No.
How about you??
The damage by these documents is calculable…zero. Unless it can be shown that the information was provided to foreign countries.
You are seriously cool with people taking foreign government nuclear secrets and keeping them unsecured in a basement?
Checking. Is there any illegal act Trump could do that would be crossing a line for you?
Not at all. Clinton standard says if no nefarious intent was shown no prosecution should follow.
That doesnt mean this can’t be raised in a campaign, just as Trump used it against Hillary.
Checking. You got him committing any illegal acts??
Why in God’s name do you think Trump had them?
Library!
1 Like
For the same reason Obama wanted the national archives to set his documents aside. To document his legacy as President.
He kept…foreign government nuclear secrets…for his memoirs?
Doug…
1 Like
So, some thoughts:
1-we will probably never know what most of the documents are, never mind what is in them. Therefore, you simply can’t make this statement with any degree of certainty.
But put that aside for a moment.
2-What do you think foreign sources think about this? If they are revealed, they are in serious trouble. Prison for sure, maybe even death.
3-What do you think foreign partners think about this? If their sources or methods are revealed, that is damaging to them.
In short, why should foreign countries and agents trust that they won’t get burned? Why should they have any faith in our system and secrecy after witnessing this debacle?
And that is incalculable damage.
1 Like
The Clinton standard is a made up thing, and Garland is free to ignore it.
Yeah we know that it contained top secret nuclear intel of a foreign government that was only allowed to be seen by a few people at the highest security level.
In other words…library material!
Same thing could be said about Hillary’s incident. Maybe they are worried and maybe not, They don’t have the same political motivation to imagine the worst case scenario.
Failing to comply with a subpoena and filing a false affidavit shows nefarious intent.
1 Like
Nefarious intent to have the records is what Comey was talking about…as in selling them, for instance.
Failing to comply with a subpoena and filing a false affidavit is 100% nefarious intent.
3 Likes
Actually, Comey was just talking about intent - not “nefarious intent.”
This topic was automatically closed after reaching the maximum limit of 10000 replies. Continue discussion at Trump’s home raided by FBI agents (Part 2).
