Trump Seeks to Block Release of Trump University Testimony

>"The near certainty that the video depositions would be used for political purposes — having nothing to do with the merits of this litigation — only underscores the court's duty to prevent misuse of these judicial proceedings," Trump's attorneys wrote.

>They argue that Curiel should follow another judge in a lawsuit involving Hillary Clinton's email practices. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in the District of Columbia has allowed the release of deposition transcripts but no video. He sided with lawyers for Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, who said "snippets or soundbites of the deposition may be publicized in a way that exploits Ms. Mills' image and voice in an unfair and misleading manner."

>News organizations argue that the public has a right to the complete record, given how Trump has touted his business acumen and questions that the lawsuits have raised.

>Lawyers representing Trump University's former customers say the videos present "a more complete picture" than the transcripts.

>Trump's tone, facial expressions, gestures and body language show "complete and utter unfamiliarity" with Trump University's instructors and instruction, despite the business mogul's previous statements that he was extensively involved, the attorneys wrote. They said Trump also made "many spontaneous and ad hominem remarks that are not reflected in the paper transcript of his depositions."

>In portions of Trump's testimony that have been released, he acknowledged that he plays on people's fantasies. He is also pressed on blog posts in 2008 that Bill Clinton was a great president and Hillary Clinton would make a great president or vice president. Of his praise for Hillary Clinton, he said, "I didn't give it a lot of thought, because I was in business."

>An adverse ruling for Trump may test his pledge in early June to avoid talking about the case and the judge.

>Trump called Curiel "a very hostile judge" and a "hater of Donald Trump" in an 11-minute attack at a San Diego rally on May 27. Later he said the Indiana-born judge's Mexican heritage and membership in a Latino lawyers association posed a conflict with Trump's positions on illegal immigration and promise to build a wall on the Mexican border.

20 bucks says the judge is being threatened by hillary to release it

>>57969
That sounds like something Alex Jones might say.

So basically


Trump wants to get away with something he's being sued for because the judge isn't white?

>>57969
Shut up, Alex.

>>57971
No, thats not at all what's going on, you uneducated douche.
He scammed a bunch of morons out of a lot of money, and a s trying to play it off like its not a big deal. Honestly, he has a point. It is the person's responsibility to research your school. Who in their right mind thinks that the 'school of Trump' is an actual university? Have they never heard of a scam?
At the same time, if they didn't disclose the fact that the education was useless by means of small print, they're at fault.

>>57970
>>57972
Shut up, libcucks

>>57957
Just like how the Clintons got her staff's video FBI testimony blocked.

>>57973
No, that's not what is happening either.

Trump doesn't want the video used from HIS court case because Hillary didn't get her videos leaked from HER court case

This is about keeping the playing field level

>>57979
Sure Alex, whatever.

>>57987
Actually it's not like that at all.

>Trump doesn't want the video used from HIS court case because Hillary didn't get her videos leaked from HER court case

Trump's video isn't being "leaked", it's being released to the press by the same judge Trump already derided for being hispanic and having Mexican heritage.

>>58004
La Raza is nationalist racist organization this judge is part of it.

>>58009
>As The Post and other media outlets have pointed out repeatedly, Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is a professional organization for Latino lawyers. The group is the San Diego local affiliate of the California La Raza Lawyers Association, whose membership comprises lawyers practicing in California, and is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit trade organization. It has an affiliated 501(c)(3) scholarship fund that awarded 22 scholarships totaling $34,000 in 2014. More on that later.

>This group is not the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights nonprofit organization that has pushed for comprehensive immigration reform in Congress with a pathway to citizenship and legalization for undocumented immigrants. It’s often referred to as simply “La Raza,” especially in the context of the immigration debate.

>To recap this simple fact: San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association ≠ National Council of La Raza..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/

>>57993
Trump is being treid in a case of fraud. However much you don't like hillary, she is not currently being persued by the government for committing a crime. She is innocent in the eyes of the law, and trump may or may not be (although it looks like the judge will not wamt to rule in his favor).

>>57969
>>57979
>>57987
>>58009
Trumpfags can't even adaquetley defend the candidate they're backing.

