Reasons Why F.B.I. and D.O.J. are corrupt

[Dill]

(08-20-2023, 02:33 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said."

I don't have access to what those emails are about, but i do know that there was 3 classified as top secret, and one confidential of those that were deleted. I'm not a lawyer but even i smell BS. Her answer about e-mails being washed before turning them over to the FBI was nothing more than a smart ass comment. "What with a cloth or something?" She's just flat out playing stupid.

Also how long had she been in a government position and not know the meaning of ©??  Again, playing stupid.

One thing we could do if we know all of the criteria that was used to "sort" work/personal, bounce it against those deleted and see how they sort out. If they sort out under work, then we could point out that they were deleted intentionally. That would be a good first step.

but i really don't care about all of that, what i care about is that many of you didn't hold her responsible to the same level that you are pushing with Trump.

"Many of them" is not 17 k. 

And again, so far as I know you are referring to the three long email chains which had classified material buried in them--some classified retroactively. That's been known since 2015. 

And you've got nothing prosecutable even if you prove some work emails were "intentionally" deleted during a mass assessment of thousands. Best you can get from that is a minor violation of the Records Act. There was no effort on Clinton's part to hoard documents, keep them as trophies, and expose them to reporters and house guests, or to lie about having them. She clearly had no interest in keeping anything or showing what she had to anyone outside the government--the critical threshold for prosecution. Everyone agrees that her handling of the emails was "reckless." That's not always prosecutable.

And again your whole premise, that HRC is not held to the same level of responsibility, depends on ignoring the basic differences in context and intent here. We only know about the emails because of the most partisan and shrill series of Congressional investigation in history (until the current Biden investigation). That's not favoritism.

Trump had actual physical documents that he intentionally retained to keep--top secret at that, still a danger to national security. We know about them not because of some partisan BS Congressional investigation, but because the National Archives was trying to get them back for a year. Any other person would have been arrested for trying to keep them. Trump had every opportunity to return those documents and refused to, deflecting request after request. Then after a subpoena he turned some over and attempted to hide the rest. When the FBI had to search his residence to finally get them, he went public with a BS claim that the documents were his, and that as president he could de-classify documents just by thinking it--nevermind that the documents weren't his in the first place, de-classified or not. 

So back the question of how you would prosecute--Trump's case looks like a slam dunk here. He willfully retained critical top secret information and waved it in front of people without clearance, and who knows what else. He willfully defied a subpoena to retain them. Now other people are also being prosecuted for helping him hide and retain evidence, and to eliminate proof thereof. That's a conspiracy, and quite beyond "reckless."