that’s what they do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Bob Mull told her staff - in an email to Huma Abedin - that what she was doing was a bad idea.. and he was told to STFU

That's a fact. And Ambassador Mull wasn't the only one with a little bit of administrative courage. Others brought it up as well.. and they were told to butt out too

anybody who defends her on the email is either willfully ignorant or blindly so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I'm saying is that that particular statue does require that someone "knowingly" do something. You guys think she knew. If I remember correctly Comey, who has a lot more information on the subject than any of us have, said that she did not knowingly mishandle classified information. Also, if I remember correctly, he said that the FBI did not think she lied about that issue when interviewed.

If you guys believe she knowingly mishandled classified information then that's what you believe. I doubt that anything can change that. But the FBI concluded that she did not. Also concluded that she was not "grossly negligent;" which I see as the standard for the other statute involved where "knowingly" doesn't matter.

And to me the idea that the FBI was anti Trump is absurd on its face. To me the way Comey handled the situation really hurt the Democrats badly. Given the way he handled it the Democrats would've been better off if he HAD recommended charges. Then he did the thing 10 days before the election. That was associated with a situation where the 538 estimate quickly went from Clinton being about a 4:1 favorite to Clinton being a 2:1 favorite. If you were watching that kind of stuff like I was you know that Comey's statement shortly before the election was associated with an immediate, sharp drop in Clinton's position.

[JohnStOnge]

Bob Mull told her staff - in an email to Huma Abedin - that what she was doing was a bad idea.. and he was told to STFU

That's a fact. And Ambassador Mull wasn't the only one with a little bit of administrative courage. Others brought it up as well.. and they were told to butt out too

anybody who defends her on the email is either willfully ignorant or blindly so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course libs defend her on the email, though it was totally illegal, that’s what they do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

See, obviously, when you say it was "totally illegal" you are asserting a premise that the FBI disagreed with. If the FBI thought she did something illegal she'd have been charged.

Again: I think we are in a situation where a majority of those on the "conservative" side are down on the FBI because the FBI has not told them what they want to hear and the FBI is investigating the atrocity that is President right now. How anyone could think it unlikely that Trump has done lots of illegal things is beyond me.

Talk about being willfully blind or ignorant. THAT'S willfully blind and ignorant.

[CID1990]

Bob Mull told her staff - in an email to Huma Abedin - that what she was doing was a bad idea.. and he was told to STFU

That's a fact. And Ambassador Mull wasn't the only one with a little bit of administrative courage. Others brought it up as well.. and they were told to butt out too

anybody who defends her on the email is either willfully ignorant or blindly so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I'm saying is that that particular statue does require that someone "knowingly" do something. You guys think she knew. If I remember correctly Comey, who has a lot more information on the subject than any of us have, said that she did not knowingly mishandle classified information. Also, if I remember correctly, he said that the FBI did not think she lied about that issue when interviewed.

If you guys believe she knowingly mishandled classified information then that's what you believe. I doubt that anything can change that. But the FBI concluded that she did not. Also concluded that she was not "grossly negligent;" which I see as the standard for the other statute involved where "knowingly" doesn't matter.

And to me the idea that the FBI was anti Trump is absurd on its face. To me the way Comey handled the situation really hurt the Democrats badly. Given the way he handled it the Democrats would've been better off if he HAD recommended charges. Then he did the thing 10 days before the election. That was associated with a situation where the 538 estimate quickly went from Clinton being about a 4:1 favorite to Clinton being a 2:1 favorite. If you were watching that kind of stuff like I was you know that Comey's statement shortly before the election was associated with an immediate, sharp drop in Clinton's position.

She knew. She signed the acknowledgment form when she came on at DoS. It is very clear.

You can shilly shally over that all you want - what you are doing is arguing in favor of privilege for political appointees, as well as her unfitness for office.

Congrats on that, John. You've gone full Kos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

Of course libs defend her on the email, though it was totally illegal, that’s what they do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

See, obviously, when you say it was "totally illegal" you are asserting a premise that the FBI disagreed with. If the FBI thought she did something illegal she'd have been charged.

Again: I think we are in a situation where a majority of those on the "conservative" side are down on the FBI because the FBI has not told them what they want to hear and the FBI is investigating the atrocity that is President right now. How anyone could think it unlikely that Trump has done lots of illegal things is beyond me.

Talk about being willfully blind or ignorant. THAT'S willfully blind and ignorant.

In normal times I would agree, but the upper management of the FBI was corrupted by Comey, McCabe and Holder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

See, obviously, when you say it was "totally illegal" you are asserting a premise that the FBI disagreed with. If the FBI thought she did something illegal she'd have been charged.

Again: I think we are in a situation where a majority of those on the "conservative" side are down on the FBI because the FBI has not told them what they want to hear and the FBI is investigating the atrocity that is President right now. How anyone could think it unlikely that Trump has done lots of illegal things is beyond me.

Talk about being willfully blind or ignorant. THAT'S willfully blind and ignorant.

In normal times I would agree, but the upper management of the FBI was corrupted by Comey, McCabe and Holder.

To me that post is a manifestation of a real problem we've got right now. Trump and his allies are endeavoring to discredit institutions with potential to hold them accountable and they are being successful with at lest some people.

In my opinion there is no evidence that the upper management of the FBI has been corrupt for a long, long time. Decades. I disagree with Comey's judgment on certain decisions but there's no indication that he is or was corrupt or dishonest. The Justice Department recommended charges against McCabe but the substance of what he's been accused of leaking then denying is true. The allegation is that he was trying to get information out to counter the allegation that he told FBI agents to back off of the Clinton investigation. Here is description of the situation from the National Review:

An OIG report released last week confirmed that McCabe had in fact misled federal investigators on four separate occasions by insisting that he did not approve the leak, which was apparently intended to rebut rumors that McCabe had told FBI agents to “stand down” from their investigation of the Clinton Foundation. (The report asserts in a footnote that the substance of the leak was accurate, meaning McCabe’s claim that he had, in fact, internally defended the bureau’s right to continue the Clinton Foundation investigation was true.)

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/and ... r-general/

If he's charged and convicted he'll be accountable for trying to mislead investigators. But the context of the situation is one in which he was being accused of bias in the Clinton investigation and the same IG report that says he misled investigators says that he was not.

Most importantly there are no indications that the FBI and Justice Department are, as organizations, corrupt. We know about McCabe possibly misleading investigators because the institutions police themselves. We know about the two FBI agents saying nasty things about Trump for the same reason and we know that the agents involved were removed from the case.

When it comes to corruption there is a lot more reason to worry about Republicans in Congress and the White House right now than there is to worry about the FBI. And it's horrible that so many Conservative and/or Republican citizens are buying the crap that Republicans in Congress, Trump, and Conservative media are spewing out.