More Hillary emails

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Dahossdaboss

That’s what is being looked in to. When Kush’s (cute little pet name by the way ) lawyer was asked if he uses Whatsapp for classified info he said “That’s above my pay grade.”

I wish I was making that up.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ed-app-1230978

Cummings, who now leads the Oversight Committee, says in a new letter to White House counsel Pat Cipollone that Lowell confirmed to the two lawmakers that Kushner “continues to use” WhatsApp to conduct White House business. Cummings also indicated that Lowell told them he was unsure whether Kushner had ever used WhatsApp to transmit classified information. [emphasis added]

/www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/elijah-cummings-jared-kushner-encrypted-app-1230978

No supportable evidence classified info was transmitted. Another so-called investigation launched without a crime. Another investigation of a U.S. citizen in search of a crime.

[Dahossdaboss]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

/www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/elijah-cummings-jared-kushner-encrypted-app-1230978

No supportable evidence classified info was transmitted. Another so-called investigation launched without a crime. Another investigation of a U.S. citizen in search of a crime.

What are you basing your opinion on? Because it is an opinion based on zero facts. Did you read the entire article?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Dahossdaboss

What are you basing your opinion on? Because it is an opinion based on zero facts. Did you read the entire article?

Read the quote, pay attention to the bold part. Is there testimony supporting evidence that Kushner transmitted classified information? No. Unsure of someone doing something is not a supportable fact to conduct an investigation.

The next question is to be addressed? Is it against the law to use the app for non-classified material? No. No evidence of a crime, thus it is another investigation without factual basis of a crime.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Dahossdaboss

What are you basing your opinion on? Because it is an opinion based on zero facts. Did you read the entire article?

I think you are confusing hearing something on cable or reading something in an internet article with FACTS

[Dahossdaboss]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Read the quote, pay attention to the bold part. Is there testimony supporting evidence that Kushner transmitted classified information? No. Unsure of someone doing something is not a supportable fact to conduct an investigation.

The next question is to be addressed? Is it against the law to use the app for non-classified material? No. No evidence of a crime, thus it is another investigation without factual basis of a crime.

Just so I’m clear...your position that Kushner’s lawyer is unsure if Kushner ever did it means there is no evidence of it happening?

Keep trying, this effort wasn’t much.

[Dahossdaboss]

Originally Posted by davew

I think you are confusing hearing something on cable or reading something in an internet article with FACTS

I’m confusing facts?

Did you read the article?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by davew

I think you are confusing hearing something on cable or reading something in an internet article with FACTS

I am sure Dahossdaboss would accept as fair, an investigation into his activities if someone saw him using a legal app and said that he was unsure if Dahossdaboss was using it for illegal purposes and the authorities, based on this uncertainty, started an investigation which would cost Dahossdaboss money, smears on his reputation and time solely based on uncertainty of how Dahossdaboss used a legal app.

[Dahossdaboss]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I am sure Dahossdaboss would accept as fair, an investigation into his activities if someone saw him using a legal app and said that he was unsure if Dahossdaboss was using it for illegal purposes and the authorities, based on this uncertainty, started an investigation which would cost Dahossdaboss money, smears on his reputation and time solely based on uncertainty of how Dahossdaboss used a legal app.

You’re so hung up on trying to “get me” you’re not even making sense.

I’m not disputing using the app is legal. But you don’t see an issue with Kushner using his personal cell phone to conduct business on a free commercial app that is associated with a company that has had huge security breaches in the past?

You keep saying there is no evidence. You don’t know that. All we know at this point is it is being investigated and Kushner’s lawyer doesn’t know if Kushner ever used the app to transmit classified info. If he did that is a big no no, correct?

[Tom]

I’m not disputing using the app is legal. But you don’t see an issue with Kushner using his personal cell phone to conduct business on a free commercial app that is associated with a company that has had huge security breaches in the past?

If it is not classified, what harm?
Business includes a lot of things. Lunch orders, porn downloads...
He could have had a secret server set up in his bathroom like Hillary did.

Try using the exact same arguments on everything Hillary did and everything the DNC did that led to the election being compromised. After all, HIS stuff was not hacked, or if it was, it was useless.

Big picture.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Dahossdaboss

You’re so hung up on trying to “get me” you’re not even making sense.

I’m not disputing using the app is legal. But you don’t see an issue with Kushner using his personal cell phone to conduct business on a free commercial app that is associated with a company that has had huge security breaches in the past?

You keep saying there is no evidence. You don’t know that. All we know at this point is it is being investigated and Kushner’s lawyer doesn’t know if Kushner ever used the app to transmit classified info. If he did that is a big no no, correct?

So we shouldn't use major banks or major credit cards due to all the huge security breaches they experienced in the past?

Uncertainty or being unsure is not the standard to show a crime was committed. Based on the testimony there is no evidence of a crime. What is being investigated? As you said, an investigation is being conducted to see if a crime was committed. That is the very definition of an investigation in search of a crime.

[Dahossdaboss]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

So we shouldn't use major banks or major credit cards due to all the huge security breaches they experienced in the past?

Uncertainty or being unsure is not the standard to show a crime was committed. Based on the testimony there is no evidence of a crime. What is being investigated? As you said, an investigation is being conducted to see if a crime was committed. That is the very definition of an investigation in search of a crime.

Who is saying uncertainty is the standard to show a crime was committed? You aren’t even familiar with who is saying what at this point.

What is being investigated? Really? They are investigating if he used the app to transmit classified info.

You can talk around it, but you’ve been wrong here since your first post. Take a break, you’re typing gibberish at this point .

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Dahossdaboss

Who is saying uncertainty is the standard to show a crime was committed? You aren’t even familiar with who is saying what at this point.

What is being investigated? Really? They are investigating if he used the app to transmit classified info.

You can talk around it, but you’ve been wrong here since your first post. Take a break, you’re typing gibberish at this point .

Is there evidence he used the app to transmit classified information. Quote the article showing there are facts that the app was used to transmit classified info.

Again,

They are investigating if he used the app to transmit classified info.

is the definition of an investigation in search of a crime.

[Dahossdaboss]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Is there evidence he used the app to transmit classified information. Quote the article showing there are facts that the app was used to transmit classified info.

Again, is the definition of an investigation in search of a crime.

I don’t know if there is. Just like you don’t. You think you do and already said there is none but you have no idea.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Dahossdaboss

I don’t know if there is. Just like you don’t. You think you do and already said there is none but you have no idea.

I suspect Elijah Cummings will have no problem with Kushner's lawyers reading all of the archived messages and deleting those personal ones where he is talking about Yoga, weddings, and such (the Hilary standard).

[Dahossdaboss]

Originally Posted by davew

I suspect Elijah Cummings will have no problem with Kushner's lawyers reading all of the archived messages and deleting those personal ones where he is talking about Yoga, weddings, and such (the Hilary standard).

I think you are confusing hearing something on cable or reading something in an internet article with FACTS