The House Select Committee is reportedly investigating a gap of seven hours and 37 minutes (11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m) in telephone calls on January 6th for President Donald Trump. That reported gap led to questions of whether Trump used “burner phones” to evade any record of calls. It is still too early to determine the cause or responsibility for this alleged gap. However, Trump magnified concerns when he claimed to have never even heard the term “burner phone,” let alone knew what it means. The far more serious question, however, is whether Trump or his aides or allies actively sought to conceal communications during that critical period. There have been claims that the use of such phones would violate the Presidential Records Act. I do not believe that it would be a technical violation of the PRA.
President Trump Trump told the Washington Post “I have no idea what a burner phone is, to the best of my knowledge I have never even heard the term.” That left many skeptical given the ubiquitous use of this term in society.
Moreover, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser (and now critic) directly contradicted Trump and said that he personally discussed burner phones with the President.
I recently testified in the United States Senate on the danger posed by new forms of communication, including messaging systems designed to delete records of messages. Electronic records are part of the coverage of the Presidential Records Act.
The telephone logs are covered by the PRA as a record to be turned over to the National Archives. However, there is no accusation of destroying the telephone log itself. George H.W. Bush’s administration was accused of destroying telephone logs and records. The question is whether the use of burner phones violates the PRA. I am skeptical that it does. A president could use anyone’s phone during his travels or interactions. That does not violate the PRA.
Jason Baron, the former director of litigation at the National Archives, testified with me before the Senate committee. He is exceptionally knowledgable on the PRA and has an incredible legacy in fighting for the preservation of such records. He notably told the New York Times that the use of such phones might “violate the spirit” of the PRA. That is certainly true if a president employed burner phones to avoid the logging of calls. However, it would not, in my view, be a clear violation of specific provisions under the Act.
That does not mean that Congress does not have a legitimate interest in finding out if burner phones were used and, more importantly, finding out the timeline and subjects of calls made on that critical day.
To respond to your question, would not intent be an important factor in this type of case? Did he intend to bypass the PRA or was he simply not aware of the provisions? What if he had used an aides phone? Would that have been different?
“ Did he intend to bypass the PRA or was he simply not aware of the provisions?”
A stable genius would have been acutely aware of the PRA and it’s provisions.
Why don’t you stop trying to hijack the thread?
Whig98, it’s a free speech opinion blog. Any comments are fair game. It’s no different than what any other commenter does here.
NARA informs each person covered by the Presidential Records Act what it requires of them, so the answer to “was he simply not aware of the provisions” is “no,” he was informed by NARA.
The main issue — which Turley avoids — is not whether using burner phones is itself a violation. The main issue is that the calls were not logged. That is absolutely a violation of the PRA. If the people covered by the PRA use the authorized phones, the calls are automatically logged. The choice to use the burner phones means that they weren’t automatically logged, and the problem is: they also were not manually logged, as required by law, and it seems like the use of burner phones was an intentional effort to avoid having the calls logged.
Almost as bad as state legislatures nearly exempting state-run (federally funded) “Fusion Centers” from Freedom of Information Act requests for non-terrorism surveillance cases – even blocking members of Congress or Supreme Court justices from filing FOIAs on these FCs.
The result of this genuine evil: likely hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans have been defamed and harassed by officials for more than 20 years – exceeding more than 7000 consecutive days of blacklisting torture. Now that’s evil! Don’t worry about burner phones.
“Trump Thump”.
All cell phones keep a log of calls. So failure to keep and turn over those logs is a clear violation of the PRA. This is yet another article that JT writes trying to let Trump off the hook for clear violations of the law.
We know Trump fought hard to keep White House records from the Jan 6 committee. We know Trump destroyed illegally destroyed records while in office. The fact that 7 hours of communications are missing from a crucial point on Jan 6 and Trump’s known pathological lying he was very likely orchestrating the riot from the White House.
A federalist court already determined Trump was engaging in corruption and subversion of a legitimate vote.
Turley agrees that the committee is well within its rights to investigate the reasons behind the gap.
A federalist court already determined Trump was engaging in corruption and subversion of a legitimate vote.
No federal judge had any such finding.
Link.
But I already tore this lie apart yesterday. All the judge did was argue from a conclusion he reached, while ruling on a different matter all together. “may”, “likely”, “could”. Qualifying language all through dicta, not related to the ruling. Nor tethered to facts presented to the court.
