FBI Agent Peter Strzok escorted out of FBI headquarters today

originally posted by: Muninn
You should be the last person to request proof.

Yeah?

Why?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Muninn
You should be the last person to request proof.

Yeah?

Why?

Because she never offers up any proof when asked.

a reply to: Muninn

A lot of posters comment without citation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Muninn

A lot of posters comment without citation.

Cool, I'm pretty sure silly knows how to answer for herself.

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Muninn

A lot of posters comment without citation.

Cool, I'm pretty sure silly knows how to answer for herself.

I bet.

Isn't it irritating when someone chimes in?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Muninn

A lot of posters comment without citation.

Cool, I'm pretty sure silly knows how to answer for herself.

I bet.

Isn't it irritating when someone chimes in?

Not really, I thought your reply was cool but I still want an answer from silly.

a reply to: Muninn

LOL ... awesome.

Maybe send them a PM then? Because their question is a good one. In this (and other threads) we keep hearing "but bias" but we hear nothing about these wild, unsubstantiated claims that Strzok, et. al. did all these nefarious things because of that bias.

Maybe you can help us out?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for the tip but I'll do me and you do you.

originally posted by: Muninn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for the tip but I'll do me and you do you.

Yeah, whatever.

So, do YOU have any of that proof you're asking another member for?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe send them a PM then? Because their question is a good one.

I asked her numerous times in a thread she created that had in the title "former Trump lawyer" but she kept insisting that he was still his lawyer ,how she squared that circle . crickets ... She also claimed in that thread that she had never been debunked . I can now see how that is possible in her own mind . want proof ?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe send them a PM then? Because their question is a good one.

I asked her numerous times in a thread she created that had in the title "former Trump lawyer" but she kept insisting that he was still his lawyer ,how she squared that circle . crickets ... She also claimed in that thread that she had never been debunked . I can now see how that is possible in her own mind . want proof ?

I'm not sure it's kosher to discuss another member in the open forums; that's why I suggested private messages.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Muninn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for the tip but I'll do me and you do you.

Yeah, whatever.

So, do YOU have any of that proof you're asking another member for?

That made 0 sense.

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Muninn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for the tip but I'll do me and you do you.

Yeah, whatever.

So, do YOU have any of that proof you're asking another member for?

That made 0 sense.

Really, let me try to explain it.

Another member, who has engaged in this conversation from the beginning, came in to ask for "proof."

I myself have been asking for evidence for days for the claims made that there have been illicit actions taken to harm the CLinton investigation and/or Trump by Strzok et. al.

YOu responded to a requiest for evidence by saying that evidence is never provided, so, I asked you for evidence.

Do you have any evidence? IF not, aren't you the problem you're complaining about?

We have Mods, not forum bosses.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Have a nice one.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not sure it's kosher to discuss another member in the open forums; that's why I suggested private messages.

But if you start a thread and make statements like you have never been debunked and then avoid answering questions in the open then what good is PM's ?

The terminology of "gross negligence" was changed because the prosecutors AGREED they couldn't prove it. 

It was changed by Strzok. It was never presented to Justice. It is Justice's job to decide to prosecute or not. The Bureau only investigates and refers. It is not the job of the Bureau to decide who gets charged. Comey declined to refer even as he admits in the initial document, the circumstances necessary existed for a referral. That let Lynch off the hook at Justice for having to make a decision in this "matter".

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rickymouse

I'm not even sure what we are saying to each other.

Let me try to make it simple: laws against mishandling classified materials have been around for over a 100 years.

It didn't start with email or servers.

Those who have mishandled classified info should be punished, right?

That list starts with GW Bush, Cheney and continues through Alberto Gonzales, as the IG listed in their report.

Now, what I was wondering about, in all the certainty about law and order etc. here is why we aren't upset about anyone other than Clinton not being punished.

Yeah, you are right, the laws were there for a very long time, they were clarified back before the articles I posted were written.

Yes, you are right,they should have been dealing with this issue ten or more years ago, it has been happening right along, and accelerated starting a couple of years ago. It should have been nipped in the butt a long time ago and we would not be at this point.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

He was being sarcastic. He gave the dates for those laws. I think the point you're not getting is... Is this something new? And as was pointed out... Were people prosecuted for it?
And what is the answer to that? Very few...

I realized he was being sarcasitic after I had responded, I read the post he had responded to afterwards. The thing is that because people got away with it, more and more are doing it. It needs to stop. In the intelligence agencies people are at least supposed to act intelligent. But then again, an FBI agent was dancing and did a back flip and his gun fell out and went off when he grabbed it. Maybe they need to give all their employees an intelligence test to see if they have ANY intelligence.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

The terminology of "gross negligence" was changed because the prosecutors AGREED they couldn't prove it. 

It was changed by Strzok. It was never presented to Justice. It is Justice's job to decide to prosecute or not. The Bureau only investigates and refers. It is not the job of the Bureau to decide who gets charged. Comey declined to refer even as he admits in the initial document, the circumstances necessary existed for a referral. That let Lynch off the hook at Justice for having to make a decision in this "matter".

That's just AMAZING!

And right out of the MSM dialogue ...

Here's what IG Horowitz's report says ...

Page vi

We found that the prosecutors considered five federal statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and (e) (willful mishandling of documents or information relating to the national defense);

• 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) (removal, loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction of documents or information relating to the national defense through gross negligence , or failure to report such removal, loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction);

• 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material by government employees); and
• 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (concealment, removal, or mutilation of government records).

and further ...

Ibid

We further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1)[, relevant case law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems.

and further

Page 29

Below we discuss the statutory requirements under Section 793(f), the Midyear prosecutors’ interpretation of Section 793(f)(1), and previous cases in which prosecution was declined under the gross negligence provision.

Page 30
Section 793(f)(1) does not define what constitutes “gross negligence,” nor have any federal court decisions interpreted this specific provision of the statute. However, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1) and identified statements made during the 1917 congressional debate indicating that the state of mind required for a violation of Section 793(f)(1) is “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful.” The prosecutors cited a statement by Congressman Andrew Volstead during the 1917 debate about the predecessor to Section 793(f)(1):

and further ...

... well, you get the idea.

a reply to: rickymouse

I really wasn't trying to be sarcastic. Another member suggested that the laws about handling of classified information were not in place during, say the GW Bush Administration (so for example the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice) and that the law didn't apply to their emails being housed on the RNC server nor the fact that 22 million emails were "lost."

I merely offered evidence that countered that.