Opinion Should it be legal for a former president to remove sensitive documents from the white house?

[Aluminati]

No, it shouldn’t. However I have a really hard time believing he is the only one to do so especially after having people like Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr/Sr with all the crap they pulled.

Clinton staffers stole all the W keys.

 

[tramendous]

That’s really a stretch to suggest it is widespread for those reasons. It really makes no sense. And less so when you are instructed to return them.

Its not. Thats why i listed several plausible reasons why someone might do it.

most former presidents weren’t thinking about reelection.

Which is less of a reason to go after them over some papers.

 

[Tireur889]

No

 

[kflo]

Its not. Thats why i listed several plausible reasons why someone might do it.



Which is less of a reason to go after them over some papers.

None of them are really plausible reasons. And just calling TS and TS/SCI information “some papers” shows you’re not really trying here.

 

[My Spot]

No.

 

[dreden1982]

Drain the swamp but let Trump do whatever he wants because I like his personality.

 

[Ichibanner]

I don't think you have really understood what the Hillary email case was about. She did NOTHING illegal. Republicans sifted through all the emails, and none of them were sensitive. Seriously - read up on the case. When I did, I was surprised that it is still being mentioned.

You're wrong, I don't know how you came to this incorrect conclusion when the info to prove otherwise exists. She put classified information out onto unclass systems / server making it available to those without the necessary clearance or "need to know". She broke US law but the FBI concluded she didn't "intend" to break the law and gave her a pass for her negligent and criminal actions. According to left-leaning Politifact:

Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of an FBI investigation found otherwise.

Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. Former FBI Director James Comey said in 2016 that Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed. In a sign of the uncertainty around classification, in 2018, a Justice Department report found that the classification markings were not clear.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/aug/09/comparing-hillary-clintons-emails-and-donald-trump/

She could have been fined or imprisoned for what she did. She broke US law whether it was though a lack of caring or ignorance as to her responsibilities in handling classified materials.

 

[Oddmonster]

You're wrong, I don't know how you came to this incorrect conclusion when the info to prove otherwise exists. She put classified information out onto unclass systems / server making it available to those without the necessary clearance or "need to know". She broke US law but the FBI concluded she didn't "intend" to break the law and gave her a pass for her negligent and criminal actions. According to left-leaning Politifact:

Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of an FBI investigation found otherwise.

Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. Former FBI Director James Comey said in 2016 that Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed. In a sign of the uncertainty around classification, in 2018, a Justice Department report found that the classification markings were not clear.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/aug/09/comparing-hillary-clintons-emails-and-donald-trump/

She could have been fined or imprisoned for what she did. She broke US law whether it was though a lack of caring or ignorance as to her responsibilities in handling classified materials.

Let me rephrase - even republicans did not find any evidence of anything they could use that would hold in court. As I said in an earlier post - she probably did it, whatever it is. She is an old ass elitist asshole, and she probably deserves jail. But there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Why the fuck is this email case so important anyways? Do you guys care that we know 100% that Ivanka and Eric Trump used unsecure communication? No? Then just....Stop.

"The Justice Department official who oversaw the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified records says there’s simply no comparing the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence to the case against the former secretary of State.

“For the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated,” he said." - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...rant-is-nothing-like-hillarys-emails-00050691

 

[Ichibanner]

Let me rephrase - even republicans did not find any evidence of anything they could use that would hold in court. As I said in an earlier post - she probably did it, whatever it is. She is an old ass elitist asshole, and she probably deserves jail. But there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Why the fuck is this email case so important anyways? Do you guys care that we know 100% that Ivanka and Eric Trump used unsecure communication? No? Then just....Stop.

"The Justice Department official who oversaw the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified records says there’s simply no comparing the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence to the case against the former secretary of State.

“For the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated,” he said." - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...rant-is-nothing-like-hillarys-emails-00050691

You said "She did NOTHING illegal". I had to point out that inaccuracy which somehow persists.

Everyone knew she would not be held accountable despite the seriousness of a data spill of classified info onto an unclassified server / system and the fact that it was in violation of US Code and punishable by fine or imprisonment.

If Hillary had "no intention" of breaking the law and got a pass due to that wording then surely the same might be said of former President Trump? Maybe the head of the FBI will give him the benefit of the doubt like they did with Hillary? Hmmmm, let's wait and see.