Iowan2,
Given the evidence so far and the actions that day. It’s plausible Trump had hand in orchestrating or enabling the Jan 6 riot. Obviously he wanted it to succeed since it would have assured his re-election.
” It’s plausible Trump had …”
It’s plausible that you raped the child and ran away even though we know that didn’t happen.
They are absolutely related to the ruling, and on the very matter before Judge Carter, even though you cannot admit it.
He was ruling on whether — as alleged by Eastman — all of the documents that he’d withheld were protected by attorney-client privilege. Many of them were not, for various standard reasons, such as them not having been work product, or the fact that Eastman had already made 2 of them public. But then for 11 of the documents that otherwise would not have been released, Judge Carter had to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applied to any of those remaining 11 documents that Eastman wished to shield from release. The crime-fraud assessment is one of likelihood: is the likelihood of it being a crime greater than 50%. Not only is it “tethered” to facts, it is an **essential** assessment for the ruling. He ruled that for 1 of the 11, the crime-fraud exception did apply. It was his job to assess that, and he used the correct standard for assessing it.
You simply do not want to educate yourself about it or admit it.
One normally starts with a crime and then proves it. ATS likes to start with a witch trial and then forget about it.
Meyer the Troll Liar, when there is a civil case before a judge, the judge rules on the civil case before him, not on what you imagine he should start with. Eastman sued in civil court to prevent the J6 Committee from obtaining 101 documents. In the course of assessing them, the judge ruled that the crime-fraud exception applied. You cannot admit this.
That is why the judge probably erred in the way he wrote his decision.
Hypocrites talk just like you, but that means what they say isn’t exactly what they mean.
“One normally starts with a crime and then proves it. ATS likes to start with a witch trial and then forget about it.”
Svelaz wrote, “The fact that 7 hours of communications are missing from a crucial point on Jan 6 and Trump’s known pathological lying he was very likely orchestrating the riot from the White House.”
(I boldfaced words for emphasis)
That boldfaced part is pure correlation = causation conspiracy theory.
Correlation ≠ Causation.
Witherspoon,
It’s a plausible assumption given the evidence and obstruction from Trump and his inner circle of enablers.
Trump IS a pathological liar so it is entirely within the realm of possibility that trump was more involved than it seems. He’s already illegally taken classified documents as a private citizen from the White House to his mar a lago compound.
Svelaz,
Are you truly so ignorant that you can’t comprehend that “plausible assumption” is basically the same thing as “correlation = causation” which is basically the same thing as a “conspiracy theory”? You have no actual proof to support the accusation you presented only speculation based on assumptions which is “correlation = causation” and that is ridiculously thin circumstantial evidence.
You should have remembered that it’s “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
Witherspoon,
A plausible assumption can be made with the available evidence and observations of behavior that further lends credibility to the assumption. It’s not a claim that it is ultimately true. It’s no different than what many do here in the case of Hunter Biden or the voter fraud claims made by Trump and his supporters.
It’s seems you either have an inability to make the distinction or you’re jumping to conclusions based on a triggered emotional reaction.
There IS evidence of a plan to illegally replace electors to support the overturning of the election in Trump’s favor despite overwhelming evidence that voter fraud as claimed by Trump never happened. Keep in mind that those claims were “proven” on the idea that absence of evidence is evidence.
I never claimed it is true. Just a plausibility based on current evidence. Come to think of it Tucker Carlson does this on a daily basis and it’s acceptable to many Trump supporters.
“It’s a plausible assumption”
It’s a plausible assumption you raped a child even though it didn’t happen.
“Trump IS a pathological liar ”
Based on the many lies you have written, one could call you a pathological liar, so maybe you too could be involved more than it seems.
Should an investigation be started on you based on what is possible? Of course not. I say you have lied on this blog. Are we free to assume the worst about you because of those blog lies?
Anonymous,
“ “It’s a plausible assumption”
It’s a plausible assumption you raped a child even though it didn’t happen.”
Your logic is flawed. I stated that based on available evidence and observations of behavior a plausible assumption can be made. You don’t have any available evidence or observation of behavior to make a plausible assumption that I raped a child. What you did do was slander due to a LACK of available evidence or observed behavior.
Trump is certainly a pathological liar and there’s plenty of observable evidence on record.
