|
|
Post by lordofthethighs on Aug 23, 2022 13:08:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofthethighs on Aug 27, 2022 1:10:07 GMT -5
can the OP look any dumber?
“The National Archives and the Justice Department tried and failed repeatedly for more than a year and a half to retrieve classified and sensitive documents from former President Donald Trump before resorting to a search of his Mar-a-Lago property this month,” the New York Times reports.
“The documents, including an unsealed, redacted version of an affidavit from the Justice Department requesting a warrant to conduct the search, make clear the lengths to which the government went before pursuing a law enforcement action to recover the material.”
“Here’s a timeline of the events that led to the search.”
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofthethighs on Aug 27, 2022 1:10:48 GMT -5
Crickets from the "lock her up" crowd:
“They risk imprisonment or death stealing the secrets of their own governments. Their identities are among the most closely protected information inside American intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Losing even one of them can set back American foreign intelligence operations for years,” the New York Times reports.
“Clandestine human sources are the lifeblood of any espionage service. This helps explain the grave concern within American agencies that information from undercover sources was included in some of the classified documents recently removed from Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump — raising the prospect that the sources could be identified if the documents got into the wrong hands.”
|
|
|
|
Post by VoodooMedicineMan on Aug 28, 2022 9:20:38 GMT -5
Crickets from the "lock her up" crowd: “They risk imprisonment or death stealing the secrets of their own governments. Their identities are among the most closely protected information inside American intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Losing even one of them can set back American foreign intelligence operations for years,” the New York Times reports. “Clandestine human sources are the lifeblood of any espionage service. This helps explain the grave concern within American agencies that information from undercover sources was included in some of the classified documents recently removed from Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump — raising the prospect that the sources could be identified if the documents got into the wrong hands.” LOL, and how about the hypocrisy coming from the left and the media? When Hilary nonchalantly shoots out emails on a private server containing information designated as "Top Secret", it's no big deal. We're told the government hands out those designations like Tylenol. Viewing it as anything more was just Russian propaganda being spread to influence an election. Now that big bad orange man is in possession of classified documents... Well, suddenly those same sources that had downplayed the significance of classified information are singing a whole different tune. Queue the hyperbole ^^^. Even though they were locked in a safe, in a building guarded by the secret service. They'll just gloss over that part since it doesn't fit their narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by redvers76 on Aug 28, 2022 15:37:31 GMT -5
Quite the safe to fit 15 boxes worth!
(As a right-pondian, if Hilary did something wrong then she should be locked up. Our esteemed members of parliament use secret WhatsApp groups and their own personal email addresses to avoid the “freedom of information” legislation)
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofthethighs on Sept 3, 2022 15:49:32 GMT -5
Crickets from the "lock her up" crowd: “They risk imprisonment or death stealing the secrets of their own governments. Their identities are among the most closely protected information inside American intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Losing even one of them can set back American foreign intelligence operations for years,” the New York Times reports. “Clandestine human sources are the lifeblood of any espionage service. This helps explain the grave concern within American agencies that information from undercover sources was included in some of the classified documents recently removed from Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump — raising the prospect that the sources could be identified if the documents got into the wrong hands.” LOL, and how about the hypocrisy coming from the left and the media? When Hilary nonchalantly shoots out emails on a private server containing information designated as "Top Secret", it's no big deal. We're told the government hands out those designations like Tylenol. Viewing it as anything more was just Russian propaganda being spread to influence an election. Now that big bad orange man is in possession of classified documents... Well, suddenly those same sources that had downplayed the significance of classified information are singing a whole different tune. Queue the hyperbole ^^^. Even though they were locked in a safe, in a building guarded by the secret service. They'll just gloss over that part since it doesn't fit their narrative.
Um what narrative is that?
oe Conason: “As more and more evidence of the former president’s reckless and potentially criminal misconduct comes to light, he and his defenders keep pointing to ‘her emails.’ They insist that because the Justice Department declined prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after a long and thorough probe of how she handled allegedly classified information, there should be no investigation, let alone indictment or conviction of Trump.”
“But while we don’t yet know the extent or nature of Trump’s abuse of classified documents, we can determine how many were found by investigators, after exhaustive searches, among Clinton’s thousands of State Department emails.”
“The accurate and definitive answer is zero – although few if any news outlets have informed the public of that startling fact. Moreover, it is a fact that the Trump administration itself confirmed three years ago.”
And then there's this:
Intelligent people usually know better
|
|
|
|
Post by VoodooMedicineMan on Sept 3, 2022 20:03:51 GMT -5
Um what narrative is that? oe Conason: “As more and more evidence of the former president’s reckless and potentially criminal misconduct comes to light, he and his defenders keep pointing to ‘her emails.’ They insist that because the Justice Department declined prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after a long and thorough probe of how she handled allegedly classified information, there should be no investigation, let alone indictment or conviction of Trump.”
“But while we don’t yet know the extent or nature of Trump’s abuse of classified documents, we can determine how many were found by investigators, after exhaustive searches, among Clinton’s thousands of State Department emails.”
“The accurate and definitive answer is zero – although few if any news outlets have informed the public of that startling fact. Moreover, it is a fact that the Trump administration itself confirmed three years ago.” And then there's this: Intelligent people usually know better Seriously, whataboutism? Who was the first one to allude to the Hilary situation again? HINT HINT, it's the same poster who repeatedly threw childish insults at petertherock and brags about his intelligence and being able to read.  As for the 'oe Conason' quotes, talk about spin. You insult others for being gullible then lap that shit up. There were 22 emails the State Department designated as "Top Secret", and over 1600 'Classified'. Now they weren't specifically labeled as such at the time, but look at any company or groups privacy policies. How many state information isn't sensitive unless specified? No, it's the exact opposite, assume everything is sensitive. Good old 'oe Conason' covering for Hilary. Nothing to see there, zero classified emails! From the same article; Hilary's argument was that none of them were designated as 'Classified' at the time, and blamed bureaucrats for overclassification. Sounds a lot like what the other side is saying now. There is spin from both sides. Everyone has their biases, but I'd like to see the media at least attempt to be fair and consistent. |
|
