djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2024 11:32:07 GMT -5
they did the biding of Trump. there will be no verdict before the election.
the good news is that there may be a verdict before January 6th.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,717
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 1, 2024 11:42:53 GMT -5
they did the biding of Trump. there will be no verdict before the election. the good news is that there may be a verdict before January 6th. Will that change anything?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2024 11:45:01 GMT -5
they did the biding of Trump. there will be no verdict before the election. the good news is that there may be a verdict before January 6th. Will that change anything? you know what? it might. this situation is unprecedented and fluid, thyme. i can't predict that tertiary outcome. i can't even predict the proximate one.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,717
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 1, 2024 12:50:40 GMT -5
Will that change anything? you know what? it might. this situation is unprecedented and fluid, thyme. i can't predict that tertiary outcome. i can't even predict the proximate one. But if he is elected, there is nothing to say he can’t be president from jail. I guess the Republicans could grow some balls - but that is a lot of balls to grow, when in the past 8 years they have done nothing but lose balls. The only ones who haven’t lost their balls are the ones who have been exiled.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,218
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 1, 2024 13:11:47 GMT -5
The Republicans gave the party up to trump in 2016 when he threatened to run as an independent if they didn't pick him. They knew Hillary would win with a split republican vote. Now they have no choice but to back his lies. He may win, and we will suffer, but survive. But what will the decimated GOP do next?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,445
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 1, 2024 14:40:24 GMT -5
you know what? it might. this situation is unprecedented and fluid, thyme. i can't predict that tertiary outcome. i can't even predict the proximate one. But if he is elected, there is nothing to say he can’t be president from jail. I guess the Republicans could grow some balls - but that is a lot of balls to grow, when in the past 8 years they have done nothing but lose balls. The only ones who haven’t lost their balls are the ones who have been exiled. Can you be president if your security clearance was removed because you can’t be trusted with state secrets ?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,168
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2024 14:49:00 GMT -5
But if he is elected, there is nothing to say he can’t be president from jail. I guess the Republicans could grow some balls - but that is a lot of balls to grow, when in the past 8 years they have done nothing but lose balls. The only ones who haven’t lost their balls are the ones who have been exiled. Can you be president if your security clearance was removed because you can’t be trusted with state secrets ? Yes, voters grant the President clearance automatically.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,717
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 1, 2024 15:14:19 GMT -5
But if he is elected, there is nothing to say he can’t be president from jail. I guess the Republicans could grow some balls - but that is a lot of balls to grow, when in the past 8 years they have done nothing but lose balls. The only ones who haven’t lost their balls are the ones who have been exiled. Can you be president if your security clearance was removed because you can’t be trusted with state secrets ? Has Trump ever passed a security clearance before? I think they just gave it to him. I don’t think any of his kids (including Kushner) got any scrutiny either.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,218
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Jul 1, 2024 15:20:01 GMT -5
The president automatically gets a security clearance even if he'd fail under the normal process. IDT trump would ever have qualified for a clearance due to his previous connections and comments. The bragging, showing documents, comments like "I could show you" make me sick. I held a secret clearance from high school graduation until retirement due to my college co-op job, Navy and civilian job. His actions would have resulted in his clearance being pulled if he wasn't president.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,756
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2024 15:25:26 GMT -5
"But Hilary's emails!"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 1, 2024 17:20:34 GMT -5
The Republicans gave the party up to trump in 2016 when he threatened to run as an independent if they didn't pick him. They knew Hillary would win with a split republican vote. Now they have no choice but to back his lies. He may win, and we will suffer, but survive. But what will the decimated GOP do next? here is the thing. we may be so impaired by this experience that we wished we had NOT survived. why are we CHOOSING to be an invalid?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,445
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 1, 2024 18:46:58 GMT -5
Remember how many times Hillary had to appear at GOP hearings about the emails (none of which were classified) going over her private server? Never got her on anything. But Trump and his boxes of secret documents go mingled with socks and newspapers and boxers - not a single raised eyebrow in the pack.
|
|
jerseygirl
Junior Associate
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,195
|
Post by jerseygirl on Jul 1, 2024 18:55:32 GMT -5
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,756
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 1, 2024 20:30:08 GMT -5
Do you have an opinion on the classified documents that were in Trump’s possession Only one of the 2 committed a crime with the behavior with classified documents
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,509
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 1, 2024 21:28:07 GMT -5
That's misleading. The vast majority of those were not classified at the time they were sent or received. Even your link says that most were classified retroactively. And very few of those contained markings denoting them as classified.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,445
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 3, 2024 9:20:32 GMT -5
That's misleading. The vast majority of those were not classified at the time they were sent or received. Even your link says that most were classified retroactively. And very few of those contained markings denoting them as classified. Yep. Damn her for not having ESP so she which ones would become classified, I guess. Meanwhile Trump has stuff in bright red classified envelopes spilling out of tipped over bankers boxes in his club store room with the extra rolls of toilet paper or a public club bathroom or stashed on a stage in a public ballroom where only a curtain separated them from a ball room full of guests and servers and the stray spy but none of the minions have a problem with that.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,717
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 15, 2024 12:42:11 GMT -5
Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the entire case should be thrown out because the appointment of the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith, had violated the Constitution. Her decision is sure to be appealed. www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/15/us/trump-documents-case-dismissed?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cbWas she waiting for a big enough story that this could slip through quietly? Did it take her this long to find something that she could plausibly rule? If the appeals court says her ruling was incorrect - does the case go back to her or does someone else get it? * I have tried to avoid coverage of this one, so I am out of the loop.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,594
|
Post by swamp on Jul 15, 2024 13:18:33 GMT -5
Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the entire case should be thrown out because the appointment of the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith, had violated the Constitution. Her decision is sure to be appealed. www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/15/us/trump-documents-case-dismissed?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cbWas she waiting for a big enough story that this could slip through quietly? Did it take her this long to find something that she could plausibly rule? If the appeals court says her ruling was incorrect - does the case go back to her or does someone else get it? * I have tried to avoid coverage of this one, so I am out of the loop. I believe it would go back to a different judge.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,445
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 15, 2024 13:20:26 GMT -5
Judge Dismisses Classified Documents Case Against Trump Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the entire case should be thrown out because the appointment of the special counsel who brought the case, Jack Smith, had violated the Constitution. Her decision is sure to be appealed. www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/15/us/trump-documents-case-dismissed?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cbWas she waiting for a big enough story that this could slip through quietly? Did it take her this long to find something that she could plausibly rule? If the appeals court says her ruling was incorrect - does the case go back to her or does someone else get it? * I have tried to avoid coverage of this one, so I am out of the loop. IMHO she has done her best to delay delay delay so this wouldn’t go to trial before the election. Clearly biased.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 13:26:48 GMT -5
i THINK this is probably a good thing. except in that it delays justice.