 

[Ichibanner]

Should it be legal to remove sensitive documents from the White House? Yes. It already is. As long as the removal is in keeping with the laws governing the removal, carry, and storage of such materials.

If the items are removed illegally, carried illegally, and not secured in accordance with NSA guidelines or such then an investigation needs to be conducted and those responsible need to held accountable no matter which political party they belong to or how you feel about them personally.

 

[Jballer]

Original Bush took playing cards from Air Force One. Although they only gave him but so many packs.

 

[Oddmonster]

You said "She did NOTHING illegal". I had to point out that inaccuracy which somehow persists.

Everyone knew she would not be held accountable despite the seriousness of a data spill of classified info onto an unclassified server / system and the fact that it was in violation of US Code and punishable by fine or imprisonment.

If Hillary had "no intention" of breaking the law and got a pass due to that wording then surely the same might be said of former President Trump? Maybe the head of the FBI will give him the benefit of the doubt like they did with Hillary? Hmmmm, let's wait and see.

So, we can debate this forver, but the thing is - they would not be able to prove Hillary was guilty of anything. except being careless, and probably not even that.

"By then, Clinton had already "deleted some [emails] over time as an ordinary user would," FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers at a July congressional hearing.
And she tasked her legal team to determine which of the roughly 60,000 emails still on her server were work-related.
"Clinton told the FBI that she directed her legal team to provide any work-related or arguably work-related emails to State; however she did not participate in the development of the specific process to be used or in discussions of the locations of where her emails might exist," the FBI concluded in its investigative summary of the case.
Comey testified that the FBI "didn't find any evidence of evil intent and intent to obstruct justice."


What is crazy to me is, at worst, she mad a mistake or was careless - at worst. And republicans are still talking about it 6 years later. Ivanka Trump did the same - but worse.

As I already posted about Trump - this is what the Justice Department guy in charge of the Hillary investigation said about the trump raid -
"“For the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated,” he said." - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...rant-is-nothing-like-hillarys-emails-00050691"

 

[Ichibanner]

So, we can debate this forver, but the thing is - they would not be able to prove Hillary was guilty of anything. except being careless, and probably not even that.

"By then, Clinton had already "deleted some [emails] over time as an ordinary user would," FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers at a July congressional hearing.
And she tasked her legal team to determine which of the roughly 60,000 emails still on her server were work-related.
"Clinton told the FBI that she directed her legal team to provide any work-related or arguably work-related emails to State; however she did not participate in the development of the specific process to be used or in discussions of the locations of where her emails might exist," the FBI concluded in its investigative summary of the case.
Comey testified that the FBI "didn't find any evidence of evil intent and intent to obstruct justice."


What is crazy to me is, at worst, she mad a mistake or was careless - at worst. And republicans are still talking about it 6 years later. Ivanka Trump did the same - but worse.

As I already posted about Trump - this is what the Justice Department guy in charge of the Hillary investigation said about the trump raid -
"“For the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated,” he said." - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...rant-is-nothing-like-hillarys-emails-00050691"

You're citing a "revolving door" appointee's opinion on the subject of the Trump home raid? Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call a DC swamp creature who found employment under Bush, Clinton, and Obama unbiased. David Laufman is motivated by his own interests and has been deeply entrenched in politics since the second he started lobbying Congresscritters until present day.

Hillary - Moves classifed / sensitive information illegally via her own e-mail. Outcome? FBI Director James Comey says "It was an oopsie!" and she suffers no consequence.

Trump - Allegedly moved and stored sensitive information illegally. Outcome? TBD.............

What are the odds that the FBI under Joe Biden will call Trump's actions an "Oopsie" and give him a pass like Comey did for Hillary?

Are the files at Mar-a-Lago Classified? Are they Unclass and FOUO? Did Trump himself remove the files?

As I've stated before, if a law were broken then it needs to be investigated. However, the FBI has proven that they don't enforce laws pertaining to the spillage of classified information which is a threat to national security so I have zero faith that the FBI is doing anything more than acting once again in a partisan manner due to politics.

You don't believe Hillary did anything wrong or punishable despite the fact that she did; and you appear to think Trump did something wrong and punishable despite a current lack of facts and evidence supporting this. I don't know what to tell you other than to wait and see and not be partisan. We should want justice ALWAYS, not simply for one side or the other.