>>58011
http://larazalawyers.net/id3.html

for a group not associated with the National Council of La Raza its weird that they link to it on their website (scroll to the bottom)

>>58011
>.
>>This group is not the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights nonprofit organization that has pushed for comprehensive immigration reform in Congress with a pathway
- This judge was on a board awarding a scholarship to illegal immigration. http://gotnews.com/mexican-judge-gonzalo-curiel/
- The La Raza organization he is a part of was formed partly for legal issues surrounding illegal immigration.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY, Judge Curiel is a member of a Latino organization called the Hispanic National Bar Association. That organization specifically called "for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants." http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=df9a27c10b6d6ba38ba001440&id=f8a4a02241&e=cd8fc1ccd9%0A

The Judge is fucking boycotting his business ventures and this is the case about one of them. How can he NOT be biased?

>>58082
should keep in mind that one of those was a civil lawsuit for people angry that trump couldn't teach them how to be real estate moguls, while the other was a federal criminal investigation in which the FBI were bizarrely compelled to sign nondisclosure agreements before even examining the evidence, despite it allegedly (alleged by clinton, repeatedly) containing no erroneously disclosed classified material.

>>58011
>To recap this simple fact: San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association ≠ National Council of La Raza
they're birds of a feather, affiliated. It's ridiculous that the judge didn't recuse himself from the case.

>>58084
How can we defend a literal retard? He can't even defend himself.

Regardless, I'm voting for him. My right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'll do anything to keep Hillary out of the oval office. Anything.

>>58124
You're in so deep now. I bet you'd vote for a fucking wooden bat with the words "protect my second amendment rights" engraved on it if it was running for president. Whats the point anymore. Even trump will impose a weapons ban on some level, you would've had better luck if you voted for bernie sanders.

>>58119
It doesn't really matter. What scares the shit out of the GOP is that trump has a high probability of being prosecuted, while hillary never did. You don't commit fraud and then insult the judge looking over your case (who probably already had a bias against him to begin with) for being mexican and expect to get away with it, not even Trump could get out from this level of shit.

>>58128

His punishment will be limited to financial restitution, however, and even that may not necessarily be required to come out of his personal assets versus the holding corp's. Nobody will care in the end except Trump's ridiculously fragile ego.

>>58004
You said it's not like that at all and then went on to not explain why it's not actually like that.

Both cases here involve potentially damaging video evidence performed under the public record as criminal and civil investigations, respectively, that can be used against either candidate. Both lobbied to have their videos sealed, one so far successfully.

>>58084
Not an argument.

>>58128
He has been sued and prosecuted before.

He is simply waiting for the last minute to settle.

>>58126
Possibly, but thanks to you retarded Democrats, you had to have hillary.

And yes, I would vote for an inanimate object before I vote for hillary. There are masses that agree with me.

>>58165
I would vote for an old pair of shoes before Hillary.

>>58126

Well, with the bat I can crack some dipshits over the head with it, far more useful then anyone else running.

>>58136
There is a difference between a class action lawsuit brought by former customer for fraud and a partisan congressional witchhunt which brings charges through the FBI and then the FBI doesn't find anything worth prosecuting.

>>58163
Being found "guilty" here only means he will have to pay a large sum to the plantiffs, of which there are dozens of former students who are part of the class action suit.

>>58173
Oh sorry, I thought you had an IQ above grapefruit.

My bad

>>58175
Not an argument

>>58181
You are not an argument!

>>58183
You're only making personal attacks because you know what I'm saying is true.

>>58184
I'm another person dude not the poster you are responding to get 4chanX that way you can tell if the person you are replying to is a new poster or samefag.

>>58187
see
>>>/qa/590203

>>58191
/g/ troll thread.

>>58136
What is this "not an argument" meme I keep seeing? Usually when someone calls out an argument, the target is trying to make a case in the first place. Instead, people are calling out blank statements and observations as as arguments . The other times I see it, the argument is valid, but conflicts with some sap's worldview.

>>58173
Wrong. The FBI found that everything the republicans accused Hillary of was correct and supported. The FBI is terrified of Hillary. Honestly, you think the FBI is completely free of fear and corruption? Do you honestly believe in fairness or just when it fits your narrative?

Hillary's case had no video
Trump's case should have no video
Uh oh, equality!

>>58198
>Wrong. The FBI found that everything the republicans accused Hillary of was correct and supported.
Wrong. It's exactly the opposite of that.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-not-lie-fbi-225212

>>58197

It comes from faggot extraordinaire "self-taught philosopher" Stephen Molyaneux, who uses the phrase to respond to youtube comments that are critical of him. His followers are now something of a cult and are using the phrase themselves.

