Left BELIEVES Meme That Trump Sent Nuke Codes Out In Email

[Gunny]

Unreal. They are too kind. It's Stupid vs Can Tie Your Shoes. Leftwingtards believe Trump is sending out nuke codes :laugh2:

Is the American Public so stupid they think the nuke codes have been one set since inception? THAT is raising the bar for DUMB.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB-1mCTj1BU

[Black Diamond]

What does this say about Washington Compost readers

[fj1200]

It's not like the right doesn't have their own memes they put stock in.

[jimnyc]

This is stupid all the way around and the news and politicians should be making this clear to Americans - any and all codes that may have been used in the past are now a part of history and long not used.

Even with that, I don't think it's like it's just written freely out in the open on a piece of paper, but rather protected quite highly. And likely dual or triple access of some sort to perform any type of offensive launch.

[Gunny]

This is stupid all the way around and the news and politicians should be making this clear to Americans - any and all codes that may have been used in the past are now a part of history and long not used.

Even with that, I don't think it's like it's just written freely out in the open on a piece of paper, but rather protected quite highly. And likely dual or triple access of some sort to perform any type of offensive launch.I'm sure you've seen the cliche movie moment "memorize this and eat the paper when you're done"? That's the simplistic way about how it works.

IF a classified code is written down, it carries the same classification as the code and must be safeguarded as such (secured in a classified container). Lot easier to just remember the code because woe be unto thee if if someone finds a code laying around in your handwriting. You're not Hillary Clinton. It's a court martial offense.

[jimnyc]

I'm sure you've seen the cliche movie moment "memorize this and eat the paper when you're done"? That's the simplistic way about how it works.

IF a classified code is written down, it carries the same classification as the code and must be safeguarded as such (secured in a classified container). Lot easier to just remember the code because woe be unto thee if if someone finds a code laying around in your handwriting. You're not Hillary Clinton. It's a court martial offense.

I know it's what some call "whataboutism" when someone refers away from the current predicament to go back in time and blame another doing similarly.

But truth is, Hillary had SO SO much more and TONS of confidential and highly confidential emails and more. And not just that, but also doing an end around using government protected servers and such. She thought she insulated her wrongdoing onto a network hidden from investigators. We all know the long story. ----- Why wasn't she raided? Why was she given time and notice and such? Why so much difference in treatment?

Better asked all the way around from Chuck Grassley:

-----

Sen. Chuck Grassley Demands Answers from FBI Director Wray on Mar-a-Lago Raid

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is demanding answers from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray regarding Monday’s raid of former President Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

On Thursday, the conservative titan and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Wray a list of questions concerning the unprecedented raid in Palm Beach, Florida, among other topics, including Hunter Biden. The FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was reportedly about documents Trump may have taken with him when he left office last year.

Grassley began by asking Wray about his knowledge of the raid before it happened, what potential role he played in approving it, and the investigation more generally. He then delves into questions concerning the equal application of the law regarding government records, citing the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “mishandling of highly classified information.”

Grassley first asks if Wray was “aware of the pending raid of Mar-a-Lago when he sat before” the Judiciary Committee on August 4. Grassley notes in the document that Wray left the hearing early before finishing his second round of questioning, and news reports that followed indicated he traveled to the Adirondacks on his government plane.

Subsequent questions concerning the Mar-a-Lago raid are as follows:

“When did you approve the raid? When did Attorney General Garland?”
“What was the predication for the raid? Please provide the predicating records, including the search warrant and supporting affidavit.”

“What is the scope of the investigation that predicated the raid? Is it limited to federal records and classification issues? Please explain.”

“Did you discuss the search warrant with anyone at the White House before or after its execution?”

– “If so, what was discussed?”

– “Did any member of the White House staff or other executive employee, official, or agent, direct you in any way to pursue and execute the search warrant? If so, who?”

“Did you discuss the search warrant with Attorney General Garland or any of his representatives or subordinates at the Department of Justice before or after its execution? If so, what was discussed?”

“Has the FBI employed a team to determine which records fall within the scope of investigation and those that fall outside of it? If so, when was that team employed? If not, why not?”

Grassley noted that in October 2016 he penned a letter to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the past investigation of Hillary Clinton, asserting she and staffers received “kid-gloves treatment relating to her mishandling of highly classified information.”

He emphasized that 38 people committed “91 valid security violations” and that there were another 497 violations where the committee was unable to establish culpability. Some of the 38 individuals intentionally used Clinton’s unsecured homebrew server to send classified information in correspondence. Another point of contention from Grassley were letters from Attorney Beth Wilkinson, who represented former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and her deputy Heather Samuelson, from June 2016, which “were incorporated by reference into the immunity agreements” for her two clients:

The letters set out the precise manner in which the Department and the FBI would access and use federal records and other information stored on .PST and .OST email archives from Ms. Mills’ and Ms. Samuelson’s laptops. It was my understanding that Ms. Wilkinson and lawyers from the Justice Department drafted the Wilkinson letters jointly before Ms. Wilkinson sent them to DOJ.

My letter expressed concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters, that the letters inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy these individuals’ laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.

