robosmith

Those are NOT in the criminal statutes. IF I am mistaken, cite them. Judge issued the warrant. I'm guessing your amateur and foreign legal OPINION is wrong. In June, his lawyer (at his behest I'm sure) signed a statement there were no more presidential (or marked classified) documents which they are according to the Act you IGNORED. That is the basis for the obstruction charge being investigated. Of course your hat is big but no cattle.

In your fantasy, what are the charges? Have you read the Presidential Records Act? Do you imagine those presidential records and classified documents are Trump's property? Or that he returned them when they were subpoenaed?

"People in the know" have stated that Trump's "standing order" is "nonsense." As previously posted.

From YOUR CITE: ㊙️ the subject is NOT personal injury law ?

The docs were UNMARKED. You have NO EVIDENCE Hillary KNEW the unmarked documents were classified. Stop lying. Your juvenile name calling just demonstrates how desperate you are. You clearly don't know the law or you'd be citing the statutes. Or at least an actual EXPERT.

'Ludicrous.' 'Ridiculous.' 'A complete fiction.': Former Trump officials say his claim of 'standing order' to declassify is nonsense

REALLLLLY old news.

Clinesmith WAS PENALISED by the bar and the standards were explained. Of course you not even being a US citizen nor a lawyer are unfamiliar with the standards as well as not knowing how to find them. Ex-FBI lawyer agrees to one-year bar sanction after conviction

Trump won't sue because he'd be subject to a deposition and HE CAN'T STOP LYING.

You're describing Trump ^here to a "T" And you're right, he HAS BEEN a disaster for national security. He shared classified info at his dinner table at Mar-a-Lago. I repeat, NO ONE is an expert on ALL the issues involved with classified documents. That's why MOST POTUS LISTEN to their ADVISORS. But not Trump. You know what really looks stupid? You pretending to be an expert on US law when you're neither a lawyer nor a US citizen and have not a single cite to back up YOUR OPINION. In THIS case, gross negligence is a CRIME and extremely careless is NOT because that's how THE LAW defines it. You have no basis for which to accuse me of PRETENSE. IOW, you don't know what you're babbling about. Stop LYING. I never said ^this. It was COMEY'S judgement that it was "extremely careless, NOT gross negligence. GROSS NEGLIGENCE VERSUS EXTREME CARELESS Thanks for demonstrating ONCE AGAIN, that you fail to understand the GROSS DIFFERENCES between ^this and Clinton's UNINTENTIONAL storage of UNMARKED classified info. ㊙️ the sailor KNEW it was illegal to take those photos by HIS TRAINING.

What "Federal regulation"? IF you actually had one, you could have cited it, but you didn't. Do you know what NIPRnet is? The State Dept NIPRnet server was proven to be hacked by Russians. If Hillary's emails were not on her server, they would have been on the hacked State Dept NIPRnet server. And they were probably there, too, because they were sent by State Dept personnel TO HER or FROM HER. What's funny is you don't know what you're talking about, but claim that I'm the gullible one.

How do YOU recommend insuring your data is NOT recovered from your old phone, smarty pants? As an ex-chip designer, I can tell you that few people have the expertise and equipment to recover data from a chip with a smashed package. Esp the kind with bump bonds like those in cell phones.

Because you understand neither US law nor what you read. Or you just get your info from places like Dimbart.

All I learned from you is that you naively believe the ranting of a conman. Of course Trump fired and demoted those FBI agents and officials who would not swear personal loyalty to HIM instead of the Constitution which is where their loyalty BELONGS.

What is funny? That EXPERTS recommend destroying obsolete phones? You have a strange sense of humor. Forbes: Tech Experts Think You Should Take A Sledgehammer To Your Old Phone

Bullshit. The "should have known" allegation just doesn't work to charge anyone with a crime. No one has that kind of comprehensive knowledge about 10s of thousands of classified documents; not even the people who produced them, or they would have been on SIPRnet and MARKED. Wrong again. Intent is KEY to most criminal statutes. Failure to mark a document is not even a crime because there are MANY gray areas. I'm going to stop right here because being a foreigner, it is OBVIOUS you have ZERO experience with US classification practices, AND I have held a TS/SCI clearance with 2 different US defense contractors. AND you don't even know that the standard for a criminal violation is GROSS NEGLIGENCE but Comey said Hillary was ONLY "extremely careless" and NO ONE has ever been prosecuted for what she did; the punishment has ALWAYS been administrative sanctions. AKA, loss of clearance and/or employment.

To keep confidential information from falling into the wrong hands. From what I remember, destruction is an approved method for when retiring an old phone after transferring the information to a new one. Didn't you hear how all the text messages were lost by the SS despite them being told to back them up?

Nobody who smokes weed is going to go with a plot to kill someone. Have you even smoked weed? It might work if they got them drunk. LMFAO

^Just an extremely lame attempt to tar Democrats with an unsubstantiated "favorite propaganda outlet" allegation. Huge FAIL!

^Non sequitur. Standard cell phones don't do SIPRnet, either.

It is THE LAW. Did you miss it when I quoted the FEC BEFORE? No candidate for POTUS can legally accept foreign campaign CONTRIBUTIONS. Esp not from foreign governments. Do you STILL not understand why?

They were NOT marked classified when they WERE SENT TO HER on the State Dept NIPRnet. That means unlike Trump, who knew his documents were classified, Hillary DID NOT. Here's a clue for you: if they were sent on the State SIPRnet she would have KNOWN they were classified and they would have been marked as such. ? Without the markings, there was NO INTENT to mis-store classified documents LIKE Trump DID. Do you understand now? That is why Hillary WAS NOT CHARGED.

Hillary PAYING for an ex-British agent to do research is NOT collusion with Russia, nor is it accepting an ILLEGAL foreign CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION. Wanna know why? Paying people to dig up dirt HAS NEVER been illegal. Getting it for free indebts the candidate to a foreigner and that's why it's illegal.

It is NOTHING like when he is there. I tried to see Mar-a-Lago when Trump was there. You could NOT drive within a mile of that place unless you lived in the neighborhood. And we've all seen the guests have no problem getting in even when he's there.

Based on your extensive EXPERIENCE handling classified documents? Here's a clue for you: when classified documents are removed from storage, that is LOGGED. When they are REPLACED, that is LOGGED. Whomever retrieved those documents FOR TRUMP most certainly logged them OUT. Plenty is "working," just NOT for Trump or national SECURITY. I'm sure he EXPECTED it, and did it to PLAY the VICTIM and RAISE MONEY. National security be damned. You're funny. But don't quit your day job. Don't remember anything about Pelosi's laptop. When was that and what did they find? OTOH, I do know that DE law prohibited the repair shop from revealing the CONTENT on Hunter's laptop. They'd probably be sued if they had not destroyed their own reputation and gone out of business. No one wants to take their computer for repair at a shop which exposes their personal info.