Why are the Republicans so quiet over the deleted texts from the secret service?

The texts have got all the “DIRT” on the TANGERINE QUEEN you know what I mean ! ! !

The hearings and anything to do with them have now brought about a morbid silence on the part of anyone Republican still capable of exhibiting a thimbleful of sense. The entire lineup now regards the appearance of a press camera or microphone with the same enthusiasm Dracula would grant a crucifix. And that is because regardless of whichever topic the interview might ostensibly concern, there is no resisting the inevitable questions arising from the bombshell revelations the hearings have exposed. There has never in the history of this country been anything as devastating nor as destructive to the Republican brand, and that of so extensive a crowd of its leadership. Those claiming the hearings little more than Democratic attempts to bad mouth Republicans must concede that in this, the sessions have been spectacularly successful beyond any and all partisan expectations. The fact that the sessions more than vindicate their existence regardless of whatever motives attributed by those opposing them is clearly now beyond dispute. And anyone Republican daring to open his mouth in front of a microphone is doomed to confront such questions as “why do you believe you might require a Presidential pardon?”

Can’t imagine. Guess I’ll have to drink a bleach cocktail and forget about it.

Not being a Republican, I can’t speak for them. But here’s the part I’m curious about. They are protecting congress and the VP from this rabid crowd and they are operating via text? Not radio? I’m very curious what’s on those texts and VERY curious why none of the yahoos on the J6 panel have asked why texts were being used.

But the texts are currently far different than Hillary’s e-mails. It was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she had sent classified materials over unsecured lines. The law specifically states that ignorance or intent is not an excuse for this. Yet she was let off because the AG created the intent clause that didn’t exist. “She didn’t mean to send classified materials so we aren’t going to prosecute her.” is about as bullshit as it gets. She should have seen jail time for it. The only tie between Hillary and the Secret Service is that they both deleted evidence. The difference seems to be that Hillary did it after she was told they wanted to look at her e-mails. SHE made the decision what was and wasn’t important. And the left bought that just fine. So maybe the Secret Service agents were just deleting things of a personal nature…things that aren’t important.

They don’t want trump to look any worse than he already does.

I believe someone high in the Service deemed it preferable to delete all records of the emails and withstand the consequences, regardless of how harsh. The reasoning being that such consequences are better than a precedent that the Service’s ironclad reputation for silence on the behavior of its charges can be breached. You notice that is NEVER a member of the Service that comments in any way on the behavior of Trump regardless of how stupid or even illegal that behavior.

@seawulf575 AG’s, law enforcement, and judges, all have some discretion about whether it makes sense to prosecute or punish someone.

So it seems to me that no, it really was very much not as you wrote, “about as bullshit as it gets”. Because who actually cares if she ignorantly sent something classified over an unsecured line, other than people who have enough of an agenda about Hillary that they just want her in jail?

(Cases of people getting away with potentially chargeable offenses definitely get far, far “more bullshit” than that . . .)

@HP I read that the Secret Service has a hard obligation to give such things to the archivist, so that there can be an investigation in the exceptionally rare case it was needed, and that they generally do, but not this once, so yes, it’s pretty clear someone preferred to delete them anyway, which points to them thinking deleting them was worth the consequences.

I am of two minds here. I hope to resolve this in the coming weeks.
On one side, if they witnessed impeachable actions , the should disclose it. Deleting their texts implicates themselves.

On the other hand, I think this was discussed during the Bill Clinton impeachment. A President needs to be able to be protected by the Secret Service without worrying they will spill secrets.

@Zaku Yep, AGs, law enforcement and judges have some discretion…that is true. But we are talking about matters of national security with Hillary. She was Secretary of State and shouldn’t be ignorant of national security protocol. To make that excuse shows you are willing to accept, and actively support incompetence and threats to our nation…as long as they involve people on the left. Additionally, the law specifically stated that violations regardless of why are punishable by fines or imprisonment or both. So to use the excuse she didn’t have intent is likewise making excuses.