You haven’t proven that I lie incessantly and obviously to meet the definition of a pathological liar. Opinion is not a lie remember?
“based on available evidence” you raped that child even though I choose not to believe it because, like with Trump, one should first start with a crime and evidence of guilt. Coincidently you lie all the time on the net, and that is not opinion. It is a proven fact.
It’s a proven fact that you’re a troll.
“based on available evidence” you raped that child even though I choose not to believe it because, like with Trump, one should first start with a crime and evidence of guilt. Coincidently you lie all the time on the net, and that is not opinion. It is a proven fact.
Anonymous,
“ “based on available evidence” you raped that child even though I choose not to believe it because, like with Trump, one should first start with a crime and evidence of guilt.”
But you haven’t presented or cited any of the “available evidence” you claim exists to assume your accusation.
What you did do is engage in slander. Obviously you don’t know how to make the distinction.
You choose not to believe it because you already know there is zero evidence for such an accusation. However there IS enough evidence to support a plausible assumption that Trump may have had a hand in instigating the rioting on the Capitol.
Svelaz, the ignorant troll, has proven his ignorance. This fool doesn’t even know the difference between slander and libel and yet he thinks that he can present an absurd argument based purely on anti-Trump hate based assumptions and we’re just supposed to accept it as if it’s a reasonable hypothesis.
Also Svelaz wrote above that “Opinion is not a lie remember?”
Not by todays Democratic Party and their snarling attack dog media standards. Almost everything in the list of Trump’s “lies” is his opinion and the left immediately calls it a lie and that is what the anti Trump is a pathological liar” narrative is based on – opinions.
In conclusion;
Svelaz has proven that he’s ignorant and then he figuratively dropped his rhetorical pants and exposed his double standard hypocrisy. Well done Svelaz , well done my friend.
Witherspoon,
“ Also Svelaz wrote above that “Opinion is not a lie remember?”
Not by todays Democratic Party and their snarling attack dog media standards. Almost everything in the list of Trump’s “lies” is his opinion and the left immediately calls it a lie and that is what the anti Trump is a pathological liar” narrative is based on – opinions.”
Your assertion that Trump’s lies are merely opinions is just deliberate obfuscation on your part. Trump IS a pathological liar and this assertion that they are just his opinions is your enabling the behavior just as everyone else defending the obvious lying.
But, if you insist your assertion is correct you wouldn’t be able to claim Biden or any other liberals or leftists lying that they are because they would be just stating their opinions. Because it’s the new “alternative facts” rationale that Trump supporters resort to when they can’t defend the obvious.
Svelaz ignorantly wrote, “Your assertion that Trump’s lies are merely opinions is just deliberate obfuscation on your part. Trump IS a pathological liar and this assertion that they are just his opinions is your enabling the behavior just as everyone else defending the obvious lying.”
Please at least acknowledge that I wrote “Almost everything in the list of Trump’s “lies” is his opinion”, the “almost” that I wrote is a very important qualifier that you seem to be completely ignoring. I’m not saying that President Trump never lied.
That said; you’re clearly ignorant and you’ve swallowed the left’s propaganda narrative hook, line, and sinker. The entire premise that Trump is a pathological liar is based on the false narrative presented by the Washington Post who originally called the list (linked below) Trump’s Lies until people like me pointed out over and over again the undeniable facts that the vast majority of what they were calling lies were in fact not lies, some were false or misleading but the vast majority of the things they put in their database are simply differences of opinion usually based on different sets of data. The Washington Post had to change the title of their site from the previous “Trump’s Lies” (or something to that effect) the the current “false or misleading claims” because the previous title was literally fake news in the worst way, it was a bald-faced lie and they were presenting it as fact so biased idiots, like you, would swallow it. Bias makes you stupid!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_11
Let’s just point out one of these Washington Post differences of opinion…
Trump said, “We also built the greatest economy in the history of the world”
By the standard that Trump was measuring the economy, which was the stock market and he said so, he was factually correct, the stock market soared to one record high after another during his time as President right up to the point that COVID hit. These are political games that all politicians play with the numbers, they are not lying, they are not misleading, they are not false, they are an opinion that is based on something that others choose to disagree with. There are thousands upon thousands of these kinds of examples in the Washington Post’s listing and these things are differing opinions NOT lies, not false statements and not misleading statements. Anyone with half a brain and is not terribly biased that looks through their list can easily pick out the things that are not lies but it takes unbiased knowledge which you are completely lacking.
