For those who think Trump has committed crimes and should be locked up.

Robo said:
Notice that leftist only provide insults and accusations. That's because they have nothing rational, honest, apparent or backed up with any evidence to provide. Most just repeat the total horseshit they watch on CNN and MSNBC.
Click to expand...




They are NPC's "orange man bad" and repeat the bullshit they hear on the news as if it's all fact, constantly disapointed but the attentionspan of a goldfish to they forget how they are being duped over and over again.


I didn't vote for trump, I find his behavior an insult to the office, policy wise I like some of what he's done, dislike much of other things he's done. That's not satisfactory to the NPC, all they know is "orange man bad" and if you say you support a particular policy or point out a factual error in a claim, suddenly you are a trump cultist.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
YOu seem mad, you should relax, it's just the internet. I know it can be frustrating but do try to keep up, NPC.


1. I didn't vote for trump.

2. you are speculating I want the code and law, as well as your evidence of the crime he committed.

3. you have a big e-mouth, do you kiss your mother with it?
Click to expand...

You are probably not even allowed to vote because you are some ex-con or on some child-molester list or something.

Educate yourself about Donald Trump's past here, and if it has you stewing in your own shit, take it up with them- not me!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
They are NPC's "orange man bad" and repeat the bullshit they hear on the news as if it's all fact, constantly disapointed but the attentionspan of a goldfish to they forget how they are being duped over and over again.


I didn't vote for trump, I find his behavior an insult to the office, policy wise I like some of what he's done, dislike much of other things he's done. That's not satisfactory to the NPC, all they know is "orange man bad" and if you say you support a particular policy or point out a factual error in a claim, suddenly you are a trump cultist.
Click to expand...

You are beginning to sound like a person trying to bullshit himself, Hound. If I had to bet on what is happening...that is the way I would bet.

Bullshitting one's self is a tough thing to do. Almost never works.

Here's the test:

Take a good long look at Donald Trump...consider his conduct both while in office and prior to being elected.

You can come away with the idea that he seems polished and classy, an upright individual, someone who could be trusted and highly unlikely to engage in any illegal activity...

...or you can come away with the idea that he seems a classless sleaze; a shady character; someone not to be trusted and likely to be the kind who would commit crimes if he thought he could get away with it.

My question at that point would be: How fucking insane AND stupid does a person have to be to choose the former rather than the latter?

Your initial question is horse shit, Hound...and by now you should know it...

...or you are the kind of person who would choose the former above.

So...which is it?
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
You are probably not even allowed to vote because you are some ex-con or on some child-molester list or something.

Educate yourself about Donald Trump's past here, and if it has you stewing in your own shit, take it up with them- not me!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
Click to expand...





You should come see me and call me a child molester to my face you scumbag. What kind of sick fuck goes that route without any evidence, kinda shows what kind of sick thinking goes on in your mind. you disgusting piece of shit.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You are beginning to sound like a person trying to bullshit himself, Hound. If I had to bet on what is happening...that is the way I would bet.

Bullshitting one's self is a tough thing to do. Almost never works.

Here's the test:

Take a good long look at Donald Trump...consider his conduct both while in office and prior to being elected.

You can come away with the idea that he seems polished and classy, an upright individual, someone who could be trusted and highly unlikely to engage in any illegal activity...

...or you can come away with the idea that he seems a classless sleaze; a shady character; someone not to be trusted and likely to be the kind who would commit crimes if he thought he could get away with it.

My question at that point would be: How fucking insane AND stupid does a person have to be to choose the former rather than the latter?

Your initial question is horse shit, Hound...and by now you should know it...

...or you are the kind of person who would choose the former above.

So...which is it?
Click to expand...




My post stands. I don't think he's any of those glowing things you suggested.
 
Once again, you provide no real evidence. Is that the cover sheet from the Talking Points referenced in the emails? Your argument would never be allowed in any court of law because it is irrelevant. Do you know what talking points are? If you want to argue that talking points are of a high enough classification that it is a crime to reveal what is in those talking points, you would be laughed out of court.