Compare that to the sailor that took a couple pictures of the engineroom of his ship. He was prosecuted to the limit of the law even though he didn’t have any intent of doing wrong. Our elected leaders should not be held to a lower standard than the people.

Another aspect of Hillary is that when she was asked for her e-mails, she made the decision to delete 30,000 of them. That is willful destruction of evidence. If a company is being investigated for wrong doing and their e-mails are requested, they are required to give all of them…not just the ones they deem are relevant. What if Trump had done something like this? Would you still be saying that incompetence was acceptable? Would you be making excuses? Here’s the answer…no you wouldn’t. I can say that with certainty because of the way the left is reacting to this. Your arguments against the Secret Service are exactly the opposite of what you are arguing about Hillary.

Let me see if I can answer the question.

You’ve been making stuff up for five years and trying to prosecute trump based on the stuff you made up. Now you want to know why we’re not interested in the stuff you make up again. The answer is BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN MAKING THIS UP FOR FIVE YEARS.

“The idea that it showed something that would put them in jail is exactly what you ridiculed the right on when it came to Hillary”

Show me the connection are you implying; is it Hillary’s servers are the same as January 6th ??

@seawulf575 “But we are talking about matters of national security with Hillary. She was Secretary of State and shouldn’t be ignorant of national security protocol.”
– That much, yes.

“To make that excuse shows you are willing to accept, and actively support incompetence and threats to our nation…as long as they involve people on the left.”
– No, it doesn’t show that at all! I don’t give a crap that Hillary is “on the left”, I wouldn’t mind her going to prison for something that made good sense, and I actually find her pretty terrible after seeing how she campaigned against Sanders in 2016. I think she’s a dangerous pro-oligarchy establishment politician (so, actually, not “on the left”) who had an unfortunate amount of support from actual smart-but-not-skeptical-enough progressives. I wish she hadn’t been able to run in 2016, so Sanders could have been president.
– And I don’t “accept, and actively support incompetence and threats to our nation”! That should be, and was, shut down, and punished if necessary and appropriate. I would have found the punishment politically convenient if it had happened at the right time, even, but I think it’s an overly draconian idea to imprison people for ignorance, especially if it turns out to be a minor thing. (I don’t know, what the classified info was, nor whether anyone actually intercepted it so there were actual consequences or not – do you?)

“Additionally, the law specifically stated that violations regardless of why are punishable by fines or imprisonment or both. So to use the excuse she didn’t have intent is likewise making excuses.”
– Punish-able yes, but not required punishment without discretion. I assume if this was actually a serious problem, you would be able to say much more than this, but AFAIK there’s nothing more to say, which suggests to me she didn’t know, and it didn’t really cause much of a problem, so the AG seems reasonable to me to not have pressed it.

“Compare that to the sailor that took a couple pictures of the engineroom of his ship. He was prosecuted to the limit of the law even though he didn’t have any intent of doing wrong. Our elected leaders should not be held to a lower standard than the people.”
– Ok, yeah. I agree, though I think I’d more likely be being more lenient with people, rather than insisting every violation always needs to be punished. I don’t know enough about that case’s details to know whether he deserved it.

“Another aspect of Hillary is that when she was asked for her e-mails, she made the decision to delete 30,000 of them. That is willful destruction of evidence. If a company is being investigated for wrong doing and their e-mails are requested, they are required to give all of them…not just the ones they deem are relevant. What if Trump had done something like this? Would you still be saying that incompetence was acceptable? Would you be making excuses? Here’s the answer…no you wouldn’t. I can say that with certainty because of the way the left is reacting to this. Your arguments against the Secret Service are exactly the opposite of what you are arguing about Hillary.”
– No. I actually don’t know the details of the email situation you’re talking about. If your description is fair and accurate, then sure, lock her up. Fine with me.