The tricky thing now is distinguishing people who use the phrase seriously (anything those people say should be invalidated; seriously) and those who use it sarcastically/ironically to point out how ultrareductionist/strawmanist the other is being (though usually in this case the preferred phrase would be in all caps, possibly with a misspelling, i.e. "NOT AN ARUMENT").

Since this isn't /pol/ though, any Molyeaneauxoxoxfags are going to be rare, so it's probably just best to ignore them in general.

>>58201
That says she didn't lie to the FBI, not that anyone was wrong about anything that she did, because they weren't wrong even slightly.

>Shit ton of classified into on the server
>Intel above even top secret
>Server less secure than gmail
>Allowed people without clearance to see intel
>Potentially accessed by hostiles
>Accounts she communicated with confirmed compromised by hostiles
>Blatantly lied to the American people about basically everything in her first press conference about it last year

I can't even tell if this is some bad bait or not because it's just so obviously wrong and stupid.

>>58211
It's just a meme you dip.

>>58403
It's neither bait, nor wrong, young alt-righter. You are not entitled to your own facts.

>The F.B.I. on July 5 recommended no charges against Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified information on a private email domain as secretary of state, but called it “extremely careless.”

>The next day, Attorney General Loretta Lynch affirmed that she would accept the recommendation and that the Justice Department would not seek criminal charges.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html

>>58411
Wow anon, thank you for Correcting the Record™

I guess I'm a #HillBilly now

>>57973
Hey

I'm not uneducated, I finished one year of college :^)

>>58415
There are so many legitimate things to attack her on in her record, it doesn't make any sense to attack her for the things that don't pan out in an FBI investigation.

I'd love to discuss her past support of the TPP with you but that isn't the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is that Donald Trump wants to block the video depositions in his fraud trial and it's up to the judge he's made personal attacks against in his campaign speeches to make the decision.

As Bill O'Reilly would say, comparing whatever Hillary did in a case to Trump's (lawyer's) behavior in this other case is a form of trying to make excuses for bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.

>>58198
The law should not depend on arbitrary political contests. If Trump murdered someone, should he not face trial because Hillary never murdered someone? That's ridiculous, the only facts that should matter are those pertaining to the case at hand. A politician doesn't get a pass on legal matter just because they are running for elected office. That's not American and not legal.

>>58420
>things that don't pan out in an FBI investigation
Literally like what.

Everything everyone accused her of was 100% true, and I even listed them out with some sick meme arrows, go back and refute them one by one, oh but you can't because they're all confirmed completely true thanks to Comey going up on stage and saying so himself, you dumbass.

>>58198
Hillary's case did have video, all her staffers were recorded during their interrogations.

>>58435
>Everything everyone accused her of was 100% true,
yeah sure Anon, that's why Comey recommended all those charges... oh wait...

Read a newspaper and stop getting your news from drudgereport, kid. In the real world she didn't do anything that rises beyond administrative action as a punishment.

>>57957
Why has nobody mentioned the fact that Greg Abbot (currently governor of Texas) was asked to investigate Trump University for fraud years ago when he was still a prosecutor, and that he chose to drop all charges and later received campaign donations from Trump? He's denying it of course, but is there even any way to prove that? It sounds very suspicious to me.

>>58437
Not that it's relevant to Trump's fraud case, but I'm pretty sure he's trying to say that because HIlary's videos weren't released to the press that Trumps shouldn't be either.

What they aren't getting is that it's literally up to Judge Curiel's whims whether he wants to release it or not.

>>58443
>received campaign donations

Over a certain amount both donor and recipient are public record unless it's done via superPAC, in which case the donor can be 100% anonymous. So if this prosecution was prior to 2011 (TU closed in 2010) you should be able to find the donation record in a pdf online (federal public records have been mandated to be available electronically). Otherwise Trump would be an idiot not to donate via a superPAC.

If Trump loses, who's going to defend us from terrorists?!

>>58512
If Trump wins, who's going to defend us from terrorists?

>>57987
>>58084

Now, I don't like questioning the intelligence of posters because I don't know you.

but you can't be fucking stupid enough to not know the difference between this civil case, of which Trump has always been involved in some form or another, and a federal case dealing with federal perjury.

I mean.

This has to be boneheaded on a new level.

