So Biden has records from his Senate years and when found 15 years later someone looks and say hey these are classified ; they weren't classified when he took them but they are now. How does that work?
Jan 6th- the insurrection!
- Thread starter CUSP82
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
I believe if a Senator becomes aware of documents in their possession becoming classified, they would have to be returned. The likelihood of a member of Congress learning that new information is pretty slim, I’d guess. If he was not aware at the time he took them, no crime would have been committed. Once NARA requests the return of the documents, as long as they’re returned, no crime is committed. Perhaps if it turned out that any of them were classified Top Secret (I’m pretty sure the few that were classified were merely “Confidential”), the outcome would have been different.
So what you're telling me is that smart people that have been in the government for a long time as they are reading a document marked or not don't realize this is some pretty important stuff and maybe not for public view. So you can hide behind ignorance. Now Clinton as SOS carried out all her business as SOS on a home unsecured server and nothing an SOS does is important or not for public view? Really?
It is a crime to remove classified material from it's setting; I don't know if here are different rules for Presidents and VP's. Many a military man or civilians working with classified stuff have gone to jail for mishandling stuff whether intentional or not.
According to an FBI whistleblower who recently told Congress that the FBI had more than enough to charge Hillary but a decision was made by some higher up to not pursue it; I guess they were too busy going after Trump and Russia. So it seems who you are determines if you committed a crime or not.
According to an FBI whistleblower who recently told Congress that the FBI had more than enough to charge Hillary but a decision was made by some higher up to not pursue it; I guess they were too busy going after Trump and Russia. So it seems who you are determines if you committed a crime or not.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
Not exactly. Like I said before, it is a crime to knowingly mishandle classified documents. You’re being obtuse. I didn’t write the law - I’m just citing it. In fact, there are some cases when, if a classified document is someone’s possession and it’s classified for national security reasons, they can still hold it in their possession. You’re incorrect to simply say that it’s a crime to remove classified material. Check out the FRA and the PRA. There are plenty of circumstance under which someone is authorized to remove classified material. The whistleblower’s opinion is not fact or law. In fact, it was just plain incorrect. Look… like I said, I’m no H. Clinton fan or Biden fan or anyone… And if they committed a crime I’d raise my hand in favor of harsh prosecution. But they didn’t and all of your claims that they did are just factually incorrect.
On what basis, what info do you know that the whisltleblower in this case may not be telling the truth? There seems to be many coming forth with I find troubling as an American. These people that are coming forward are not the annonymous source stuff people used to vilify Trump. These are government people, FBI, IRS people and they know the rules. Lying to Congress is a crime so why would so many of them risk jail to say untruths? That would be stupid would it not? I don't care what ax you may have to grind but it ain't worth going to jail over unless it's true. Selective prosecution, slow walking, flat out stopping investigations, allegations of bribery affecting the president; that's serious stuff. Why risk the backlash and legal problems? Why so many?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
You’re right. I don’t know for fact that the whistleblower (we’re talking about Stryzok, I presume) is incorrect. I absolutely believe he was, though, based on the known facts of the case and that even the IG who reviewed the investigation found nothing there. I do not for one second believe that the FBI has evidence that would prove Clinton committed a crime but have chosen to ignore it. They have zero incentive to do so and many incentives to not cover something like that up. Nor do I believe they could hide it from the IG or that the IG is complicit in a cover up. That’s all just conspiracy theory conjecture.
The whistleblowers I am referring to are the current ones speaking to Congress now. At least one of them said they had enough dirt but was told to, in a sense drop it. They weren't going there and didn't want to influence an election.
Funny thing about the FBI; they didn't find much when they investigated Watergate. Now Woodword and Bernstein interviewed many of the same people the FBI did. When they asked a question and got an incriminating answer they asked the person being interviewed if they told that to the FBI. When the person said they didn't they asked why not. The answer was always the same; the FBI never asked them that question.
It seems like in that case the FBI could investigate but not really investigate. Simply don't ask the right questions. Had those reporters not asked the right questions and WaPo not publish it Nixon never would have resigned.
Could that be the case with Hillary and what's going on now with the Bidens? It very well could be but without the media getting it out to the people no one knows or cares. What the House is investigating with all these whistleblowers seems serious enough to impartially investigate and find the truth. The democrats and the media doesn't want any part of it. If you're so sure your guy did nothing wrong what could be better than to investigate and be found squeeky clean.
Funny thing about the FBI; they didn't find much when they investigated Watergate. Now Woodword and Bernstein interviewed many of the same people the FBI did. When they asked a question and got an incriminating answer they asked the person being interviewed if they told that to the FBI. When the person said they didn't they asked why not. The answer was always the same; the FBI never asked them that question.
It seems like in that case the FBI could investigate but not really investigate. Simply don't ask the right questions. Had those reporters not asked the right questions and WaPo not publish it Nixon never would have resigned.
