New Clinton email count: 305 documents with potentially classified information

[g5000]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

 

[g5000]

g5000, as far as I remember, is usually coherent and reasonable.
Not this time.
I tried at least 10 times to get him to agree that conducting official business at such a high level of government position, on a private server where uncleared staffers had 100% access to 24 hours a day is THE PROBLEM.
He has yet to even acknowledge this.

Cite the law which was broken. That is what matters.

Espionage Act of 1917.

Cite the chapter and verse she violated and how she violated it. Provide evidence. And I think what you really mean is U.S.C. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37 since a lot of the Espionage Act was repealed.

OK so now we're leading with "without a conviction in court there is nothing here"? By that standard Nixon was innocent.
You're dismissed. I've made the case. You simply refuse to believe it.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You cannot prove she broke the law. You have no evidence. You have nothing but assumptions and claims with nothing to back them up. So, yeah, run away now. Good idea.

WAIT FOR FACTS.

 

[The Rabbi]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

Your cite does not state that the material must be marked as classified. If it is classified, regardless of the marking, then it is a violation.
You simply dont want to understand this rather simple point.

She also handed the information over to her attorney, who is an unauthorized person.

 

[g5000]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

Your cite does not state that the material must be marked as classified.

What part of "specifically designated" do you not understand? Would you like a link to a dictionary?

 

[The Rabbi]

g5000, as far as I remember, is usually coherent and reasonable.
Not this time.
I tried at least 10 times to get him to agree that conducting official business at such a high level of government position, on a private server where uncleared staffers had 100% access to 24 hours a day is THE PROBLEM.
He has yet to even acknowledge this.

Cite the law which was broken. That is what matters.

Espionage Act of 1917.

Cite the chapter and verse she violated and how she violated it. Provide evidence. And I think what you really mean is U.S.C. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37 since a lot of the Espionage Act was repealed.

OK so now we're leading with "without a conviction in court there is nothing here"? By that standard Nixon was innocent.
You're dismissed. I've made the case. You simply refuse to believe it.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You cannot prove she broke the law. You have no evidence. You have nothing but assumptions and claims with nothing to back them up. So, yeah, run away now. Good idea.

WAIT FOR FACTS.

I dont have to prove she broke the law, dingeberry. That's what courts do. All I have to do is show there is a prima facie case that she did. And I've done so.
You've just spun your wheels and wasted time.

 

[The Rabbi]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

Your cite does not state that the material must be marked as classified.

What part of "specifically designated" do you not understand? Would you like a link to a dictionary?

Specifically designated does not mean "marked." Do you need help in reading?

 

[Zoom-boing]

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

I can also tell you that an organization which submitted a FOIA request specifically for Clinton’s private emails during the time frame surrounding the Benghazi attack, just received their first reply. As you might have guessed, everything they passed over was redacted and marked as classified. All of it.

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/08...m_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=

You're ok with the SoS sending communications that may or could later be deemed 'classified' over unsecured devices. Got it.

 

[g5000]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

Your cite does not state that the material must be marked as classified.

What part of "specifically designated" do you not understand? Would you like a link to a dictionary?

Specifically designated does not mean "marked." Do you need help in reading?

I guess you do need a dictionary!

 

[g5000]

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

I can also tell you that an organization which submitted a FOIA request specifically for Clinton’s private emails during the time frame surrounding the Benghazi attack, just received their first reply. As you might have guessed, everything they passed over was redacted and marked as classified. All of it.

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/08...m_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=

You're ok with the SoS sending communications that may or could later be deemed 'classified' over unsecured devices. Got it.

It was legal. Got it.

 

[The Rabbi]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

Your cite does not state that the material must be marked as classified.

What part of "specifically designated" do you not understand? Would you like a link to a dictionary?

Specifically designated does not mean "marked." Do you need help in reading?

I guess you do need a dictionary!

Your defeat on this issue is acknowledged and accepted. Better luck next time.

 

[Jackson]

Post 48

Post 48 in no way answers the question of whether or not the 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

In fact, Post 48 is entirely a masturbation fantasy.

They were classified material. Period.

Please provide a link that proves they were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

Thanks, period.

Are you so dense to as to think that in the four years as Sos Clinton never received or sent any classified communications on her unsecured communication devices?

So you have no proof those 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton. Check.

All you tards have is the "I wooden put it past 'er!" defense.

"Clinton sucks donkey dicks. I know...because Benghazi!"

Clinton was one of just 20 high-ranking officials whom President Barack Obama named in a December 2009 executive order as having the authority to classify material as 'top secret.'

That's the designation now given to the contents of two emails that she turned over to the State Department last year from her private account.


An aide to a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee told DailyMail.com shortly after the press conference that Clinton's claim 'is beyond bizarre and entirely nonsensical.'


'She was one of a few dozen people in Obama's administration with the knowledge and experience to decide if something was top secret,' the aide said after a promise of anonymity so he could speak his mind.


'The way you decide if something is classified, when you're the secretary of state, isn't looking for a stamp. It's looking at the contents. This is the worst buck-passing I've seen since Hillary's husband decided there was more than one way to define the word "is".'


Do you understand now? She was supposed to be marking them herself!!!
Read more: Hillary shrugs off question about whether she wiped her server clean What like with a cloth or something as she insists I did not send classified material on her secret email account Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Jackson]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

No one has provided any evidence the emails were specifically designated as classified when sent to Clinton.

Nor has anyone provided any evidence Clinton was an "unauthorized person" or that she made the information available to any unauthorized persons.

