Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail

[Dr Grump]

he studies law

Not well enough it seems...

 

[OKTexas]

Comey made it clear that Hillary lied and admitted that she indeed sent and received VERY sensitive things.
Go get you some Hillary jizz boy.

As I said, and reiterate, you obviously don't know the law...

Maybe you should try reading it Title 18 USC 793 F1, google it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe you should try reading it Title 18 USC 793 F1, google it.

Read it. Doesn't pertain to Clinton.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe you should try reading it Title 18 USC 793 F1, google it.

Read it. Doesn't pertain to Clinton.

Why?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why?

Two things you have to prove to get a conviction - Actus Reus (the act) and mens rea (the mental intention). She fulfils the first criterion, not the second. Did you have the private server and emails? Absolutely. Did she intend for it to be hacked or used by others and did she think what she was doing would lead to others getting the info? No.

That aside, Title 18 USC 793 F1 part a says:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,

I don't, for a NY minute, believe she had any intention to cause injury to the US. She was SOS for crying out loud....that was the last thing she intended.

 

[OKTexas]

Why?

Two things you have to prove to get a conviction - Actus Reus (the act) and mens rea (the mental intention). She fulfils the first criterion, not the second. Did you have the private server and emails? Absolutely. Did she intend for it to be hacked or used by others and did she think what she was doing would lead to others getting the info? No.

That aside, Title 18 USC 793 F1 part a says:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,

I don't, for a NY minute, believe she had any intention to cause injury to the US. She was SOS for crying out loud....that was the last thing she intended.

There is no (a) in F(1)

(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.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Actually she's guilty of both F(1) and F(2), gross negligence, removal from it's proper place and delivering to persons not authorized to have said information, those being contract IT people who had no security clearance. Feel free to point where intent is a requirement.

 

[nicoleivy5]

Why?

Two things you have to prove to get a conviction - Actus Reus (the act) and mens rea (the mental intention). She fulfils the first criterion, not the second. Did you have the private server and emails? Absolutely. Did she intend for it to be hacked or used by others and did she think what she was doing would lead to others getting the info? No.

That aside, Title 18 USC 793 F1 part a says:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,

I don't, for a NY minute, believe she had any intention to cause injury to the US. She was SOS for crying out loud....that was the last thing she intended.

agreed

 

[Care4all]

Carried away? What do you mean? He's been saying this for awhile now, he's actually led crowds in chanting "Lock her up!".

Lock the mexicans up, lock the blacks up, lock the muslims up, lock the liberals up, lock the press up..... its a trend with him

He's gone wacko the past few days, even more so, and has taken up the character of the antichirst, pretending to be his fan's Messiah, taking a bullet or crucifixion by the media and by the RNC and by the dems, all for them....he's the only one to save them type crap.... just babbling this frightening stuff....

 

[Care4all]

Why?

Two things you have to prove to get a conviction - Actus Reus (the act) and mens rea (the mental intention). She fulfils the first criterion, not the second. Did you have the private server and emails? Absolutely. Did she intend for it to be hacked or used by others and did she think what she was doing would lead to others getting the info? No.

That aside, Title 18 USC 793 F1 part a says:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,

I don't, for a NY minute, believe she had any intention to cause injury to the US. She was SOS for crying out loud....that was the last thing she intended.

There is no (a) in F(1)

(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.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Actually she's guilty of both F(1) and F(2), gross negligence, removal from it's proper place and delivering to persons not authorized to have said information, those being contract IT people who had no security clearance. Feel free to point where intent is a requirement.

The problem with your conjecture, is that NOTHING was removed from its proper place, no documents or plans were copied or removed and sent via email.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[OKTexas]

Why?

Two things you have to prove to get a conviction - Actus Reus (the act) and mens rea (the mental intention). She fulfils the first criterion, not the second. Did you have the private server and emails? Absolutely. Did she intend for it to be hacked or used by others and did she think what she was doing would lead to others getting the info? No.

That aside, Title 18 USC 793 F1 part a says:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,

I don't, for a NY minute, believe she had any intention to cause injury to the US. She was SOS for crying out loud....that was the last thing she intended.

There is no (a) in F(1)

(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.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Actually she's guilty of both F(1) and F(2), gross negligence, removal from it's proper place and delivering to persons not authorized to have said information, those being contract IT people who had no security clearance. Feel free to point where intent is a requirement.

The problem with your conjecture, is that NOTHING was removed from it's proper place, no documents or plans were copied or removed and sent via email.

Really, how did those top secret documents, that Comey said were born that way, find their way form a secure system to a nonsecure system, and storage in a unapproved facility? The hildabitch owned the unapproved system and storage facility. Did they appear magically or did someone move them?

 

[Dr Grump]

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—

Actually she's guilty of both F(1) and F(2), gross negligence, removal from it's proper place and delivering to persons not authorized to have said information, those being contract IT people who had no security clearance. Feel free to point where intent is a requirement.

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,

The bold part. That never happened..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton should go to jail”

Further evidence of Trump’s ignorance of, and contempt for, the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I thought that everyone in this country was innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

They are.

Unfortunately far too many on the right have contempt for this most fundamental and cherished principle of American jurisprudence.

 

[OKTexas]

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—

Actually she's guilty of both F(1) and F(2), gross negligence, removal from it's proper place and delivering to persons not authorized to have said information, those being contract IT people who had no security clearance. Feel free to point where intent is a requirement.

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,

The bold part. That never happened..

