Trump warns of 'problems' like 'we've never seen' if he's indicted

I'll say this. We could argue all day about stuff we will never be actually privy to, but the bottom line is they both did things they shouldn't have.
Let's save this argument until they actually charge Trump, because I have a feeling they actually don't want to deal with charging and putting of trial an ex-president.
The two individuals in question have handled it in completely different ways, so there is a difference in that.

EDIT: Just read your second link, and it states that the emails in question were not necessarily sent by her, very possibly just received by her. Still doesn't change the fact that she shouldn't have been using a personal server.

 

I like Tangerine Tantrum.

 

Meal Team Six!

 

We're privy to it: Comey freely admits she had never leave the scif level data sitting around her ****ing bathroom and backing up to a server at a tech company where random neckbeards had access.
That more than passes the bar laid out in the statute.

Receiving and not reporting is a crime under the same statute I've already cited. Would it actually hurt you to read? Google the statute I referenced? Maybe learn something?

 

Put down by who?

 

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money you never served anything but you own self interest.

I was in the National Guard for 8 years, and riot control training was intense and would be terrifying.

All of this against Trump is 100% partisan canon fodder. Nothing more, and a huge swath of Americans see it and realize how dirty and desperate the left are. For 6 years, it has been nothing but witch hunt after witch hunt cost millions of dollars, lost effort, and they have materialized NOTHING.

Pass a false indictment because of 2024 and the place comes unglued.

 

Vague terms do get people riled up. I agree that it would cause problems.

 

He does, and it is. They are already harassing and threatening judges, FBI agents, poll workers, any politician who he sees as against him, etc. He points, his mob shoots.

 

Thank you for that! Best giggle I've had all week.

 

Demonstrating that I read what is necessary to fully understand why law enforcement did not apply those statutes to Clinton, which was what I tried to explain, only to get a snarky reply.

If you know better than law enforcement, perhaps you should run the FBI.

I'll try one more time:

Definition of intent

(As a noun): a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : aim the director's intent. 2a : the act or fact of intending : purpose especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act admitted wounding him with intent.

 

I was not challenged. That was a different attack on a different forum participant. You should try harder to keep track.

Trump never makes specific threats. If you don't understand how he operates, and has all his life, it's no wonder you're so enamored.

 

Everyone around him is being indicted or have already been charged and arrested. He is about to be charged with some serious crimes once his fascist judge is snaked down (and then hopefully removed) — I am glad you placed past tense in your description however.

trump is polling down, Biden is up, and trump supporters are going to be faced with the same bumper sticker slogans that they did to the country for four years before we fired them.

I was always particularly fond of “f your feelings” — which one did you like most?

 

That's WHICH hunt, after WHICH hunt; tRaitor tRump is a one man crime wave.

 

So you're also admitting that you never read the statute. Because the statue I cited you does not require intentional conduct nor does it require the documents getting in to the hands of foreign officials.
18USC793(f). Quote it otherwise.

 

Why should I read a statute that was never applied because no one was indicted over Hillary's emails? It's not relevant, don't you get that?

I'm a retired technical writer. I worked with classified documents for three employers on behalf of three branches of the military (sorry, Army, it was nothing personal). I've originated classified documents. I've probably forgotten more about how to handle them than most people ever know.

Please stop subjecting me to your personal struggle to make Trump good. He doesn't deserve your loyalty.

 

Lol.

Did you just correct me... incorrectly?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witch hunt

 

No, I corrected you correctly.

 

What I can't figure is why the DoJ isn't arresting ALL the Congresspeople who are saying this election is invalid without evidence. They're basically saying that elections don't work. Isn't that sedition itself?

 

Thanks for admitting that Trump has made no threats, and challenging someone to come up with an example of such a threat is not an "attack".

 

Is there no extreme you will go to in defense of tRaitor tRump and, at the same time, betray your country?

 

These sill late election cycle smears only expand support for Trump.
You should demand compensation.

 

Presumed predictions are not at all threats, and Trump's has a distinct ring of possibility as half of America could be egregiously angry over the government sanctioned purge and the weaponization of the DOJ.

 

Any ideas on what these 'problems like we've never seen' might be? He was asked directly, but didn't give a direct answer. Anyone here have any ideas of what he's inferring?

 

Don't worry, the posters insistence that Clinton's server was exposed to outside entities with direct access is complete BS.

 

I'm not sure what your statement says, but it would properly say that statute was never applied to Hillary over her emails. Comey's statement that this statute is not applied in general was wrong because a sailor had just been sent to prison for its violation and a female recruit was sentenced to a couple of years probation just a year earlier.