Clinton was one of just 20 high-ranking officials whom President Barack Obama named in a December 2009 executive order as having the authority to classify material as 'top secret.'

That's the designation now given to the contents of two emails that she turned over to the State Department last year from her private account.


An aide to a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee told DailyMail.com shortly after the press conference that Clinton's claim 'is beyond bizarre and entirely nonsensical.'


'She was one of a few dozen people in Obama's administration with the knowledge and experience to decide if something was top secret,' the aide said after a promise of anonymity so he could speak his mind.


'The way you decide if something is classified, when you're the secretary of state, isn't looking for a stamp. It's looking at the contents. This is the worst buck-passing I've seen since Hillary's husband decided there was more than one way to define the word "is".'

 

[Jackson]

Post 48

Post 48 in no way answers the question of whether or not the 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

In fact, Post 48 is entirely a masturbation fantasy.

They were classified material. Period.

Please provide a link that proves they were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

Thanks, period.

Are you so dense to as to think that in the four years as Sos Clinton never received or sent any classified communications on her unsecured communication devices?

So you have no proof those 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton. Check.

All you tards have is the "I wooden put it past 'er!" defense.

"Clinton sucks donkey dicks. I know...because Benghazi!"

That's the designation now given to the contents of two emails that she turned over to the State Department last year from her private account.


An aide to a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee told DailyMail.com shortly after the press conference that Clinton's claim 'is beyond bizarre and entirely nonsensical.'

Clinton was one of just 20 high-ranking officials whom President Barack Obama named in a December 2009 executive order as having the authority to classify material as 'top secret.'

That's the designation now given to the contents of two emails that she turned over to the State Department last year from her private account.


An aide to a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee told DailyMail.com shortly after the press conference that Clinton's claim 'is beyond bizarre and entirely nonsensical.'


'She was one of a few dozen people in Obama's administration with the knowledge and experience to decide if something was top secret,' the aide said after a promise of anonymity so he could speak his mind.


'The way you decide if something is classified, when you're the secretary of state, isn't looking for a stamp. It's looking at the contents. This is the worst buck-passing I've seen since Hillary's husband decided there was more than one way to define the word "is".'

'She was one of a few dozen people in Obama's administration with the knowledge and experience to decide if something was top secret,' the aide said after a promise of anonymity so he could speak his mind.


'The way you decide if something is classified, when you're the secretary of state, isn't looking for a stamp. It's looking at the contents. This is the worst buck-passing I've seen since Hillary's husband decided there was more than one way to define the word "is".'

 

[rightwinger]

At best all you have is a security violation not a security breach

 

[hadit]

At best all you have is a security violation not a security breach

I don't want either in the Oval Office.

 

[Meathead]

At best all you have is a security violation not a security breach

Either way, Hillary's impaled herself. Someone that careless and sleazy cannot be president.

 

[Jackson]

Post 48 in no way answers the question of whether or not the 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

In fact, Post 48 is entirely a masturbation fantasy.

They were classified material. Period.

Please provide a link that proves they were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

Thanks, period.

Are you so dense to as to think that in the four years as Sos Clinton never received or sent any classified communications on her unsecured communication devices?

So you have no proof those 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton. Check.

All you tards have is the "I wooden put it past 'er!" defense.

"Clinton sucks donkey dicks. I know...because Benghazi!"

You're an idiot.

305 emails? All emails, bub. Any email sent via her unsecured email could have been classified. Even if it came/went initially as unclassified it could later be deemed as classified. Therefore, you use secure communications. This basic stuff. You telling me they don't know this shit in DC?

So the SoS used unsecure communications and didn't err on the side of common sense and secure her fucking communications. Ok, you go with that.

She wipes her server as clean as clean can be, knows nothing about that, refuses to answer the question 'hey Hill, did you wipe your server', claims only personal emails were on said server (you know, emails pertaining to wedding plans for Chelsea, yoga workouts, funny cat gifs) and wipes those innocent emails off the server. Because funny cat gifs would land her ass in jail.

Don't stop believing . . . .

Read more: Hillary shrugs off question about whether she wiped her server clean What like with a cloth or something as she insists I did not send classified material on her secret email account Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Jackson]

Post 48

Post 48 in no way answers the question of whether or not the 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

In fact, Post 48 is entirely a masturbation fantasy.

They were classified material. Period.

Please provide a link that proves they were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton.

Thanks, period.

Are you so dense to as to think that in the four years as Sos Clinton never received or sent any classified communications on her unsecured communication devices?

So you have no proof those 305 emails were classified at the time they were sent to Clinton. Check.

All you tards have is the "I wooden put it past 'er!" defense.

"Clinton sucks donkey dicks. I know...because Benghazi!"

Read it and weep. Her job was to mark them Classified!

Read more: Hillary shrugs off question about whether she wiped her server clean What like with a cloth or something as she insists I did not send classified material on her secret email account Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Jackson]

At best all you have is a security violation not a security breach

Mishandling classified materials. Just what Petraeus was brought down for!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Not it isn't.
You are trying to ride on a ultra thin line balancing on technicalities and feasible deniability.
It does matter. One of the highest government officials conducting official business purposefully in a way that cannot be seen/archived/validated by officials, AND CAN be seen/copied/deleted by non government staffers (minions) whose security clearance is unknown is a big fucking deal.
And you know it. You may not want to admit it, but you know it nevertheless. And that makes you a tool.

g5000
Ignored it again I see