>>58443
Who would even bring such charges? AG Loretta Lynch? Some democrat minority committee in Congress?

>>58440
> recommended all those charges... oh wait...
>wow some guy that spent ten minutes telling us what she did wrong than proceeded to say she shouldnt be charged
>what is corruption
Just because the fag says she shouldn't, it doesn't mean he is right. He doesn't have the right or power to dictate whether she should or shouldn't be charged. She lied under oath and if you want to go with that fag for your argument, here is a video of him being fucking burned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6q9LOubfc

>>58440
you know, you can go into her fucking leaked emails and read the emails of her giving orders to strip headers from classified documents you shitburger.

>>58555
>>58554
>Some classification markings found in email messages on Hillary Clinton's private server were the result of "human error" and the related information was not considered classified at the time it was sent to her, State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday.
>When Comey announced Tuesday that investigators were not recommending any charges in the Clinton email matter, he noted that "a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."
>The claim appeared to contradict Clinton's repeated claims that nothing in her emails was marked classified at the time she received it, although the State Department has also said on numerous occasions that none of the information in those messages was marked classified.
>At a regular briefing for reporters Wednesday, Kirby said State is aware of two instances in the set of roughly 30,000 messages turned over to the agency by Clinton where classification markings appeared in the emails. However, he said those were mistakes where staff failed to remove the notations while preparing background and talking points for Clinton in a planned phone call with a foreign official.
>"It appears that those...that those markings were a human error. They didn’t need to be there. Because once the secretary had decided to make the call, the process is then to move the call sheet, to change its markings to unclassified and deliver it to the secretary in a form that he or she can use," Kirby said. "And best we can tell on these occasions, the markings — the confidential markings — was simply human error. Because the decision had already been made, they didn’t need to be made on the email."
>Kirby said such "call sheets" are often treated as classified when being prepared but as unclassified when forwarded to the secretary for his or her use.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194

>>58554
>>58555
Nice goalpost moving, but what does that have to do with Trump's fraud case?

>>58557
Extreme negligence and criminal incompetence aren't exactly qualities you want in a CiC.

>>58560
First of all there was no criminality at all, or else she'd be indicted right now. Second, It's better to have negligent bureaucrat than a CEO that knowingly and willfully defrauded his customers. Third, the only reason you're still bringing it up is because you are buttsore can't accept that the Bush appointed Republican voting FBI administrator didn't find anything to charge her with. It doesn't have anything to do with the class action lawsuit against Trump (one of many) which is the point of this thread.

>>58564
There was criminality, but they chose not to proceed. That's why people are 'butthurt', you fucking moron.

>>58564
there are literal laws pertaining to criminal negligence for this exact scenario

they (for some inexplicable reason) decided to not charge her based on lack of intent even though there are laws on the book specifically designed to charge people under the circumstances

>>58573
> FBI Director James Comey said his office is not recommending prosecutors bring charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information in connection with private email servers while secretary of state.

>"Although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case," Comey said Tuesday.

>Addressing inevitable complaints about the investigation, Comey — a Republican — emphasized that "this investigation was done honestly, competently and independently."

>"No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear," he said. "I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation because we did our investigation the right way."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

>>58567
>there was criminality
In Trump's fraud case you mean?

>>58564
>Second, It's better to have negligent bureaucrat than a CEO that knowingly and willfully defrauded his customers

How is it better to have someone who placed the most top secret of secrets in danger and was "extremely careless" with the handling of such secrets better than a CEO who owns 100s of businesses and so happens to be involved in a class action law suit for one of them? Can you not see that one is extremely more dangerous in the context of national security? I don't want someone like that in the highest national security position.

>>58646
>How is it better to have someone who placed the most top secret of secrets in danger and was "extremely careless"
>most top secret of secrets
What the fuck are you talking about? You mean when she was discussing how she watched NCIS and Madam Secretary on CBS? You sound like you write hitpieces for WND or something. This isn't Trump's first or only class action fraud suit., and I think you've confused Trump whoring his name out to whomever wants to use it as "owning 100s of businesses". At most he's owned 30 or 35, many of those have gone bankrupt, not "100s".