she never had any intention of prosecuting this case, and was in way over her head if she did.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 13:34:14 GMT -5
....and yet there was insufficient grounds for prosecution..... next?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 13:35:12 GMT -5
That's misleading. The vast majority of those were not classified at the time they were sent or received. Even your link says that most were classified retroactively. And very few of those contained markings denoting them as classified. Yep. Damn her for not having ESP so she which ones would become classified, I guess. Meanwhile Trump has stuff in bright red classified envelopes spilling out of tipped over bankers boxes in his club store room with the extra rolls of toilet paper or a public club bathroom or stashed on a stage in a public ballroom where only a curtain separated them from a ball room full of guests and servers and the stray spy but none of the minions have a problem with that. i can imagine him having lurid intercourse with those documents. not sure we want them back.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,445
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 15, 2024 13:50:00 GMT -5
According to an article in Salon, Jack Smith could hand the case to federal prosecutors in Florida and hope it gets assigned to a more competent judge.
Or appeal to the 11th circuit and seek a reassignment on remand.
|
|
jerseygirl
Junior Associate
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,195
|
Post by jerseygirl on Jul 15, 2024 14:06:43 GMT -5
....and yet there was insufficient grounds for prosecution..... next? Not insufficient grounds but excessively careless and no intent to deceive. No intent seemed largest factor IMO www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-systemAlthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice: In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,166
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 15, 2024 14:22:29 GMT -5
Yep. Damn her for not having ESP so she which ones would become classified, I guess. Meanwhile Trump has stuff in bright red classified envelopes spilling out of tipped over bankers boxes in his club store room with the extra rolls of toilet paper or a public club bathroom or stashed on a stage in a public ballroom where only a curtain separated them from a ball room full of guests and servers and the stray spy but none of the minions have a problem with that. i can imagine him having lurid intercourse with those documents. not sure we want them back. Or golden showering them and giving them to Putin.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,166
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 15, 2024 14:27:25 GMT -5
i THINK this is probably a good thing. except in that it delays justice. she never had any intention of prosecuting this case, and was in way over her head if she did. Agreed. Yet as I predicted b4 the 2016 election Trump would do way worse with classified docs and he did. Trump didn't bother with those little c docs that Hillary had, I think only one of them actually marked and two retroactively classified at that level. Hillary did some stupid that honestly I did not expect. Yet she did not store them in her bathroom or near public areas so people could find them while she entertained often. With foreign dignitaries and the like.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,756
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Jul 15, 2024 14:39:39 GMT -5
....and yet there was insufficient grounds for prosecution..... next? Not insufficient grounds but excessively careless and no intent to deceive. No intent seemed largest factor IMO www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-systemAlthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice: In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization. And after this whole situation, a bill was passed and Trump signed it. So it was now a crime. Not only that, Trump denied having them, claimed he declassified them, refused to give them back, signed an affidavit that he gave them all back, only to have more found, and continues to claim he had a right to them. Other than that, the cases are the same. Trump also made a bid deal about Clinton had them and she should go to jail, yet now republicans want to give him a pass. Want to be when a democrat does it, they will scream about it again?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 14:51:10 GMT -5
....and yet there was insufficient grounds for prosecution..... next? Not insufficient grounds but excessively careless and no intent to deceive. No intent seemed largest factor IMO. you say to-may-to, i say to-mah-to. the standard used is intent for documents cases. so yeah, without intent, there is not a sufficient case to bring. so, YES insufficient. it is not like the Trump DOJ didn't TRY to bring this case. they did. it failed. that should be the end of the discussion, imo. so why are we still discussing this? is there something new that has been uncovered?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,323
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2024 14:59:18 GMT -5
folks, just to remind you, this is the "official Trump lawsuit watch thread" not the "official (fill in the blank) lawsuit watch thread". if you wouldn't mind, find another thread to bring up cases that are not associated with Trump.
tyia, dj
|
|
jerseygirl
Junior Associate
Joined: May 13, 2018 7:43:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,195
|
Post by jerseygirl on Jul 15, 2024 15:49:04 GMT -5
Not insufficient grounds but excessively careless and no intent to deceive. No intent seemed largest factor IMO. you say to-may-to, i say to-mah-to. the standard used is intent for documents cases. so yeah, without intent, there is not a sufficient case to bring. so, YES insufficient. it is not like the Trump DOJ didn't TRY to bring this case. they did. it failed. that should be the end of the discussion, imo. so why are we still discussing this? is there something new that has been uncovered? I responded because you just quoted me
|
|