@Zaku
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Look at (f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

As Secretary of State, Hillary falls under this. She claimed she didn’t know the rules. Gross negligence is specifically not an excuse. And they found Top Secret materials in the e-mails they DID get. Hell, they found similar stuff on Anthony Weiner’s laptop which means Hillary’s aide de camp, Huma Abedin was also guilty of this. Nothing happened to either because, well, they didn’t “mean to” break the law…they just didn’t know any better. Gross negligence is no an excuse as the law specifically states.

So you claim to feel that Hillary should have gone to prison for something that made sense. Laws about national security don’t make sense?

Really @ Jaxk making stuff up?maybe you are refusing to see, you truly believe he did not incite a riot on Jan6, no those people were just tourists,after it was just a big snuggle fest, you do know most of the people testifying are Republican?
You might see Trump as some kind of god that the evil world wants to crucify ,but we see him totally different!

@SQUEEKY2 I think @Jaxk is saying that it has been all the never-Trumpers that have made stuff up for the past 5 years. And this is really no different. Hell, even AOC has called out the Capitol Police for letting rioters in on Jan 6. Yet the J6 committee has purposely avoided this, trying to make it more like slavering, armed kooks were charging the building, killing all the police in their path, and hunting for any congresspersons they could kill. Sorry, after Russia Collusion, the impeachment that was based on no actual crimes and was backed up with 3rd hand information, opinions, and lies, and everything else we had to put up with for the entire Trump presidency, taking anything the Dems and Never-Trumpers claim seriously is a complete waste of time. And they do it all the same way every time. They don’t have facts, they have opinion. They have the story they want. And then they concoct these idiotic investigations so they will find only opinions and stories they want to use. They block any other views or even facts.

Take Cassidy Hutchinson as a perfect example. She comes in, after a whole year of “investigating” with wild stories about Trump. But was she present at any of the things she was testifying to? Nope. And in some cases, her stories were completely debunked by those that WERE there. So what does the J6 committee do? They claim she is believable with her 2nd and 3rd hand testimony yet they are not with their first hand, eye witness testimony. And some of those that weren’t reliable are the ones she was quoting. C’mon. You really can’t be that dense. Don’t let Trump derangement make you look like a fanatic.

Non-trump vs. trump. We will never agree and we will never change our individual minds on how we feel. So I think I will try to stay out of these conversations. They lead to no where. That being said, I still give GA’s on other stuff to @seawulf575 and @Jaxk, meaning that I don’t hold a grudge and hope you all don’t either.

@seawulf575 Most of the people testifying are Republicans! And when Cassidy wasn’t present she said so hands down.
Plus no others have discredited her statements making her even that much more credible.
I get that you love the Orange god, but he fell short that day.
I mean you make out that woman that was shot as a freaking hero trying your damnedest to fault the officer that shot her as a buffoon, people were hurt that day and your GOD was the instigator, I know you will never see it that way but let’s see what the courts decide.

To the OP, because Trump is not a Democrat.

@seawulf575 I’m not a lawyer, and I am certainly not an attorney general, nor am I familiar with what their real usual guidelines are for enforcing those laws. I have however been involved in some legal cases, and read a fair amount of law, and discussed laws with lawyers, and have OFTEN been surprised by how what the law seems to clearly say to me, the lawyer says actually means something quite different, and/or details which because of other laws, or case law, may not actually apply.

Also, as we agreed, DA’s do have discretion about which cases to actually file, for a variety of reasons.

So while appreciate you sending me that law text, I don’t think it is possible for me to follow you to your conclusions about it. What I’d want to see, is a statement from the DA about why they chose not to pursue that case, and/or an expert opinion from some lawyer who has researched the situation. Otherwise, for the reasons mentioned above, I know that I don’t have enough information, and I’m inclined to assume the DA knew what they were doing, and that the DA made that decision with extreme care, because it would be (and was) subjected to lots of scrutiny by all sorts of people, many of who would love to be able to effectively criticize and/or challenge it.

Oh, and I just now decided to search for “why wasn’t hillary prosecuted emails” and wow, I got so many results… looks like an endless quagmire.