There is a terrible double standard and outright hypocrisy from the political left when it comes to defining lies, false statements and misleading statements from anyone right of the political divide.
A lie is a very specific thing. Did President Trump say some things that can reasonably be considered a lie, yes but no where near to the extent of what the political left and you have portrayed him. Hive minded Borg like fools, like you, swallowed the false propaganda narrative hook, line and sinker and spread it as if it’s fact and every time you spread it you prove that bias makes you stupid.
That’s the end of your ridiculous trolling rabbit hole.
Steve says:
“Almost everything in the list of Trump’s “lies” is his opinion and the left immediately calls it a lie and that is what the anti Trump is a pathological liar” narrative is based on – opinions.”
You mean when Obama said that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor was NOT a lie as the Republicans called it but merely his opinion?
jeffsilberman wrote, “You mean when Obama said that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor was NOT a lie as the Republicans called it but merely his opinion?”
When he said it the first couple of times I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was simply misinformed about the bill; however, later after it was shown that it was literally false he was still making the same claim he got no benefit of the doubt then. There were lots of Democrats that were openly lying about the “Obama Care” bill and every person of voting age should have seen a giant red flag, lots of bright red flashing warning lights and their BS meter should have peaked out when Speaker Pelosi openly stated that “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it — away from the fog of the controversy.” as far as I’m concerned that is proof positive that the Democrats knew they were lying to the people of the USA and they knew they needed to pas it fast.
Steve,
The “election was stolen” – opinion or lie?
Remember now, Turley does not believe it, and Trump loyalist Bill Barr said unequivocally to Trump that the claims were all “bullsh*t.”
jeffsilberman wrote, “The “election was stolen” – opinion or lie?”
I’ve stated this on Turley’s blog a number of times, I disagree with the use of “stolen” as an opinion in this context I think the correct word to use is “rigged”. If you don’t understand the differences look them up.
Steve,
The “election was rigged” is an opinion or lie?
jeffsilberman wrote, “The “election was rigged” is an opinion or lie?”
It’s an opinion based on definitions and personal observations.
There was apparent collusion throughout the Democratic Party, their attack dog media and social justice warriors to literally “rig” the 2020 election and it was ongoing for 4+ years (the silencing of the Hunter Biden Laptop story is just one good example and the b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-a-t-i-o-n of predefined election laws in some states is another); so in my opinion, a rigged election would be the most accurate term to use for the 2020 Presidential election.
Here are some related definitions…
What the political left has engaged in for over 4 years was ends justifies the means libel, slander and intentional news suppression to rig the 2020 election, this was evil as in profoundly immoral and wicked. I don’t like the loose cannon mouthed Donald Trump one bit and I never wanted him as President, but what the political left did to him before, during and after his presidency has been pure evil and signature significant.
You’re welcome to disagree with me.
I’ll answer no more of your sealioning questions in this thread.
As you wish.
“Almost everything in the list of Trump’s “lies” is his opinion”
Nope. Lying is making a false statement on purpose and pretending it’s true. Trump makes a lot of false statements, pretending they’re true. Either he’s lying a lot, or if he’s not doing it on purpose, then he’s deluded.
Bill Clinton lied.
Hillary Clinton lied
NY Times lied
Wash Post lied
Joe Biden lied
You lie
“But you haven’t presented or cited any of the “available evidence” you claim exists to assume your accusation.”
That is a point you missed.
“What you did do is engage in slander. Obviously you don’t know how to make the distinction.”
That is another point you missed.
To provide some more ideas, I’ll leave it up to Steve, who ends with “dropped his rhetorical pants.” You can now find someone to help you put them back on again.
Svelaz, that is is within the realm of possibility does not mean that it is true. We do not yet know whether it’s true. We will have to be patient, and the country is better served when all of us work not to conflate conjecture and fact.
Anonymous,
“ Svelaz, that is is within the realm of possibility does not mean that it is true. We do not yet know whether it’s true. We will have to be patient, and the country is better served when all of us work not to conflate conjecture and fact.”
I never claimed that it is true. But the current narrative by presented by the available evidence still makes the assumption however improbable still be in the realm of plausibility.
Sometimes conjecture turns out to be true. Trump supporters point toTrump’s past wild conjectures to have come true.