Could that be the case with Hillary and what's going on now with the Bidens? It very well could be but without the media getting it out to the people no one knows or cares. What the House is investigating with all these whistleblowers seems serious enough to impartially investigate and find the truth. The democrats and the media doesn't want any part of it. If you're so sure your guy did nothing wrong what could be better than to investigate and be found squeeky clean.
Until the actual dirt is presented, it isn’t worth much. If he has the dirt, why has he not made it public? That would force an investigation. In the case of Trump and classified documents, the prosecutor and the FBI have the evidence in hand. However, be that as it may, the potential investigation into the sharing of national security information with unauthorized individuals (actually seen on tape) at Trump’s NJ golf club could be the straw to break the orange camel’s back. Also, Trump’s deputy campaign manager has now been implicated in organizing the fake electors plot. Seems Trump’s Teflon has started to wear off.
Stop with Trump; that's a separate dog and pony show. What we have in the House right now are 2 separate investigations complete with FBI and IRS people saying funny things went on and need to be looked at. IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapely Jr ( the guys got to be important with that title), a man who oversaw the IRS probe into Hunter said the IRS obtained a WhatsApp message July 2017 where Hunter is pressuring some Chinese guy (Henry Zhao) to pay up and his father was sitting right next to him so he better hear back soon, basically a threat. Shouldn't something like that be looked at? Maybe Hunter was just blowing smoke up the guys ass but shouldn't people look to see if it's true?
You have the other whistleblower who said Joe took a bribe and the FBI had a report to that effect and when no investigation occurred he went to Congress and told people there.
There seems to be all kinds of people, FBI and IRS saying that things were not done according to the rules. Why not take a look.
Now Trump had to prove innocence, especially with Russian collusion. There were no facts, mostly made up stuff by his political opponent. Here you have agents, documents,emails, LLC's with lots of money going around; you mean that's not enough dirt to look at?
You have the other whistleblower who said Joe took a bribe and the FBI had a report to that effect and when no investigation occurred he went to Congress and told people there.
There seems to be all kinds of people, FBI and IRS saying that things were not done according to the rules. Why not take a look.
Now Trump had to prove innocence, especially with Russian collusion. There were no facts, mostly made up stuff by his political opponent. Here you have agents, documents,emails, LLC's with lots of money going around; you mean that's not enough dirt to look at?
You have Republicans controlling the House Investigation Committees. If they have the documents and e-mails you mentioned showing evidence of illegal activities, why are they not making them public Transferring money among LLCs is not illegal. You need to present evidence the transfers were made in furtherance of illegal activity. So far, such evidence has not been presented. You need to ask Jim Jorden and Jim Comer why the investigations have not produced the results you are hoping for. Perhaps they have been distracted by Green and Boebert cat fighting and calling each other little bitches.
They have made them public but the news you watch doesn't cover them because it makes it look really bad for Biden.
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer released a 65-page memo detailing a sprawling investigation into Biden, particularly his son Hunter.Nowhere in the massive document was there a specific allegation,not to mention evidence, of a crime committed by Biden or any of his relatives.
Do you have a source showing evidence of a crime committed by Biden?
Do you have a source showing evidence of a crime committed by Biden?
I could be wrong but I think the purpose of the investigation is to see if there is or isn't any wrong doing. It would be nice if it were biparitisan but democrats don't seem to want to help.
I am sure the Democrats would help if evidence of illegal activity.was presented. However, Democrats, like Republicans, do not have any incentive to dig up evidence implicating their party leaders in questionable activity. That’s the responsibility of Jorden and Comey.
Let's look at the big picture for a moment. If these allegations or statements made to Congress by these guys who are all FBI and IRS people, if some of what they said is true than it seriously undermines the integrity of the Hunter Biden investigation.These whistleblowers allege that searches were blocked, questions limited, even people the agents wanted to question were put off limits. If that is the case then you do not have justice but rather preferential treatment and that is a threat to not only the rule of law but to democracy as well. These people making these statement know that if they are found false they will be prosecuted, especially by a DOJ that is not operating honestly. There are legitimate questions that need to be answered; why wasn't it a complete investigation and if found to be biased who made the decision to put things off limits to the investigators.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 103
The key to all of that is the "if" part. So far there has been no evidence presented whatsoever to support any of the allegations so the whole "Ya, but what if..." stuff is simply a response to being unhappy about the outcome. Why on earth would the DOJ be operating dishonestly? Why do you not trust the IG, who thoroughly reviewed the investigation? The answer can't be, "Because I think that the Biden's and Clinton's are crooked, therefore there must be a cover up". What evidence is there and what reason is there to cover it up?
The IG has not looked into any of this material as of yet. What is wrong with simply asking questions and maybe getting an answer? We can ask any question about a Trump and demand an answer and if no answer is given then he's guilty but not for a Biden?