You have cited laws but you have not shown which part of the law was violated. Simply citing a law does provide not evidence of a crime. You have to show how your evidence violated that law.

1. Her server did NOT contain materials that were classified. Her server contained emails that were later determined to contain information that the government deemed classified. There is a difference.
2. You have received classified materials over a nonsecure channel? Does that mean you committed a crime? Clearly it would mean so if you are arguing Clinton did. You defeat your own argument when you admit that it isn't a crime to receive classified material over a nonsecure channel. At this point, the judge has not only dismissed the case but dismissed it with prejudice and likely imposed other sanctions on you for wasting the courts time.

Let's see if you can meet the standards required to actually charge a crime.
1. Cite the specific law.
2. Cite the part of the law that was specifically violated.
3. Present actual evidence that shows how that specific part of the law was violated.

So far you have been unable to do those 3 things together. You simply throw out random arguments that don't tie together at all. All I see is bluster and evasion on your part. No evidence of a crime but simply talking points that are not even close to a legal argument.

I will bet you can't make a coherent case for a criminal prosecution. Comey came to the conclusion there was not enough evidence to charge her and he saw evidence you don't have.
 
Robo said:
It's absolutely amazing how articulate and brilliant! Your post are so informative, interesting and educational for a 3 year old.
Click to expand...

Whoa...you are a three-year old.

I hadn't realized that.

Now I understand your posts.

I'll go easier on you.
 
Here us another example of how to show a crime has been committed.

We have testimony under oath to law enforcement that Individual-1 directed payment to 2 persons to influence the outcome of an election.
https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen...emo-d664b3a5-81ff-413a-ba3a-024d8cda1815.html
Page 11 of the charging memo.

US campaign law has several aspects.
52 U.S. Code § 30104
Requires that a campaign for President file monthly reports of expenditures. (a)3(A)
Requires that a candidate report any use of personal funds Section (a)6(A)
Requires that a campaign report any loans to the campaign (b)3(e)

252 U.S. Code § 30116
Limits contributions to $2,000 (a)1(A)
Any expenditure made in coordination or by direction of candidate is a contribution (a)7(A)



The undisputed facts are as follows:
Cohen made a payment to Stormy Daniels and coordinated another payment to McDougal.
Cohen admits those payments were to influence the election
Cohen claims those payments were made at the behest of Individual-1.
Individual-1 was a candidate for President and required to file monthly campaign reports.
Cohen was repaid at a later date for the payments he made. (This would be considered a loan under Campaign law.)
The payments to Cohen were hidden as to their true nature by claiming them as legal work that was not performed.


Likely facts:

The Trump campaign didn't report the payment to Daniels as a campaign expenditure.
The Trump campaign didn't report a loan from Cohen for the payment to Daniels.
Trump knew about the payment but didn't tell his campaign treasurer.


This leaves us with the following possible violations of Campaign finance law:

The campaign didn't report the expenditure of the payment to Daniels
The campaign accepted a donation in excess of $2,000 when Cohen made the payment.
The campaign accepted a loan from Cohen and didn't report it.


Most campaign violations, and a campaign violation is breaking the law, result in a civil fine.



However campaign finance law does allow for this:


We have the following criminal penalties found in 52 U.S. Code § 30109
(d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses
(1)
(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure—
(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both;
Click to expand...

This leaves with the following.
Cohen made payments to Daniels and McDougal.
Trump knew about the payments and likely directed that they happen.
Cohen made an illegal contribution to the campaign when he made the payments.
Trump's only defense for the crime is that he didn't knowingly or willfully commit the offense and he is willing to pay the civil penalties.

Would you care to bet on Trump not talking to anyone else about needing to keep them quiet in order to win? If I were Trump, I would be sweating that.

The facts do lead to another possible crime. The payments to Cohen may be a violation of tax law depending on how they were accounted for by the Trump organization. You can write off lawyer fees but not payments to mistresses. By claiming they were lawyers fees Trump may have committed tax fraud on $420,000 of income. I would hazard a guess that this is already being looked into as part of the ongoing investigation.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Here us another example of how to show a crime has been committed.