>>58647
Now I know you're retarded.
>You mean when she was discussing how she watched NCIS and Madam Secretary on CBS?
Try things so secret not even congress can know about them: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609395/special-access-programs-involved

>at most he's owned 30 or 35, many of those have gone bankrupt, not "100s".
Again, you are retarded. Please stop posting, unless this is how you put food on the table.
http://qz.com/461688/a-list-of-everything-donald-trump-runs-that-has-his-name-on-it/

>>58564
>Second, It's better to have negligent bureaucrat than a CEO that knowingly and willfully defrauded his customers.
One of these is selfish and cares mostly about himself and profit, the other is *incredibly* stupid, retarded and lacks the proper capabilities to do their job that they were called "extremely careless" by someone very high in the chains. No, it really isn't better to have a fucking retarded shadow puppet leadership than a selfish cunt in a democracy. You are outright fucking stupid if you think Hillary in anyway is fit to be in any position in politics. Trump might be a cunt who cares only about himself, but at-least he won't burn the country down because he didn't know left from right.

>>58649
>everything with Donald Trump's name is on means he runs it
Oh look, the retarded person is calling me a retard. How quaint.

>>58651
Nice confirmation bias and goalpost moving, but what does that have to do with 100s of former TrumpU students suing Trump for fraud?

>>58654
Oh look, conveniently ignoring the half of my post that actually matters, instead choosing to argue about something as pointless as how many businesses trump runs. How about you address the CSPAN video?

>>58654
No, we aren't talking about trump here, you are the one goalpost moving. We are talking about fucking Hillary. How about you tell me how your dumb brick of a politician is fit to even be labeled a politician?

>>58655
Don't kid yourself, kid, none of your post matters. It's all just a delayed, slow motion butthurt reaction to Hillary not being charged with anything by the Justice Dept.

Further, you're only keep bringing it up here ITT because you're even more buttmad that someone dared sue your god-emperor for the fraud he perpetuated.

>>58656
Go read the OP post again, smartguy. Let it soak in.

>>58657
Okay, so you have no response to Hillary giving unauthorized people access to information that not even Congress is allowed to see. They can't even know the organization from which it came. Fuck off, shill.

>>58657
The only butthurt one here I see, is you.

>>58659
Who are these supposed "unauthorized people"

inb4 you say her lawyers
>Hillary Clinton's lawyer had 'top secret' clearance
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-lawyer-top-secret-clearance-121736

>>58660
okay then. have fun crying over the fact that Trump's video deposition will be released but Hillarys won't.

>>58658
The op post means nothing, dumbass. Where do you think you are? This is organic discussion, the op no longer matters. We are now talking about Hillary, you just seem really desperate to sway away from that to prevent criticism of her. The fact you resorted to insults like "god-emperor" when people disagreed with you shows a lot about you.

>>58662
No, I'm not talking about her lawyer, I'm talking about the handful of people signed as administrators to the server. They would have full access to all contents on the server. Furthermore, it is debatable as to whether or not the lawyers clearance transfers over from Benghazi to these emails, your source clearly states this. You don't just get "top secret clearance" and then have access to everything. You are read into individual programs.

>>58664
The problem here is that I think you think you're on /pol/ when you aren't. Facts matter here. You can come at me with your mostly-already-debunked clickbait allegations about Hillary all day if you want but don't expect it to excuse or take away from how Donald Trump defrauded his customers.

>>58662
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/fbi-director-10-people-without-security-clearance-had-access-clintons

>>58669
I've never even used /pol/ before or even agree with their dumbasses. I think YOU are the one who thinks he is on /pol/. Not everyone who disagrees with you and criticizes the dumb corrupt slag is from /pol/. If you want to do your childish 'left and right' and trump arguments, how about YOU fuck off to /pol/? I just simply joined in on the conversation because someone was spouting incorrect shit about hillary.

You are the one who seems to be ignoring facts about Hillary here and when presented with them, you started going on about how people are moving goal posts from the OP.

>>58666
All of the Sysadmins for her server swore under oath that they never once read any of the emails. Try harder.

>>58670
>cnsnews
HAhahahAAHAHaHAH holy shit you're kidding. Give Brent Bozell my regards.

>>58672
Hokay sure, that's why you're here on /enws/ espousing the far-right wing already-thouroughly-debunked bullshit about HIllary that Rush Limbaugh tells his audience every day.

>>58673
>All of the Sysadmins for her server swore under oath that they never once read any of the emails. Try harder.
Gonna need a source for that, I watched the whole oversight committee and this was never once mentioned

>cnsnews
It's a video of the actual interview with Comey and a transcript, are you retarded? What do you get, 10 cents a post?