That they scoff at the notion of making the same kinds of assumptions and conjecture as possibly true looks quite silly and hypocritical.
Agreed that some conjectures turn out to be true, and you only said it was “likely,” not true.
Anonymous says:
“We will have to be patient, and the country is better served when all of us work not to conflate conjecture and fact.”
Would someone be conflating “conjecture and fact” in an investigation into wrongdoing by dismissively calling it a “witch-hunt?”
Steve, Svelaz refuses to buy a dictionary. His understanding of the English language is abominable. Of course, he has no grip on the facts, so I guess his word use doesn’t matter.
S. Meyer, why would anyone buy a dictionary these days? Your phone is a virtual dictionary. Although a dictionary won’t help your reading comprehension problem. That requires actually going to a professional for help.
You need the type of dictionary that has large letters and produced for age 6-10.
His phone has lots of photos of little boys. He likes DICT in a hard up way
The Actblue crew is active today.
“A federalist court already determined Trump was engaging in corruption and subversion of a legitimate vote. ”
No, Svelaz, the judge did not find that. He said “the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” This means he judged the *likeliness* to be more than 50%. That is the standard for the crime-fraud exception. He did not conclude that Trump *had* committed a crime, and the case was not a criminal case, and the standard for the civil crime-fraud exception (greater than 50%) is lower than the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for a crime.
These details matter. We should all try to get the details right.
Anonymous,
“ No, Svelaz, the judge did not find that. He said “the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” This means he judged the *likeliness* to be more than 50%. That is the standard for the crime-fraud exception. He did not conclude that Trump *had* committed a crime, and the case was not a criminal case, and the standard for the civil crime-fraud exception (greater than 50%) is lower than the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for a crime.”
You’re right, I stand corrected.
Trump used burner phones huh? So for 7 hours and 37 minutes nothing was leaked to the NYT? My oh my, the man’s presidential record of accomplishment is in the books. And while Biden and the Democrats have us steaming toward an iceberg, the American people are supposed to be appalled the band was hired by the previous captain.
What else ya got? Trump spoke in a secret code and he refuses to provide it to the archivist?
Trump and Desantis are scrubbing the word gay from the state of Florida?
Come on, surely this blog can imagine the next allegation about Trump before the Left can dream it up.
Trump was right about 5th Avenue. You’d certainly forgive him!
Yeah, it gives us insight into the extreme level of denial that can exist in a population, just like the denial of genocide that existed in Nazi Germany.
Trumpists are so invested in their desire to believe that Trump is not a con artist and likely criminal that they will dismiss all the evidence to the contrary.
You sound like Stalin’s propaganda minister. Trump followers have almost all criticized Trump at one time or another. Trump has stated that is fine since he doesn’t expect everyone to agree with everything he does.
On the other hand, the Nazi Stalinist left insists on lockstep behavior of the type promoted on this blog all the time by Anonymous the Stupid.
Gee, hidden meetings off site from the White House, private e-mail servers in the past, visitor logs altered or removed in the White House or simply never scheduled yet they took place, gaps in phone conversations, maybe burner phones, health care task forces empaneled in Clinton White House with no names or meeting notes (so we can get candid opinions!) and on and on. So why not burner phones. And this is just the White House. House intelligence committee records under Rep Schiff, and a host of other committees on both sides. How many congressman, senators, cabinet secretaries, etc have more than one phone. I believe HRC had more than 2 at a time and they were smashed. And now John Bolton as a reliable witness? Or witness of fact or expert witness? I really think you are stretching things here.
Kind of as bad as having a server in your basement while you are SOS then “wiping” it; or as bad as lying to Congress about dossiers; or destroying an innocent Gen Flynn to make sure he doesn’t reveal your fake FISA to spy on a candidate, sitting president, and his campaign; or as bad as letting 3MM illegal aliens cross our borders; or as bad as lying about a fake rape to destroy an innocent Justice Kavanaugh; or as bad as being the puppeteer behind a mentally incapacitated president.
And It’s a logical fallacy to say “concerns are magnified” when someone says they don’t know what something is!!
“or destroying an innocent Gen Flynn”
An innocent General Flynn, the one that was an agent for Turkey while on Trump’s team. You are going to have to remove “highly educated” from your title.
“the one that was an agent for Turkey while on Trump’s team.”