We have testimony under oath to law enforcement that Individual-1 directed payment to 2 persons to influence the outcome of an election.
https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen...emo-d664b3a5-81ff-413a-ba3a-024d8cda1815.html
Page 11 of the charging memo.

US campaign law has several aspects.
52 U.S. Code § 30104
Requires that a campaign for President file monthly reports of expenditures. (a)3(A)
Requires that a candidate report any use of personal funds Section (a)6(A)
Requires that a campaign report any loans to the campaign (b)3(e)

252 U.S. Code § 30116
Limits contributions to $2,000 (a)1(A)
Any expenditure made in coordination or by direction of candidate is a contribution (a)7(A)



The undisputed facts are as follows:
Cohen made a payment to Stormy Daniels and coordinated another payment to McDougal.
Cohen admits those payments were to influence the election
Cohen claims those payments were made at the behest of Individual-1.
Individual-1 was a candidate for President and required to file monthly campaign reports.
Cohen was repaid at a later date for the payments he made. (This would be considered a loan under Campaign law.)
The payments to Cohen were hidden as to their true nature by claiming them as legal work that was not performed.


Likely facts:

The Trump campaign didn't report the payment to Daniels as a campaign expenditure.
The Trump campaign didn't report a loan from Cohen for the payment to Daniels.
Trump knew about the payment but didn't tell his campaign treasurer.


This leaves us with the following possible violations of Campaign finance law:

The campaign didn't report the expenditure of the payment to Daniels
The campaign accepted a donation in excess of $2,000 when Cohen made the payment.
The campaign accepted a loan from Cohen and didn't report it.


Most campaign violations, and a campaign violation is breaking the law, result in a civil fine.



However campaign finance law does allow for this:


We have the following criminal penalties found in 52 U.S. Code § 30109


This leaves with the following.
Cohen made payments to Daniels and McDougal.
Trump knew about the payments and likely directed that they happen.
Cohen made an illegal contribution to the campaign when he made the payments.
Trump's only defense for the crime is that he didn't knowingly or willfully commit the offense and he is willing to pay the civil penalties.

Would you care to bet on Trump not talking to anyone else about needing to keep them quiet in order to win? If I were Trump, I would be sweating that.

The facts do lead to another possible crime. The payments to Cohen may be a violation of tax law depending on how they were accounted for by the Trump organization. You can write off lawyer fees but not payments to mistresses. By claiming they were lawyers fees Trump may have committed tax fraud on $420,000 of income. I would hazard a guess that this is already being looked into as part of the ongoing investigation.
Click to expand...

You are kicking some serious ass here, Richard.

Thank you for your work, research, zeal...and for choosing the correct side of matter!
 
I have some time this morning, so I am willing to point out how you have made no case with your 3 laws you claim Clinton violated in the email chain.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - requires the removal and retention of classified materials without authority before it is violated.
In order to show Clinton violated this one you would have to show she didn't have authority to receive the document she is requesting. The emails prove no such thing.
The simple fact that she is supposed to receive the document but hasn't yet makes it impossible for this law to be violated.



46 CFR 503.59 -states the following:
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.
Click to expand...
It also lists no criminal penalties for violating it. The penalties are administrative. You can't charge her in a court of law under this law. Feel free to remove her as Secretary of State.
Since the level of classification is required before you can apply this law, provide us with the classification of the document so we can examine whether the proper levels of protection were taken.
Under this law, anyone requesting that low level classified information be transferred in a non secure manner would be reprimanded. Nothing more.
You do realize that the purpose of talking points is to disclose information, don't you?
Let's look at the absurdity of the argument here. You are saying she should be charged with unauthorized disclosure of information that she has been authorized to disclose.

Let me repeat that so you can see how ridiculous your argument is under this law:
You are saying she should be charged with unauthorized disclosure of information that she has been authorized to disclose.





18 U.S. Code § 798
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
Click to expand...

Clinton is an authorized person and is asking that it be transmitted to herself since she is waiting for it. She is not asking that anything be transferred to an unauthorized person.
You should check out the wording of "knowingly and willfully" before you claim she should know it could be intercepted. Your argument she should know doesn't meet the legal standard of she did so knowingly and willfully.
The other problem here is that it requires an actual transfer. The testimony is there is no record of anything being sent by non secure means in response to the request.