 

[Oddmonster]

You're citing a "revolving door" appointee's opinion on the subject of the Trump home raid? Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call a DC swamp creature who found employment under Bush, Clinton, and Obama unbiased. David Laufman is motivated by his own interests and has been deeply entrenched in politics since the second he started lobbying Congresscritters until present day.

Hillary - Moves classifed / sensitive information illegally via her own e-mail. Outcome? FBI Director James Comey says "It was an oopsie!" and she suffers no consequence.

Trump - Allegedly moved and stored sensitive information illegally. Outcome? TBD.............

What are the odds that the FBI under Joe Biden will call Trump's actions an "Oopsie" and give him a pass like Comey did for Hillary?

Are the files at Mar-a-Lago Classified? Are they Unclass and FOUO? Did Trump himself remove the files?

As I've stated before, if a law were broken then it needs to be investigated. However, the FBI has proven that they don't enforce laws pertaining to the spillage of classified information which is a threat to national security so I have zero faith that the FBI is doing anything more than acting once again in a partisan manner due to politics.

You don't believe Hillary did anything wrong or punishable despite the fact that she did; and you appear to think Trump did something wrong and punishable despite a current lack of facts and evidence supporting this. I don't know what to tell you other than to wait and see and not be partisan. We should want justice ALWAYS, not simply for one side or the other.

I tell you directly I don't give a shit if Hillary goes to jail. I didn't care if she went to jail over the emails. From all accounts, what Trump has done is WAY worse then what hillary supposedly did. This is what the lawyers and specialists say.

Hillary send emails via an email server that should have been better secured. They investigates for 2+ years.
Ivanka Trump sends unsecured emails from private phone. There is no investigation at all.

So all your theories about whos side who is on, makes no sense.

Trump took top secret documents, refused to give them back for 2 years, bragged about it publicly, and might have shown/given/sold information.

Do you see a difference to that, and sending emails?


And the fact that you, in 2022, still is talking about "Hillarys emails" should show you who might, potentially, be just a little bit biased.

Edit: I will add - if it so apparent to you that what Hillary did was criminal, and there is enough evidence to convict - contact trump. They spend 2 years trying to prove it, so I bet they would appreciate your insight. You might be right, I don't know - and honestly don't care.

 

[Ichibanner]

I tell you directly I don't give a shit if Hillary goes to jail. I didn't care if she went to jail over the emails. From all accounts, what Trump has done is WAY worse then what hillary supposedly did. This is what the lawyers and specialists say.

Hillary send emails via an email server that should have been better secured. They investigates for 2+ years.
Ivanka Trump sends unsecured emails from private phone. There is no investigation at all.

So all your theories about whos side who is on, makes no sense.

Trump took top secret documents, refused to give them back for 2 years, bragged about it publicly, and might have shown/given/sold information.

Do you see a difference to that, and sending emails?


And the fact that you, in 2022, still is talking about "Hillarys emails" should show you who might, potentially, be just a little bit biased.

Edit: I will add - if it so apparent to you that what Hillary did was criminal, and there is enough evidence to convict - contact trump. They spend 2 years trying to prove it, so I bet they would appreciate your insight. You might be right, I don't know - and honestly don't care.

I'm not surprised that you don't care if someone other than President Trump did wrong and broke US law without suffering any repercussion. Some people are so partisan that they can't be bothered to hold certain people accountable. Bill Clinton lying under oath. Hillary's server. Bush and going to war over bogus "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

What did Trump do? What, specifically is "way worse" then a data spill of classified information on an unsecured server which threatens national security in ways you and I can't speak of?

He "might have" shown/given/sold information? Did he or did he not?

I'm seeing a lot of speculation on your part. Feel free to clear it up and tell us all of the horrible things involved in this Mar-a-lago debacle.

 

[djacobox372]

You're wrong, I don't know how you came to this incorrect conclusion when the info to prove otherwise exists. She put classified information out onto unclass systems / server making it available to those without the necessary clearance or "need to know". She broke US law but the FBI concluded she didn't "intend" to break the law and gave her a pass for her negligent and criminal actions. According to left-leaning Politifact:

Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of an FBI investigation found otherwise.

Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. Former FBI Director James Comey said in 2016 that Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed. In a sign of the uncertainty around classification, in 2018, a Justice Department report found that the classification markings were not clear.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/aug/09/comparing-hillary-clintons-emails-and-donald-trump/

She could have been fined or imprisoned for what she did. She broke US law whether it was though a lack of caring or ignorance as to her responsibilities in handling classified materials.

The issue was that Clinton's use of personal servers was hardly unique.. countless GOP and Dem leaders were doing the same thing, it was common carelessness and ignorance--she was just singled out.

Also, it didn't take an warrant and an FBI raid to get the servers--they were handed over when asked for.

Although some would argue that a raid may have netted some more damning information, so perhaps the FBI is learning from mistakes.

 

[G-19]

Forget about Trump for a second.

Just consider - should it be legal to remove documents from the white house when your turn as president ends? Should it be legal to remove documents you do not want the next sitting president to have?

In your scenario I don’t believe that should be allowed. However, if a sitting president decides something is no longer classified or deemed a threat I have no issue with them declassifying it and taking it. This has never been an issue till now. Some can say it’s because Trump but other presidents have declassified and taken documents with them as well without incident. They are the highest ranking member so there is no one for them to notify for approval. If it turns out they declassified something in bad faith there should be an addendum to the espionage act with very clear circumstances and actions to be taken in that scenario.

 

[G-19]

The issue was that Clinton's use of personal servers was hardly unique.. countless GOP and Dem leaders were doing the same thing, it was common carelessness and ignorance--she was just singled out.

Also, it didn't take an warrant and an FBI raid to get the servers--they were handed over when asked for.

Although some would argue that a raid may have netted some more damning information, so perhaps the FBI is learning from mistakes.

Great post. The FBI is definitely learning. This is what happens with intelligence gathering and law enforcement. Previous mistakes turn into policy changes which changes standard operating procedure. We evolve to make cases error proof in court which allows us to be more credible when we testify.

 

[MicroBrew]

- Senator Rand Paul wants to canel the Espionage Act. He says it is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wants Espionage Act repealed

"The espionage act was abused from the beginning to jail dissenters of WWI. It is long pastime to repeal this egregious affront to the 1st Amendment," he wrote on Twitter.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-sen-rand-paul-wants-142201281.html
--

If he is implying Trump's alleged violation of the Espionage Act further proves the ACT should be repealed, how is taking sensitive government property related to the 1st amendment?

 

[Ichibanner]

The issue was that Clinton's use of personal servers was hardly unique.. countless GOP and Dem leaders were doing the same thing, it was common carelessness and ignorance--she was just singled out.

Also, it didn't take an warrant and an FBI raid to get the servers--they were handed over when asked for.

Although some would argue that a raid may have netted some more damning information, so perhaps the FBI is learning from mistakes.

You state that use of a personal server isn't unique. Who besides Hillary uses a private server for disseminating classified information?

The server was handed over but some 33,000 e-mails had been deleted. They had nothing to do with work though. How do we know? Because Hillary, the person under investigation, told us so!

From WaPo, the left leaning liberal "news source" see bolded text:

1. Clinton is the first secretary of state to exclusively use a private email account for official business. - Um, yeah, not totally shady at all. Lots of transparency here lol.....

2. She is also the first secretary of state to have a private email server housed at her home. - Wow. See above for how I feel about this....

Clinton deleted more emails than she turned over. Her team never actually read all of the emails, skimming subject lines instead. And there was never anyone outside of Clinton's direct orbit brought in to oversee the process. The essence of Clinton's argument regarding this email-sorting process was: Trust me. As in, my team of lawyers found all of the emails that were even tangentially tied to my day job as the nation's top diplomat and turned them over to the State Department.

But, we know from FBI Director James B. Comey that during its investigation, the FBI found several thousand work-related emails that had not been previously turned over by Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...emails-hillary-clinton-didnt-turn-over-uh-oh/

If the lack of transparency in this instance doesn't trouble you then you should never, ever be charged with the safekeeping of classified materials. What's done is done. Comey gave her the "oopsie" excuse pass. I simply want an even playing field and the same level of scrutiny or leeway given to those of us not named Hillary Clinton. It set a bad precedence which can't be taken back.