Not true. Historical accuracy is something that seems to be lost when you post.
Flynn filed a retroactive FARA registration admitting that he’d been an unregistered agent for Turkey while a member of Trump’s campaign. It was filed on 3/17/2017.
Not true.
Flynn wasn’t innocent of the crimes he pleaded guilty to.
It is true. Flynn was caught jaywalking. Anything else you can think of?
Save the taxpayer money on a show trial. Presidents and elites don’t go to prison, they never get criminally prosecuted so why spend tax dollars pretending to be justice? Spend that taxpayer money on Oath of Office loyalty training, something that is actually a vital need in America’s lawless 21st Century.
Elites sometimes get criminally prosecuted. Roger Stone and Gen. Flynn, for example.
If Trump is indicted, it will likely be for more serious crimes that violating the PRA. This is just more evidence about the crimes he may be charged with: acting corruptly in a conspiracy to prevent the certification of the Electoral College vote.
Imagine if the Mueller investigation team wiped their phones.
What a scandal that would have been! Public reaction to that scandal would have set precedent for this.
Nixon erased 18 minutes, Trump hid over 7 hours.
Imagine if the Mueller investigation team wiped their phones.
You mean, with like a cloth?
We know from yesterdays Committee hearing, the FBI that took possesion of Hunter Bidens Lap top, has no idea of where the FBI has it stored.
Plausible, that like the laptops of Clinton’s wife’s top aides as Stated, gave their govt laptops to the FBI, and the FBI destroyed them. We also know the Clinton SoS team, regularly had big parties to destroy govt issues cell phones on a regular basis.
At least we have precedent on how to move forward.
finding out if burner phones were used and, more importantly, finding out the timeline and subjects of calls made on that critical day.
If it were critical, the phone logs of the single person responsible for Capital Security would have phone logs examined. Speaker Pelosi.
That is not happening, nor will it.
Evidence the Jan 6 committee is nothing but opposition . Additional evidence being the selective leaking of information, by the committee that seeks only to gain political advantage.
The proof won’t come from examining the logs. It will come from the records of those people known to have talked to Trump (like McCarthy and Mike Lee) and getting their records to see what number Trump was using. Then a subpoena for that number(s) will be the evidence)
The proof will come from examining all the correspondence involving Pelosi and everyone that might be involved in a conspiracy at the time of Jan 6. The paucity of such material is proof that information is being hidden to protect the guilty, Pelosi et al.
“Nixon erased 18 minutes”, Pelosi is hiding weeks.
The Speaker of the House is not responsible for Capital security.
Management of the Capital, like all things, has a chain of command.
Capital Architect
Sargent at Arms.
Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader, on a rotating schedule.
During the protests, it was the speaker of the House.
Every major decision is the final responsibility of the Pelosi.
Wally, when you do your fact checks with the leftist fact-checkers, look more carefully at the question raised. There are unnecessary additional words used to permit the fact-checker to call the statement false. That is because these fact-checkers aren’t looking for the truth. They are looking to prove a desired political conclusion by screwing up the facts. They are not fact-checkers. They are political machines meant to spin the truth and capture people that do not know much about the subject.
Once those extra words are removed, one can see that the Speaker of the House WAS RESPONSIBLE as the highest authority available at the time.
If one only uses the fact-checker, they will look foolish repeatedly.
If you don’t see how that is done, pick out the fact-checker of your choice and quote the portions that prove a different scenario. I am sure others on the blog or myself will be glad to sort through the words and show you their tricks.
Your claim that Pelosi is “the single person responsible for Capital Security” is a lie.
Why do you lie?
In context, Iowan spoke the truth. Why do you remove context and lie?
The buck does not stop at the top?
Why wasn’t the NG on the streets? Because Pelosi did not call for them. The Capital Archetect and or the Sargent at Arms could not make that call. It would have to come from Pelosi.
The question is, Were the NG requested and refused by Pelosi. Or. Was there not a single person in the chain of command that discussed the potential need?
Call logs would go a long way to answer that question.
A single person, The Speaker of House, is responsible.
Sounds like this “gap” is something manufactured by the Select Committee as yet another attempt to embarrass Trump. Let’s see the proof first.
You are the leader in denial so far, but it’s early. Trump didn’t even deny it. Bravo!
The call logs have been published. The logs show a 7 hour 37 minute gap.