>>58673
I'm sorry anon, this isn't reddit. People are allowed to have different opinions here and are actually encouraged to. That includes things that agree with right-wings and you are only a shitposter if you constantly need to go 'back to /pol/' when people express them. Not just that, the only opinions I showed in my post chain for trump and shit was that 'trump is a dumb selfish cunt'. I don't see how that is right wing in any way. What I did do was dare criticize the corrupt slag saying she shouldn't be allowed in politics, someone you for some reason have this irrational need to defend.

The irony also seems to be lost on you in your second post quote there as well.

>>58674
>Gonna need a source for that, I watched the whole oversight committee and this was never once mentioned
Source is the hearing. I watched the entire hearing myself, which is how I know you didn't. If you had you would have seen the part at the end when they were trying to get Comey to admit that she broke the law but he wouldn't say it. He specifically said that all of Hillary's techs (including Bryan Pagliano, who pleaded thee 5th amendment in his testimony) didn't

>Comey responded that it wasn't unreasonable for Clinton to assume that administrators would not be reading her e-mail. And in other testimony, Comey said that because of the lack of security markings on the vast majority of the content, it was reasonable to assume Clinton believed the contents to be unclassified.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/house-oversight-committee-grills-comey-over-clinton-e-mail-findings/

>>58677
You are entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

I've never been to reddit in my life yet the fact that you're trying to peg me as a redditor because I keep refuting the fake clickbait-based charges against Hillary ITT shows what a "corruupt slag" YOU are, not Hillary.

>>58681
>You are entitled to your own opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
What does this even mean?

>Source is the hearing
Post a clip, like I have done for every one of my claims that you ignored.

>Comey responded that it wasn't unreasonable for Clinton to assume that administrators would not be reading her e-mail.
Literally doesn't matter if they read them or not. What matters is they were given access without clearance.

I'm not arguing that she should go to jail, I'm saying this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable for someone who wants to hold the highest office in the land. I'd rather have a bombastic CEO over someone who can't handle classified documents with care.

>>58683
>What does this even mean?
It means that most everything you've said ITT is based on a false or misleading premise (AKA not true)

>Post a clip, like I have done for every one of my claims that you ignored.
I posted a transcript, or are you going to pretend like that's not better than a video?

>Literally doesn't matter if they read them or not. What matters is they were given access without clearance.
Prove it happened Oh wait, Comey couldn't and you can't either.
>
I'm not arguing that she should go to jail, I'm saying this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable for someone who wants to hold the highest office in the land. I'd rather have a bombastic CEO over someone who can't handle classified documents with care.
And I'm arguing that a little administrative incompetence is infinitely more preferable than a repeat offender con-man who has declared bankruptcy seven times and defrauded his customers and creditors alike out of what was owed them by him.

>>58440
So you don't have an answer and can't refute even 1 thing, got it.

How much do people get paid to shill on 4chan lately? It can't be a lot.

>>58699
No I've given a valid response, you just can't handle responding to it so you're pretending like I haven't given anything, again.

How does it feel to be so wrong that you can only personally attack someone instead of refuting what they say? I haven't really experienced that since I was 15 or so.

>>58685
>Prove it happened Oh wait, Comey couldn't and you can't either.
Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?
Comey: Yes, yes.

>>58705
You haven't given a single valid response aside from regurgitating an article you dug up from google.

Tell the class using your own words why the points raised were wrong, but you can't because they aren't because the FBI stood on stage and said it all happened.

>>58707
Exactly.

>>58707
Comey: “We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information, beyond a reasonable doubt, to meet the intent standard,” he said.

Comey: “Why is it that the Department of Justice since 1917 has not used that gross negligence statute but charging it once in an espionage case?”

Comey: “That is the record of fairness,” “You have to decide, do I treat this person against that record, and if I do, is that a fair thing to do ― even if you are not worried about the constitutionality of it. And in my judgment, no reasonable prosecutor would do that.”

Comey: “That would be celebrity hunting,” “That would be treating this person differently than John Doe.”

>>58708
How about instead repeatedly trying to move the goalposts we go back to the topic of this thread and Trump's class action lawsuit and how he would not like his deposition videos chopped up into campaign commercials.

>>58710
None of those refute my point, dildo.