Really, how did it get on a system that the hildabitch owned and exerted command control over, if she didn't permit it? Could you have an email account on her system without her permission? Pull you head out guy.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Really, how did it get on a system that the hildabitch owned and exerted command control over, if she didn't permit it? Could you have an email account on her system without her permission? Pull you head out guy.

At the end of the day, did she:
1) Intend for anybody to get access to the emails other than herself? No
2) Did anybody get access to those emails? Not that I'm aware of

You may not like what she did. Nobody did. But nothing happened. That;s why there is nothing happening.

She would only be in serious trouble if somebody found out something that could hurt the US in those emails and acted upon it. They didn't. Nothing happened. End of story.

 

[nicoleivy5]

[

Really, how did it get on a system that the hildabitch owned and exerted command control over, if she didn't permit it? Could you have an email account on her system without her permission? Pull you head out guy.

At the end of the day, did she:
1) Intend for anybody to get access to the emails other than herself? No
2) Did anybody get access to those emails? Not that I'm aware of

You may not like what she did. Nobody did. But nothing happened. That;s why there is nothing happening.

She would only be in serious trouble if somebody found out something that could hurt the US in those emails and acted upon it. They didn't. Nothing happened. End of story.

yes to question 2

 

[Care4all]

Why?

Two things you have to prove to get a conviction - Actus Reus (the act) and mens rea (the mental intention). She fulfils the first criterion, not the second. Did you have the private server and emails? Absolutely. Did she intend for it to be hacked or used by others and did she think what she was doing would lead to others getting the info? No.

That aside, Title 18 USC 793 F1 part a says:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,

I don't, for a NY minute, believe she had any intention to cause injury to the US. She was SOS for crying out loud....that was the last thing she intended.

There is no (a) in F(1)

(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.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Actually she's guilty of both F(1) and F(2), gross negligence, removal from it's proper place and delivering to persons not authorized to have said information, those being contract IT people who had no security clearance. Feel free to point where intent is a requirement.

The problem with your conjecture, is that NOTHING was removed from it's proper place, no documents or plans were copied or removed and sent via email.

Really, how did those top secret documents, that Comey said were born that way, find their way form a secure system to a nonsecure system, and storage in a unapproved facility? The hildabitch owned the unapproved system and storage facility. Did they appear magically or did someone move them?

they were not documents, they were emails that her aides sent back and forth to each other, some for as long as 2 years, on the state.gov email system which was also an UNCLASSIFIED email system, before they forwarded them to Hillary to get her in on the discussion of what they found out...their messages contained information that Syd Blumenthal had sent Hillary...when ever she got his information, she sent it to her top aides and they checked out the information he gave them as an outside source, to see if it was true and good information....many times her aides found that Syd's info was not good or good enough to count on or use as intel that was solid....but some times, even though all of syd's sources were outside of the government, his intel, turned out to be helpful and true.

These emails that had top secret classified information in them according to Comey, were Syd Blumenthal emails, that Hillary's aides were checking out to see if his intel could be used or was even true at all....those emails, of these aides and then finally Hillary, of discussions of what Blumenthal told them, turned out to be top secret classified, information, that our Intelligence agencies collected from their own sources. The State Dept argued with the Intelligence department over whether these emails of theirs should even be top secret as the intelligence departments said they were, because Hillary and her aides, got this info from Syd Blumenthal, a public source, who got the info from his outside/public sources and newspaper articles....

Nothing was taken from it's proper source, nothing was copied from it's proper/original source...he had nothing to charge her for, when it came to that...the info they had loose lips on, was info from Blumenthal, that they did not know at the time when they first started researching them, was Top secret....

 

[nicoleivy5]

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—

Actually she's guilty of both F(1) and F(2), gross negligence, removal from it's proper place and delivering to persons not authorized to have said information, those being contract IT people who had no security clearance. Feel free to point where intent is a requirement.

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,

The bold part. That never happened..

how but??

 

[OKTexas]

[

Really, how did it get on a system that the hildabitch owned and exerted command control over, if she didn't permit it? Could you have an email account on her system without her permission? Pull you head out guy.

At the end of the day, did she:
1) Intend for anybody to get access to the emails other than herself? No
2) Did anybody get access to those emails? Not that I'm aware of

You may not like what she did. Nobody did. But nothing happened. That;s why there is nothing happening.

She would only be in serious trouble if somebody found out something that could hurt the US in those emails and acted upon it. They didn't. Nothing happened. End of story.

Well let's look at that. Did she intend for anyone other than herself to see her emails, you're right she didn't. She set up her private server with the intent of keeping her communications off government servers where they wouldn't be subject to FOIA requests. That is a violation of federal records keeping laws, she had a requirement to CC government archivist on every work related email. She didn't, did she? You want intent, you can't get clearer intent than that. As part of that ongoing violation of law, classified information was moved to and stored on her server, she permitted it. Comey used the terms "extremely negligent" and "no reasonable person in her position", in relation to her email content. To me that say gross negligence, we already had intent to break the law by her having the server to begin with.

Did anyone see her email, YES. Comey clearly stated, in his presser, that people she was communicating with were hacked. The content that was hacked hasn't been disclosed, we may never know what was compromised. So to say nothing happened is naive.

Add to all this, there are a large numbers of former prosecutors and judges that are questioning why this wasn't presented to a grand jury. You have to admit that on it's face, the decision not to move forward appears to be a purely political decision, not a legal one. But when you see that the DOJ also refused to present Holders contempt of congress to a grand jury as they are REQUIRED to do by law, it smacks of a politicized DOJ serving the regime and not the people.