How can it raise the possibility of something that it doesn't even mention?
Top secret documents
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
Did Donald Trump really bring nuclear secrets to Mar-a-Lago?
Donald Trump spent much of his term mishandling classified information, including nuclear-related information. But now, the story is vastly worse.I tested your theory, but hell. It was proven incorrect with the title. Didn't even need to go further.
The Results, @DANC is your daddy.
Literally every piece of information about nuclear weapons is born classified by operation of statute.
Do you guys really not have the ability to distinguish between the words "secret" and "code?"
Both of you are playing stupid (I’m being nice by giving you the benefit of the doubt). The only mention of “nuclear codes” was a quote of someone who they imply is joking (quipped):
“I think short of the nuclear codes being written on these documents locked behind closed doors, I just really don’t understand how a document can warrant this kind of warrant,” Dana Perino quipped on The Five earlier this week.
Nuclear secrets and nuclear codes are not the same thing. Credible sources reported “nuclear secrets” while Twitter twits, bad faith posters, and those attempting to joke said “nuclear codes.”
Would Nuke Codes be, Secret?
This is why the Trump apologists ran with the idea that the documents contained nuclear codes, “if they’re changed daily what’s the big deal?” Very poor attempt at a defense.
Again, nuclear secrets isn't necessarily nuclear codes. Follow the conversation if you are going to butt in.
You obsess over 'nuclear codes' but ignore the 'nuclear secrets' talk.
I believe nuclear codes are secret. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
You're doubling down on stupid too. Of course, nuclear codes (actually, they'd be nuclear launch codes) are Top Secret (not Secret) and that's not the point. The point is that no reputable or credible source said the nuclear related classified documents contained nuclear launch codes. Only Twitter twits, easily duped Trump defenders and jokesters made that claim or speculated that they did. It was obviously motivated by some very lame idea that it was a defense for Trump. It wasn't and isn't.
Not only that, but most of the first reporting did not simply offer vague claims about nuclear "secrets." They specifically reported that sources claimed some of the documents involved information about "nuclear weapons." Shortly after the reporting started, other outlets added the detail that the documents in question reportedly covered intelligence about the nuclear capabilities of another nation.
The obsession with codes is all on your end. No one is disputing the reporting about nuclear secrets. It's your continued insistence that this somehow equates to nuclear codes that is unsupportable, and also the only reason this argument even exists.
Yes. Codes are secret. But they didn't say codes. They said secrets.
Nuclear secrets doesn't necessarily mean codes.
My guess is that they went around the process or didn't follow it. We have a very tight process where I work. I can find out who has seen every classified document and if it's printed I can see where it is.
Yes, HRC, Biden, Pence and Trump all went around the process. At the very least they all meet the "grossly negligent" threshold for breaking the law. HRC's case set the precedent that it wouldn't be prosecuted, and I think that is an outrage. Biden, Pence and Trump will only face criminal charges (or impeachment in Biden's case) if there is more to the mishandling than what is known. Meuller said "intent" was required, so if any of them intentionally took those classified documents than we might see charges or impeachment. In Trump's case, we also have what appears to be a clear case of obstruction of justice as well, but we'll have to see what the investigation finds.
HRC had a server installed … is that enough intent?
My view on the case is well known. First, that was a big mistake and an example of "do as I say, not as I do" piss-poor leadership because she officially informed the entire State Department that they would do their business via their official State email accounts, and of course, that would be only unclassified business. Second, SOMEONE intentionally put the Top Secret/SAP information into an email that ended up on her server because SAP information is never allowed out of a secure facility. Also, someone intentionally cut and pasted some classified information into an email that ended up on her server because it still had the classification paragraph markings on it. My guess is that those people were among the many of her staffers that were given immunity in exchange for the cooperation with the investigation.
I'm on record as saying she should have been charged. Mueller's report basically found her guilty of "gross negligence," but he used the term "recklessly careless" if I recall correctly, and claimed (incorrectly, because I know of military cases) that no one would be prosecuted without "intent" and claimed HRC had no intent to mishandle classified information.
Of course not.... that was done so she could have control of it and delete what she didn't want public. Anyone would know she's gonna get classified stuff in her email.
That defense isn’t a good one. By the time she was SecState, government policy was clear and it was rare to use a private email for government business. It could be done when it wasn’t possible to access your government email, but the SOP is to CC your government account for the record. By the way HRC never had an unclassified government email account. There is NO defense for that. Of course it was never OK to send classified information except on the SIPR system.
Someone posted it on Facebook so I had to track it down and use it.
Actually, she shouldn't have. Even if she used her State account, she shouldn't have received classified info through it.
It's perfect. Of course there are several, that are too young to appreciate, to me it's got "ballz" all over it! Love it!
Hmmmm . . . . my understanding is that "grossly negligent" means that someone behaves so wantonly, so recklessly, so negligently, as to have no regard for the consequences of one's actions, i.e., to have virtually intended the result, such as when a kid is playing with a gun that's in mum's purse. The mum is responsible/liable for the kid's use of the gun . . . . Is that correct, in your understanding?
Mueller short-handed that to say that grossly negligent means something has to have been intentional . . . I've seen that done before.
How does that apply here? Depends on the facts . . . I dunno whether any of those who've had government secrets have violated the "grossly negligent" standard. It's a pretty high bar though . . . the result of merely letting loose of the information wouldn't be sufficient despite our outrage . . . .
Latest posts
-
-
Pacers take it to Milwaukee tonight tie the series 1-1
- Latest: TomEric4756
-
-
-