>>58712
Actually yes they do but I'm sorry that you're in denial of that fact. Comey found Hilary didn't do anything wrong. Period. Get over it already. For every slanted, partisan misleading clickbait piece like the CNSnews report posted earlier that gets dug up and asserts she did something she really didn't I can post a transcript that proves it wrong, so it's your time to waste.

>>58713
>Comey found Hilary didn't do anything wrong.
That's categorically not true. There is tons wrong with what she did, all Comey said was there wasn't anything to criminally charge her with. Not being charged with a crime is not synonymous with doing no wrong.

>>58714
Nice confirmation bias there. She didn't do anything the entire rest of the government did. It's like how it's against the law *not* to speed when everybody else on the road is going10miles over the MPH limit.

>>58712
It's a shill, you're not having a real conversation.

/news/ is literally the 1 place where people real life sill because it moves so slow

>>58715
>The whole government is doing it so it's okay
I don't think you even know what confirmation bias is. Comey said repeatedly that what she did was careless and stupid. That is a fact. Everything you have posted has been about his reasoning for no criminal charges, which doesn't matter in the slightest. This is about her ability to handle classified information, which has been PROVEN to be nil.

I would rather have a man who knows how to come out on top economically than someone who doesn't know how to handle our nations top secrets.

>>58717
I just don't get the point, why shill here? I know they can't get anything done on /pol/ because they get swarmed, but what good is shilling here?

>>58718
>Comey said repeatedly that what she did was careless and stupid
Yes and what you're leaving out is he also repeatedly said she didn't break any laws and didn't lie to the FBI.
> Everything you have posted has been about his reasoning for no criminal charges, which doesn't matter in the slightest.
Actually the fact that you think it doesn't matter when in reality it's the only thing that matters speaks volumes. No wonder!
>This is about her ability to handle classified information, which has been PROVEN to be nil.
No it's not, it's about Donald Trump's fraud case and how you're so mad about it that you're STILL trying to move the goalposts.

>>58719
Who do you think "they" is exactly? Who do you think I am affiliated with? Do you really think because I refuse to circlejerk about shit HIllary supposedly did that makes me some kind of shill?

>>58719
Because there's a lot at stake and there's no reason not to because it's incredibly easy and you can hire some PooinLoo to do it for a few bucks.

Without it then nobody would be around to defend Clinton ever for any reason because nobody on the planet likes her aside from 50+ year old hysterical fat women and the French.

>>58717
>>58725
I'm sorry to let the facts and the thread topic get in the way of your demonization of Hillary. Next time I'll try harder to form a true hugbox where we can all jerk each other off about how noble God Emperor Trump is like they do on /pol/.

Daily reminder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

>>58727
nice damage control, and carefully cherry picked clips too. Still isn't relevant to Trump's fraud case though.

>>58730
>I can't refute it despite trying to refute literally everything else in this thread so let's pretend like anyone cares about the original topic again

Loving every laugh

>>58733
Sigh very well. The clip starts off after the Hilalry quote with Comey saying "110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by "the owning agency" to contain classified information at the time they were sent or recieved." What the clip is misrepresenting is that those emails were all to clinton when in reality only 3 were, and those 3 were improperly marked 'classified'. See >>58710

Then after the Hilalry clip, the Comey clip goes on about "30000 emails that were not returned", What the clip leaves out is after that when he says specifially that thheey were missing due to upgrades on the server and they were left over from old servers during the transition.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-james-comey-225313
>Comey: In fact, she used one device, then dumped it when she upgraded to another one,

Then the clip goes on (through the wacky music) to further the above charge by conflating having more than one device at a time with upgrading physical servers due to outdated hardware.

Then after some creative editing, Comey goes on to talk about how he "'it is possible' that hostile actors accessed her servers", which isn't if you'll notice the same thing as "Definitely Accessed"

I'm at the text limit, shall I go on? You know as well as I that it's all based on false premises like this anyway.

>>58411
So basically she messed up, but not as seriously as people think she did, and not enough to get prosecuted.

>>58743
Not as much as is being portrayed by the corporate clickbait part of the media, yes. She definitely messed up and should be administratively punished. However that isn't quite the same as being sued for fraud like Trump. I'll let you decide which one is worse.

>>58752
Considering one is an accusation of fraud, and the other is negligence pertaining to national security (her email server was, after all, compromised), I'd assume Hillary's flip negligence is worse.