Grassley asked Wray about those security violations:

With respect to the 91 security violations committed by the 38 individuals relating to Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified information, did the State Department refer any of them to the Justice Department or FBI? If so, what steps were taken to investigate them for those security violations and potential criminal conduct? If no steps were taken, please explain why not.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/12/sen-chuck-grassley-demands-answers-fbi-director-wray-mar-a-lago-raid/

[Black Diamond]

I thought this was a story in the Washington post. Not just a meme.

[Gunny]

I know it's what some call "whataboutism" when someone refers away from the current predicament to go back in time and blame another doing similarly.

But truth is, Hillary had SO SO much more and TONS of confidential and highly confidential emails and more. And not just that, but also doing an end around using government protected servers and such. She thought she insulated her wrongdoing onto a network hidden from investigators. We all know the long story. ----- Why wasn't she raided? Why was she given time and notice and such? Why so much difference in treatment?

Better asked all the way around from Chuck Grassley:

-----

Sen. Chuck Grassley Demands Answers from FBI Director Wray on Mar-a-Lago Raid

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is demanding answers from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray regarding Monday’s raid of former President Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

On Thursday, the conservative titan and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Wray a list of questions concerning the unprecedented raid in Palm Beach, Florida, among other topics, including Hunter Biden. The FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was reportedly about documents Trump may have taken with him when he left office last year.

Grassley began by asking Wray about his knowledge of the raid before it happened, what potential role he played in approving it, and the investigation more generally. He then delves into questions concerning the equal application of the law regarding government records, citing the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “mishandling of highly classified information.”

Grassley first asks if Wray was “aware of the pending raid of Mar-a-Lago when he sat before” the Judiciary Committee on August 4. Grassley notes in the document that Wray left the hearing early before finishing his second round of questioning, and news reports that followed indicated he traveled to the Adirondacks on his government plane.

Subsequent questions concerning the Mar-a-Lago raid are as follows:

“When did you approve the raid? When did Attorney General Garland?”
“What was the predication for the raid? Please provide the predicating records, including the search warrant and supporting affidavit.”

“What is the scope of the investigation that predicated the raid? Is it limited to federal records and classification issues? Please explain.”

“Did you discuss the search warrant with anyone at the White House before or after its execution?”

– “If so, what was discussed?”

– “Did any member of the White House staff or other executive employee, official, or agent, direct you in any way to pursue and execute the search warrant? If so, who?”

“Did you discuss the search warrant with Attorney General Garland or any of his representatives or subordinates at the Department of Justice before or after its execution? If so, what was discussed?”

“Has the FBI employed a team to determine which records fall within the scope of investigation and those that fall outside of it? If so, when was that team employed? If not, why not?”

Grassley noted that in October 2016 he penned a letter to then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the past investigation of Hillary Clinton, asserting she and staffers received “kid-gloves treatment relating to her mishandling of highly classified information.”

He emphasized that 38 people committed “91 valid security violations” and that there were another 497 violations where the committee was unable to establish culpability. Some of the 38 individuals intentionally used Clinton’s unsecured homebrew server to send classified information in correspondence. Another point of contention from Grassley were letters from Attorney Beth Wilkinson, who represented former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and her deputy Heather Samuelson, from June 2016, which “were incorporated by reference into the immunity agreements” for her two clients:

The letters set out the precise manner in which the Department and the FBI would access and use federal records and other information stored on .PST and .OST email archives from Ms. Mills’ and Ms. Samuelson’s laptops. It was my understanding that Ms. Wilkinson and lawyers from the Justice Department drafted the Wilkinson letters jointly before Ms. Wilkinson sent them to DOJ.

My letter expressed concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters, that the letters inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy these individuals’ laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.

Grassley asked Wray about those security violations:

With respect to the 91 security violations committed by the 38 individuals relating to Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified information, did the State Department refer any of them to the Justice Department or FBI? If so, what steps were taken to investigate them for those security violations and potential criminal conduct? If no steps were taken, please explain why not.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/12/sen-chuck-grassley-demands-answers-fbi-director-wray-mar-a-lago-raid/IMO, it goes beyond "whataboutism" when the alleged crimes are comparable being similar in nature and the reaction by the left to one is 180 degrees from its reaction to the other.

Minus all the MSM smoke, mirrors and blather, unlawful possession and/or dissemination and failure to safeguard classified material only differs in the degrees of damage it poses to the United States.

Hillary was hands down guilty of not safeguarding/mishandling/disclosing/storing classified information on an unclassified server. No "but's". Not only did she walk, she's collecting political donations making a joke of it.

OTOH, we still don't know yet what Trump possessed. As I understand it, the people that want the crap (National Archives?) left some behind under lock and key to collect later. As the thread title states, the left is trying to sell it that Trump gave away the keys to the city.

This goes beyond my dislike of the left and my dislike for Trump. Kind of as we touched on in the neuroscience thread.

The MSM's usual one-sided mishandling of the two issues is an issue unto itself. At some point, flat-out lying to the American people is going to have to be addressed one way or the other. It will come at the cost of FOS, and those who don't abuse it will suffer for those that do. As usual in all things.