The call logs have been published. The logs show a 7 hour 37 minute gap.
A version of the call logs.
The Jan 6 committee has already been caught selectively editing e mails they carefully select to leak to the compliant media.
You haven’t presented evidence that “The Jan 6 committee has already been caught selectively editing e mails they carefully select to leak.”
I doubt you will.
It was a text message, not an email. A distinction that changes nothing. It took me exactly one search “Jan 6 committee alters email”
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
the spokesman wrote. “The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’”
“In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,” the spokesman admitted. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.”
The Jan. 6 committee spokesman did not explain how one could “inadvertently” cut a sentence in half and eliminate the final two paragraphs of a detailed legal summary, nor did he explain why Schiff attributed the content of the text to Jordan, “a lawmaker,” rather than to Schmitz, the attorney who wrote it.
The Jan 6 committee has already lied to advance the phony conspiracy.
“It took me exactly one search “Jan 6 committee alters email””
It’s not MY job to look up YOUR claim. You substantiated part of your claim, but even if you replace “e mails” (plural) with “one text message,” it’s still false that “they carefully select to leak” that text. It was not leaked.
So what?
Your assumptions are not irresponsible acts. Did you murder the girl down the block just because you couldn’t account for the three hours when the murder occurred?
So who has investigated the Biden’s Selling the US Government to the world’s oligarchs?
The Rule of Law is Dead in America. I don’t care if Trump used a burner phone!
Let me know when the DOJ is investiaged for the Russian HOAX and Spying on Trump! Democrats HAVE WEAPONIZED government against the PEOPLE OF AMERICA! Don’t make us kick their BUTTS again!
We know Clinton’s wife set up a private e mail server, and used her personal email exclusively as SoS. Handling classified information, in direct violation of the law. We know she communicated the the President of the United States from her personal email, to his anonymous gmail account.
Precedent matters.
I have been lied to all these years? I thought ‘back channels’, were the epitome of sophisticated State Craft?
Clinton didn’t use the private email server “exclusively.” Some then unclassified work emails were forwarded to the private server.
“The truth never hurt a just cause.” Gandhi
All of that is a lie
Iowan2,
“ We know Clinton’s wife set up a private e mail server, and used her personal email exclusively as SoS. Handling classified information, in direct violation of the law.”
Lol! She didn’t break the law. If she did she would have been indicted. Republicans had multiple investigations and found no criminal violations. This is why the DOJ couldn’t prosecute if it wanted to. What did happen was she violated department POLICY. In order for criminal charges to be valid they had to prove intent to disseminate the information to unauthorized individuals.
Svelaz, Read the findings delivered by FBI director James Comey. He clearly stated the law was violated. But decided not to prosecute. No person that values their reputation disputes the facts
You are in 100% full troll mode.
Iowan2, nope. What comey did say was this,
“ Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
He stated they found NO evidence they intended to violate laws. Only that they were careless.
Furthermore,
“ Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
You can read more in Comey’s detailed analysis here,
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
He stated they found NO evidence they intended to violate laws. Only that they were careless.
The law specifically states intent is not to be considered.
Comey made up that part to fool the leftist rubes..I see it worked
Not much different ‘in spirit’ than the White House’s ‘Obamacare’ formulations. Wouldn’t have looked good to serious reporters to see the names of medical care/pharmaceutical bigwigs in the White House visitor logs, so dealings with the very corporations whose profits had become a major issue were kept secret by getting their input/backing through the use of meetings in outside cafes. Who wants a bill to rein in soaring medical costs to be knowingly negotiated with the entities the bill is supposedly addressing?
I have no idea if Trump used a burner phone. But we know 100% that fauci and the KLAN used burner phones. That concernse me a tad more because that was trying to hide a virus and its orignins coming out of CCP. Also if Trump was going off line with all the spying he had to put up with. Good for him.
” However, there is no accusation of destroying the telephone log itself. ”
The President had already been accused of tearing up records which his flunkies sometimes pasted back together. And yes, it has been questioned whether someone destroyed portions of the WH logs. Maybe Turley is hanging on the technicality there hasn’t been a formal charge (under Merrit Garland there may never be). I can’t wait to hear all the reasons people here think this is nothing to see?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/11/us/trump-documents-criminal-law.html
I’m shocked, shocked that Turley has absolved Trump.
So Trump is as bad as Kevin Clinesmith?