And there you go. There is no crime that can be prosecuted based on that email chain. The maximum penalty is you can have her fired and her clearances revoked. Doing so would require that you act the same for every other civil employee that has a similar minor infraction. Good luck with that. Can we start with this administration since you can't fire Clinton?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I have some time this morning, so I am willing to point out how you have made no case with your 3 laws you claim Clinton violated in the email chain.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - requires the removal and retention of classified materials without authority before it is violated.
In order to show Clinton violated this one you would have to show she didn't have authority to receive the document she is requesting. The emails prove no such thing.
The simple fact that she is supposed to receive the document but hasn't yet makes it impossible for this law to be violated.



46 CFR 503.59 -states the following:

It also lists no criminal penalties for violating it. The penalties are administrative. You can't charge her in a court of law under this law. Feel free to remove her as Secretary of State.
Since the level of classification is required before you can apply this law, provide us with the classification of the document so we can examine whether the proper levels of protection were taken.
Under this law, anyone requesting that low level classified information be transferred in a non secure manner would be reprimanded. Nothing more.
You do realize that the purpose of talking points is to disclose information, don't you?
Let's look at the absurdity of the argument here. You are saying she should be charged with unauthorized disclosure of information that she has been authorized to disclose.

Let me repeat that so you can see how ridiculous your argument is under this law:
You are saying she should be charged with unauthorized disclosure of information that she has been authorized to disclose.





18 U.S. Code § 798

Clinton is an authorized person and is asking that it be transmitted to herself since she is waiting for it. She is not asking that anything be transferred to an unauthorized person.
You should check out the wording of "knowingly and willfully" before you claim she should know it could be intercepted. Your argument she should know doesn't meet the legal standard of she did so knowingly and willfully.
The other problem here is that it requires an actual transfer. The testimony is there is no record of anything being sent by non secure means in response to the request.


And there you go. There is no crime that can be prosecuted based on that email chain. The maximum penalty is you can have her fired and her clearances revoked. Doing so would require that you act the same for every other civil employee that has a similar minor infraction. Good luck with that. Can we start with this administration since you can't fire Clinton?
Click to expand...


Erudite
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I often hear people screech "Trump broke laws and should be locked up" my question is, What specific laws do you think he broke, please cite and link it, and what is your actual evidence to hold such a position. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Trump cheated on his wife, LOCK HIM UP!

Except the Senate in the 90s said it was okay for the president to cheat on his wife.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Here us another example of how to show a crime has been committed.

We have testimony under oath to law enforcement that Individual-1 directed payment to 2 persons to influence the outcome of an election.
https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen...emo-d664b3a5-81ff-413a-ba3a-024d8cda1815.html
Page 11 of the charging memo.

US campaign law has several aspects.
52 U.S. Code § 30104
Requires that a campaign for President file monthly reports of expenditures. (a)3(A)
Requires that a candidate report any use of personal funds Section (a)6(A)
Requires that a campaign report any loans to the campaign (b)3(e)

252 U.S. Code § 30116
Limits contributions to $2,000 (a)1(A)
Any expenditure made in coordination or by direction of candidate is a contribution (a)7(A)



The undisputed facts are as follows:
Cohen made a payment to Stormy Daniels and coordinated another payment to McDougal.
Cohen admits those payments were to influence the election
Cohen claims those payments were made at the behest of Individual-1.
Individual-1 was a candidate for President and required to file monthly campaign reports.
Cohen was repaid at a later date for the payments he made. (This would be considered a loan under Campaign law.)
The payments to Cohen were hidden as to their true nature by claiming them as legal work that was not performed.


Likely facts:

The Trump campaign didn't report the payment to Daniels as a campaign expenditure.
The Trump campaign didn't report a loan from Cohen for the payment to Daniels.
Trump knew about the payment but didn't tell his campaign treasurer.


