Trump,Kushner sued to prevent destruction of official Gov't. records.

"Be known to" is not proof or knowledge either. Besides there is no carte blanche restriction on what the documents a president can tear up or discard. It seems that when it is about getting Trump you guys do not give a rat's ass about the law or standard legal practices.

 

Please provide a reference.

 

Not only is it known for an absolute certainty Trump has destroyed documents, the link I provided describes in great detail such actions are illegal.

The following is from a link I posted earlier in the thread.

"By adopting a policy that allows White House personnel to capture and preserve only portions of electronic messages they send or receive on unofficial messaging accounts, the White House is permitting the loss and destruction of Presidential record material."

Violations of document preservation law are being conducted as a matter of WH policy. GOT IT?

 

The way this usually works is I provide evidence (you never do) and you contradict it with no factual support for your contradiction. More or less like.................

 

You realize that statement, even if true, does not actually prove they did anything illegal in spite of your claims to the contrary?

 

You are twisting words. Hillary was not exonerated by anybody.

 

I saw nothing in your link that showed any illegality of what, if any, documents that Trump might have been destroyed.

 

The way it works is you usually provide evidence of your opinion.

 

Well, that will be determined by a judge. But it's most certainly worth trying. My point is that this President* is most certainly the one who might very well just destroy the documents. I don't know... but it sounds to me that the purpose of this is not to get the judge to grant the lawsuit. Because it's already illegal to destroy official documents. Probably it's just to have a record of the fact that the documents exist.

 

I'm not twisting words. She was exonerated of any criminal liability. Nobody has been investigated as many times, with the final report finding no crime. And these investigations went very deep. Some of them lasted years. Most of them by Republicans. To me that means she was exonerated. If you can name anybody in history who has had this many investigations on such diverse matters, and was found to have committed no crime, do let us know.

Otherwise, in the eyes of History, she could be certified as the most honest politician that has ever existed.

 

Not really. The FBI IG investigated and determined that she mishandled classified material. Comey said she was grossly negligent which is a felony. Strzok changed it to extremely careless. The report did not find her "not guilty". There is nothing that says she could not still be indicted.

 

I was appalled when Comey said that anyone else in the exact same circumstance would be prosecuted. It's utterly disgusting how she gets treated like a queen.

 

Your response has nothing to do with my post. Read again.

 

Read it again. There is nothing preventing her from being charged and indicted.

 

When did Comey say this?

 

It has not been said, but it should be apparent to anyone who has watched politics for the last ten years or so. We don't really want to send ex-presidents or wives or children of ex-presidents to prison. There are several reasons for this.

For one thing you will be mixing people with a lot of classified information in with some people fully capable of exploiting that information. Additionally, no matter how you try to justify it, it comes off as a political hit job.

I have mixed emotions about it. I hate to see them get off, but I can also see the down side.

This has become a time honored unspoken tradition in the US. Once that tradition is shattered, there will be consequences. Virtually every high public elected official will be charged. The republicans power may be somewhat limited come January, but that will change in a few years and they will go after democrats with a vengeance. I doubt that Biden, Hilary or Obama would be off limits. Just investigating Trump after he leaves office will open the door for those investigations to extend to Obama, Biden and Hilary.

 

"Comey has said that he could not find anyone else who had been prosecuted for such a thing, but then added after clearing Hillary that this is not to say everyone in the government can do this or that they would not prosecute someone else for the same thing. Comey said,“[O]ur judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Comey presented a scathing rebuke of Hillary’s conduct that anyone else would have certainly been indicted for"
Comey Delivers Scathing Rebuke of Hillary But Says No Indictment | Armstrong Economics

 

July 5, 2016

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

Trump did. In fact, he was desperate. Still she was exonerated of any criminal liability time and time again.

Just yet another matter in which Trump made a fool of himself.

 

As I said before. Not really. She was not charged. There is nothing which says she cannot be charged and indicted.

 

That quote does not equal your declaration but let's address it anyhow.

Let me clarify this for you as I see this misconception from nearly all Trump supporters. The FBI determined a prosecutor would not take this as a criminal case. What you quoted. "...To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions..." Note security and administrative sanctions, not criminal.

This means she could punished by the Department for breaking policy. Much like you or I would be punished for looking at porn on a work computer. They will employ security and or administrative sanctions. For example revoke security clearance or a formal reprimand or even fired but they certainly won't refer a person to police for doing that.

Make sense?

 

Isn't there any kind of statute of limitations???Hillary last worked for the Federal government in February 2013 ??

 

LOL for thinking I'm a Trump supporter. I can loathe Trump and Clinton at the same time.

Either way you look at it, she faced no consequences. You and I would have had the book thrown at us.

 

I never said you were a Trump supporter. I stated nearly all Trump supporters have this misconception. Admittedly I can see the inference.

Nonetheless ultimately you do not know if we would have the book thrown at us. You are postulating.

Let me postulate in return. If everybody in the government who had ever used a private server for government emails, top secret material or not, had the book thrown at them, who would be left to govern?

 

The entire thing is so fishy. Our Secretary of State said she didn't know what classified meant.

I doubt very much that most of our government officials are sending top secret information through gmail.