All of this misses the point that the deleted texts amount to little more than sprinkles on the cake. It is now a waste of time minimizing the proceedings. It is now more or less impossible to sustain the argument that hostility to Trump was unjustified, as his entire cabinet, his family, and virtually all who had dealings with him confirm his criminal irrationality and spectacular derangement. And it strikes me as more than interesting that those of the party he poisoned who insist the hearings a hatchet job, found it necessary to seek pardons from the jackass regarding their complicity in the crimes they loudly trumpet that he didn’t commit. Those silly stooges still clinging to any facade of the pig’s behavior as tolerable or their lunatic as victim of the left, are doomed to follow him one way or another down the toilet, the requisite ending thus far to all who throw in with him.

@HP Yes.

(Not to mention re-enacting the 6-year-old joke “but her emails!”)

I think @seawulf575 conveyed my point very well but let me add this: We sat through 4 years of Russia, Russia, Russia, Two years of the Mueller investigation, and two separate impeachments With no credible evidence\e. Now you say ‘but we have him now’. We know that to be true because we heard that someone heard someone else say that they heard someone say he did something. I’ll wait for the trial where we can hear it all. So far, it’s just a campaign ad. Supporters will cheer, opponents will jeer. I’ll give you credit for tenacity.

@chyna Never a grudge. Debate can be lively and that is okay. It’s only not okay when it gets rude.

@SQUEEKY2 Why should anybody else TRY to discredit her? The J6 panel has made it clear that she could say Trump at flowers from an alien’s butthole and they would believe her. And anyone that claimed she was wrong would be deemed “disreputable”.

As for Ashlii Babbitt being shot…she was an unarmed woman that stood about 5’ tall that came through a window. Is that a capital offense? When Jacob Blake tried killing his ex and then turned on the cops and got shot (but not killed) it was horrible!!!! Riots!!! Cops are killers!!!! But when its a little white woman that isn’t really presenting a danger, shoot to kill and we won’t even investigate. Think about it this way…if Trump supporters (and conservatives in general) were like the tools on the left, we would have rioted in every city demanding justice for Ashlii. We would have burned down the country one city at a time…just like BLM and their soldiers on the left. And all conservative politicians would have backed them.

You cannot see the hypocrisy you are spewing.

Good grief, The Russia,Russia,Russia there was what 14 or 18 indictments ,Flyn pleaded guilty to it,REMEMBER when the judge asked Mueller if it exonerated Trump and he said NO,just he couldn’t move forward to prosecute him.
BUT to you Trump LOVERS he is innocent of everything.
And again trying the Babbittt thing she was just climbing through a window so innocent,PLease keep going climbing through a window on a door that was barricaded on a Government building that was under siege,PLUS warned about the gun and told to get back which she did not do,but because she was just a small woman it makes it OK, and if that doesn’t work let’s deflect to a black guy that was shot by cops.

As for the confusion about the secret service and the texts,duh don’t they talk via special radios,of course they do but after think they may text each other and say like you should have seen ole Orange hair go ballistic and grab for the wheel and scream take me to the Capital?

@SQUEEKY2 Yes, there were indictments…none of which were for Trump or his campaign colluding with Russia to steal the election. And Flynn did plead guilty to lying to the FBI which was a coerced confession. You need to ask why the FBI was working so hard to coerce a confession. And Mueller’s investigation concluded that no Americans were knowingly involved with any Russia efforts to interfere in the election. There was nothing there. However, you fail to look further into the story to find that Durham has investigated the start of the whole thing and found it was a Democrat funded effort, that it was based on lies from disreputable sources through a discredited British agent. Yet you treat all that as if it were nothing.

As for Ashlii Babbitt, maybe things in Canada are different. If you are unarmed and not presenting a significant threat to life, are the cops just allowed to start gunning you down? They frown on it in the US…providing you aren’t a conservative or a Trump supporter. Then, apparently, it is open season and you don’t have to worry about repercussions or any danger to your job. That is the other thing you fail to address. It is 100% common to remove a police officer from duty pending an investigation AND to make sure the officer is not mentally off (upset, depressed, etc) due to the act. That didn’t even happen. But again, as long as you don’t ask why, you can eat up all that the leftist media pumps into you.

