4 ms·

This is precisely what a certain presidential candidate wants you to think, they want you to be completely disillusioned with the system and assume it's beyond

This is precisely what a certain presidential candidate wants you to think, they want you to be completely disillusioned with the system and assume it's beyond replacement, but in reality it's not that muddy and cases involving mishandling documents are routinely successfully tried.

zozbot234 3y ago
[flagged]
- ahiknsr 3y ago
  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cummings-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trumps-private-emails-texts-raise-security-concerns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cummings-jared-kushner... like this?
- oneplane 3y ago
  You conflate malice with sloppiness. Out of the American government people there were at least 4 high-profile cases in which 3 of the perps were transparent and compliant, and one wasn't. It does make a significant difference. Trying to make secured email as significant as physically moving many boxes with many documents many times on purpose is a bad flame bait on your part.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Would also note that “sensitive” and SCIF classified are miles apart in terms of legal treatment.
- wredue 3y ago
  The “whataboutism” that’s a standard “defence”, because you believe that people who support clinton must also believe she is above the law, as you believe a different certain candidate is above the law. Nobody believes that. Charges were not laid against Clinton for a myriad of reasons that do not apply to the other candidate. There is no “whatabout”. A current certain presidential candidate wilfully sold classified secrets to another country. That didn’t happen on the other candidates email server.
  - vuln 3y ago
    > A current certain presidential candidate wilfully sold classified secrets to another country. Do you have proof to back this up?
lliamander 3y ago
Hypothetically, let us assume Trump had gone through the effort to declassify these documents explicitly. Would he have been successful? What authority would anyone have to stop him? Would there be any legal grounds to charge after leaving office?
- clipsy 3y ago
  Yes, None, and No. But he didn't, so too bad.
  - lliamander 3y ago
    > But he didn't, so too bad. In medieval Iceland, you could be declared an outlaw (effectively a death sentence) for all sorts of reasons, including presenting your case before a jury of the incorrect number of people. Such harsh punishment for a procedural error probably strikes most people today as bizarre and excessive. What you have conceded is that Trump isn't actually being prosecuted for doing anything with the documents, or even for having them, but for simply failing to place the proper rubber stamp on them before taking them. How exactly do you expect this to play out in the courts, or in public opinion? Do you really think they care about this kind of thing when politicians blatantly mishandle classified documents all the time, without serious repercussion.

zozbot234 3y ago

[flagged]

ahiknsr 3y ago
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cummings-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trumps-private-emails-texts-raise-security-concerns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cummings-jared-kushner... like this?
oneplane 3y ago
You conflate malice with sloppiness. Out of the American government people there were at least 4 high-profile cases in which 3 of the perps were transparent and compliant, and one wasn't. It does make a significant difference. Trying to make secured email as significant as physically moving many boxes with many documents many times on purpose is a bad flame bait on your part.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Would also note that “sensitive” and SCIF classified are miles apart in terms of legal treatment.
wredue 3y ago
The “whataboutism” that’s a standard “defence”, because you believe that people who support clinton must also believe she is above the law, as you believe a different certain candidate is above the law. Nobody believes that. Charges were not laid against Clinton for a myriad of reasons that do not apply to the other candidate. There is no “whatabout”. A current certain presidential candidate wilfully sold classified secrets to another country. That didn’t happen on the other candidates email server.
- vuln 3y ago
  > A current certain presidential candidate wilfully sold classified secrets to another country. Do you have proof to back this up?

lliamander 3y ago

Hypothetically, let us assume Trump had gone through the effort to declassify these documents explicitly. Would he have been successful? What authority would anyone have to stop him? Would there be any legal grounds to charge after leaving office?

clipsy 3y ago
Yes, None, and No. But he didn't, so too bad.
- lliamander 3y ago
  > But he didn't, so too bad. In medieval Iceland, you could be declared an outlaw (effectively a death sentence) for all sorts of reasons, including presenting your case before a jury of the incorrect number of people. Such harsh punishment for a procedural error probably strikes most people today as bizarre and excessive. What you have conceded is that Trump isn't actually being prosecuted for doing anything with the documents, or even for having them, but for simply failing to place the proper rubber stamp on them before taking them. How exactly do you expect this to play out in the courts, or in public opinion? Do you really think they care about this kind of thing when politicians blatantly mishandle classified documents all the time, without serious repercussion.