This leaves us with the following possible violations of Campaign finance law:

The campaign didn't report the expenditure of the payment to Daniels
The campaign accepted a donation in excess of $2,000 when Cohen made the payment.
The campaign accepted a loan from Cohen and didn't report it.


Most campaign violations, and a campaign violation is breaking the law, result in a civil fine.



However campaign finance law does allow for this:


We have the following criminal penalties found in 52 U.S. Code § 30109


This leaves with the following.
Cohen made payments to Daniels and McDougal.
Trump knew about the payments and likely directed that they happen.
Cohen made an illegal contribution to the campaign when he made the payments.
Trump's only defense for the crime is that he didn't knowingly or willfully commit the offense and he is willing to pay the civil penalties.

Would you care to bet on Trump not talking to anyone else about needing to keep them quiet in order to win? If I were Trump, I would be sweating that.

The facts do lead to another possible crime. The payments to Cohen may be a violation of tax law depending on how they were accounted for by the Trump organization. You can write off lawyer fees but not payments to mistresses. By claiming they were lawyers fees Trump may have committed tax fraud on $420,000 of income. I would hazard a guess that this is already being looked into as part of the ongoing investigation.
Click to expand...





So you have the testimony of a person. What's intresting in your evidence is that it's lacking specifics, you may be onto something but it's not cut and dry yet. thank you though for the post, you were the only one who attempted to follow through with the spirit of this thread.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I have some time this morning, so I am willing to point out how you have made no case with your 3 laws you claim Clinton violated in the email chain.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - requires the removal and retention of classified materials without authority before it is violated.
In order to show Clinton violated this one you would have to show she didn't have authority to receive the document she is requesting. The emails prove no such thing.
The simple fact that she is supposed to receive the document but hasn't yet makes it impossible for this law to be violated.



46 CFR 503.59 -states the following:

It also lists no criminal penalties for violating it. The penalties are administrative. You can't charge her in a court of law under this law. Feel free to remove her as Secretary of State.
Since the level of classification is required before you can apply this law, provide us with the classification of the document so we can examine whether the proper levels of protection were taken.
Under this law, anyone requesting that low level classified information be transferred in a non secure manner would be reprimanded. Nothing more.
You do realize that the purpose of talking points is to disclose information, don't you?
Let's look at the absurdity of the argument here. You are saying she should be charged with unauthorized disclosure of information that she has been authorized to disclose.

Let me repeat that so you can see how ridiculous your argument is under this law:
You are saying she should be charged with unauthorized disclosure of information that she has been authorized to disclose.





18 U.S. Code § 798

Clinton is an authorized person and is asking that it be transmitted to herself since she is waiting for it. She is not asking that anything be transferred to an unauthorized person.
You should check out the wording of "knowingly and willfully" before you claim she should know it could be intercepted. Your argument she should know doesn't meet the legal standard of she did so knowingly and willfully.
The other problem here is that it requires an actual transfer. The testimony is there is no record of anything being sent by non secure means in response to the request.


And there you go. There is no crime that can be prosecuted based on that email chain. The maximum penalty is you can have her fired and her clearances revoked. Doing so would require that you act the same for every other civil employee that has a similar minor infraction. Good luck with that. Can we start with this administration since you can't fire Clinton?
Click to expand...





You have one huge problem.


What is a "SCIF"?

You cannot recieve classified information and store it on a NONSECURE system. You can't get around this.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Irony, thy name is Reverend_Hellh0und.

That lacks so many specifics, it wouldn't even make it past the courthouse janitor.
Click to expand...




This was done on purpose so you can do an intellectual exercise to see why you missed a key point in your argument.


If I recieve an item that is classified on my nonsecure system there is a specific protocol to safeguard and report the incident.


for some of the top secret items she handled she needed to be in a scif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Information_Facility

for the documents marked "Secret" and below, there are certain protocols and safeguards for such information and even a private network for the transmission of such:
https://www.disa.mil/Network-Services/Data/Secret-IP



and I will end this post with a question. You have all the laws.


Is it a felony or not to keep and store classified information on a NONSECURE server?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top