As for the Secret Service texting back and forth, sure they probably do…after hours. Not during the time they are on duty. That would likely be a dereliction of duty. But nobody really wants to look at it like that or ask why they were texting at all…especially when there is supposedly this massive armed rebellion going on. Are you really saying that with all that you claim was happening at the time, that the Secret Service agents were just casually texting back and forth? Really!?!?!?

Good grief, the first part I hardly believe .THE FBI working for the Democrats yeah right.
The second you are ignoring that Babbitt was climbing through a broken window ,ON A DOOR THAT WAS BARRICADED, in a CAPITAL BUILDING THAT WAS UNDER SIEGE, WAS WARNED OF THE GUN, and TOLD TO GO BACK,and it was on video that I guess you chose not to view to continue to push your a horrible crime was committed story, NOW quick deflect to the cops shooting some black guy that deserved it.

NOW the texting ,you sure like to push the fright wing view ,of course it was after things calmed down but those texts would confirm peoples stories.

@SQUEEKY2 remember several people hold their opinion higher than FACTS; look at “Old Tangerine Make-up”.

Yeah true, I get tired of people defending The Don Father, lets see what the courts decide, but if they do convict they will scream witch hunt fake charges.
I like these Trump lovers falling all over themselves saying these hearing are just fake and out to get Trump,strange as because most of the people testifying are die hard right wingers.

@SQUEEKY2 You are ignoring that even with Ashlii coming through the window, she isn’t armed. And she was shot before she could even get through the window. She was not an imminent threat. Not. An. Imminent. Threat. There were numerous cops there, none of which had their guns drawn. There were armed cops in the crowd behind her that weren’t really all that concerned either. Yet a cop, almost twice her size with back up right there, pulled his gun and shot her…and no investigation was really done.

I notice you dodged the question about cops gunning down people in Canada…whether it’s allowed or not. No good answer on that one, is there? If you say yes they are allowed, then all your arguments about cops shooting people in the US or even about gun control go out the window. If you say no they are not allowed, your entire argument with Ashlii Babbitt goes out the window. So you just dodge it.

When there is a police shooting here it is investigated by an independent body.
Who are you to say Babbitt was no threat, and you keep ignoring that she did get through the window on a door that was barricaded,you can hear in the video she was warned about the gun,and told to get back which she ignored and was shot and to you she is still an innocent?

@SQUEEKY2 some people view her as a patriot and therefore she did no wrong (while breaking into the US Capitol) !

Yeah,and I guess that is why we call them fright wingers!

I wonder if these patriots will be granted the right to wave their flags in prison.

@HP you mean the huge confederate one with Trump looking like Rambo on it?

I suppose I mean the plethora of symbols and props these folks believe authenticate their patriotism.

@SQUEEKY2 So they do investigate shootings in Canada. Good to know. They do that here to. Just about every single shooting…even if it was obviously justified…is investigated. And the police are ALWAYS removed from the scene immediately and removed from field duty pending the investigation. Yet none of that was done in this case. Why?

Ashlii Babbitt was not shot when she got through the window. She was still in the window. And with cops in front of her, cops behind her, and her not being armed, yes…I can easily say she was no real threat. The better question is why do you believe she DID present such a dreadful threat? I mean if she had a gun I’d agree with you. A knife, a taser…anything like that I’d say you might have an argument. The cop could see her hands (which were being used to steady herself in the window). Was she innocent? She was likely guilty of trespassing…maybe even breaking and entering (at a stretch). Are these capital offenses in Canada worthy of immediate unsanctioned execution?

And your point is what ?????? . . . . she was only a little bit guilty ..... . and should have have been sent to three weeks of after school detention !

SHE WAS trying to overthrow the the USA government . . . I know she was a patriot in your eyes !

THANKS @Tropical_Willie you can’t get through to wulfie I am giving up, Babbitt will be a hero in his eyes, not a out of control rioter trying to breach a barricaded door in a Capital building that was under siege ,she was unarmed heck her large back pack probably had girl scout cookies for the guards,the officer that shot her should just be executed for the horrible crime against a helpless little women that meant no harm .

@Tropical_Willie and @SQUEEKY2 What I DO notice is that you can’t get to the point of saying that executing a person for trespassing is acceptable for cops to do. You have also both had no problem castigating police officers that have shot poor helpless black men that were trying attack them or others with weapons in their hands. So it’s just that you are both racists. Got it.

What do you mean, I already said the officer should be executed for the shooting of your hero isn’t that what you want?She was just a lost out of control rioter trying to get through barricaded door .

How does that make us racist ?

SQEEKY2 You know what is truly remarkable about 6 January? Only one of the mob was shot? If you look at the footage, it is absolutely astounding the amount of restraint exhibited on the part of law enforcement. In fact the restraint was so pronounced that it has allowed Republican dummies along with the dummy here to claim that the police INVITED the mob in to loot the place. And here’s a further and more glaring STUPIDITY—the idea that a cop should be castigated for shooting a lone black man dictates equivalent treatment to the shooting of a SINGLE participant within an armed mob in the very act of invading the Capitol with the EXPRESSED INTENTION OF LYNCHING THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. To conflate this incident with the humdrum routine traditional shooting of lone black folks by rogue cops is just plain STUPID. And to state you might be racist for concluding otherwise, switches the subject to the mental health of the accuser. The truth is that the actual carnage at the hands of law enforcement was breathtakingly insignificant compared with that which was FULLY justified and more than to be expected. The rioters LUCKED OUT. EVERY cop there deserves a commendation.

Super great answer thanks!!

Well you got to admit wulfie always finds a way of blaming everything on Democrats,and if you don’t agree your a racist!

I’m not allowed to interact with a certain individual, but some things just defy the limits of tolerability.

@SQUEEKY2 You might be a racist to those who think it’s justifiable to shoot Babbitt if she was black. But since she was white, she’s merely forcing her way in to a room she’s not supposed to and did not deserve to be shot. You know that room. Just like any other room or chamber outside of that very building. Nothing special about it. ~

Ya Know @mazingerz88 if the roles were reversed and it was a bunch of crazed democrats storming the Capital that day and babbitt was a democrat Wulfie would fall all over himself defending the actions of that officer, saying they were holding a line and babbitt was trying to cross that line and the officer was in line with his actions, but that is only if the roles were reversed.

And to further extrapolate on this, let’s make that a mob of native Americans, black Americans or (God forbid) Muslim Americans storming the building? Come to think of it rather than asking what if, lets’s ask the question as to why first of all, I managed to neglect to mention both Asian and Hispanic Americans, then ask the question why not a single individual from the groups mentioned showed up for the party. Now I will fully agree that not every participant in the riot must be a die hard racist, they were certainly dumber than shit if they could not but look at the ctowd to understand WHO WAS MISSING from the guest list. The groups mentioned CERTAINLY have their grievances about being swindled and disenfranchised at the polls. Not a one of them chose to show up and bitch, let alone lynch Gaetz or Greene—how come??? If you want to introduce the matter of racism into this conversation, you will notice that this lily white insurrection was EXCLUSIVELY an affair of WHITE AMERICANS, and you’d better believe that it contained the greatest concentration of bonafide racist’s excluding the Republican Congress

You don’t have to imagine what would happen if the mob were different, just look ay the riot at the White House. The difference is that the Secret Service was properly reinforced at the White House but not at the Capitol. Consequently no one was shot.

There’s another difference. Pence wasn’t available to be lynched at the White House. He was at the Capitol, performing the duties required of him by law. The great pumpkin was correct “Fk Pence, he deserves it. These are MY people. They’re not after ME”

They’re waiting to see what turns up. No sense in making comments about something you know nothing about.

@kritiper Exactly.

We all know a great deal after this particular “witch hunt”. Who disagrees, the effort valuable and JUSTIFIED?