Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gorin v U.S. still stands as law my friend. U.S.793 has only been ruled on by lower courts. Obviously you are well versed on security handling but an ignorant fuck as to how the law is applied.
A law is the law UNLESS a Court says it isn't. That means that Hillary broke the fucking law. Admit that at least. Then, if you like, we can debate whether negligence should be illegal.
That is how the SC interpreted the law in Gorin. That law applies now and applies to prosecutions under 793, until this or another court changes it.
She hasn't been charged with anything yet. The very idea of deciding someone is guilty before a trial goes against every element of fairness and the rule of innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather Un American that you even suggest it.
Gorin v U.S. still stands as law my friend. U.S.793 has only been ruled on by lower courts. Obviously you are well versed on security handling but an ignorant fuck as to how the law is applied.
A law is the law UNLESS a Court says it isn't. That means that Hillary broke the fucking law. Admit that at least. Then, if you like, we can debate whether negligence should be illegal.
That is how the SC interpreted the law in Gorin. That law applies now and applies to prosecutions under 793, until this or another court changes it.
She hasn't been charged with anything yet. The very idea of deciding someone is guilty before a trial goes against every element of fairness and the rule of innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather Un American that you even suggest it.
The portion of the law that I just posted was NOT in existence when Gorin was adjudicated..
I'll try again. Do you acknowledge that the law as written does NOT require intent?
I realize you want to pretend like a ruling made 40 years prior a law being written applies to said law, but it doesn't.
Gorin v U.S. still stands as law my friend. U.S.793 has only been ruled on by lower courts. Obviously you are well versed on security handling but an ignorant fuck as to how the law is applied.
A law is the law UNLESS a Court says it isn't. That means that Hillary broke the fucking law. Admit that at least. Then, if you like, we can debate whether negligence should be illegal.
That is how the SC interpreted the law in Gorin. That law applies now and applies to prosecutions under 793, until this or another court changes it.
She hasn't been charged with anything yet. The very idea of deciding someone is guilty before a trial goes against every element of fairness and the rule of innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather Un American that you even suggest it.
The portion of the law that I just posted was NOT in existence when Gorin was adjudicated..
I'll try again. Do you acknowledge that the law as written does NOT require intent?
I realize you want to pretend like a ruling made 40 years prior a law being written applies to said law, but it doesn't.
Supreme Court decided law is the arbiter of all law within the United States. Gorin was in place first and any law after that point must agree with its decisions. In other words, U.S.793 can decide the law in this case or any case in the U.S. but when it comes to review before the SC, Gorin v U.S. will set the standard by which the ruling is judged.
Gorin v U.S. still stands as law my friend. U.S.793 has only been ruled on by lower courts. Obviously you are well versed on security handling but an ignorant fuck as to how the law is applied.
A law is the law UNLESS a Court says it isn't. That means that Hillary broke the fucking law. Admit that at least. Then, if you like, we can debate whether negligence should be illegal.
That is how the SC interpreted the law in Gorin. That law applies now and applies to prosecutions under 793, until this or another court changes it.
She hasn't been charged with anything yet. The very idea of deciding someone is guilty before a trial goes against every element of fairness and the rule of innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather Un American that you even suggest it.
The portion of the law that I just posted was NOT in existence when Gorin was adjudicated..
I'll try again. Do you acknowledge that the law as written does NOT require intent?
I realize you want to pretend like a ruling made 40 years prior a law being written applies to said law, but it doesn't.
Supreme Court decided law is the arbiter of all law within the United States. Gorin was in place first and any law after that point must agree with its decisions. In other words, U.S.793 can decide the law in this case or any case in the U.S. but when it comes to review before the SC, Gorin v U.S. will set the standard by which the ruling is judged.
Oh my God you are stupid.
And arguing in circles
All to avoid admitting that you were wrong and intent is NOT a required element.
To Prosecute Clinton for Espionage, Evidence of Negligence Is Enough
Did you know, for example, that ONE of the charges against Patreus was that he kept classified material in an unlocked drawer at his house? As it should be, that is ILLEGAL. Obviously there was no intent there, just stupidity and carelessness with classfied material, which is ILLEGAL.
I'm moving on, because you quite clearly are just unwilling to admit simple facts.
A law is the law UNLESS a Court says it isn't. That means that Hillary broke the fucking law. Admit that at least. Then, if you like, we can debate whether negligence should be illegal.
That is how the SC interpreted the law in Gorin. That law applies now and applies to prosecutions under 793, until this or another court changes it.
She hasn't been charged with anything yet. The very idea of deciding someone is guilty before a trial goes against every element of fairness and the rule of innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather Un American that you even suggest it.
The portion of the law that I just posted was NOT in existence when Gorin was adjudicated..
I'll try again. Do you acknowledge that the law as written does NOT require intent?
I realize you want to pretend like a ruling made 40 years prior a law being written applies to said law, but it doesn't.
Supreme Court decided law is the arbiter of all law within the United States. Gorin was in place first and any law after that point must agree with its decisions. In other words, U.S.793 can decide the law in this case or any case in the U.S. but when it comes to review before the SC, Gorin v U.S. will set the standard by which the ruling is judged.
Oh my God you are stupid.
And arguing in circles
All to avoid admitting that you were wrong and intent is NOT a required element.
To Prosecute Clinton for Espionage, Evidence of Negligence Is Enough
Did you know, for example, that ONE of the charges against Patreus was that he kept classified material in an unlocked drawer at his house? As it should be, that is ILLEGAL. Obviously there was no intent there, just stupidity and carelessness with classfied material, which is ILLEGAL.
I'm moving on, because you quite clearly are just unwilling to admit simple facts.
Well since I have proved you are wrong in almost all of your assertions I'll put up with you for just a bit longer. I said you can prosecute under 793, but you damn well better be able to pass the test of intent and bad faith in Gorin or you're going to batting zero. Sorry that's the way it works. Petraeus plead guilty so we never got to see how that issue of unsecured classified material would have been handled.
Finally, all SC rulings are law no matter how "old" they are. See Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, ad infinitum, all laws in place over many, many, years all standing law.
That is how the SC interpreted the law in Gorin. That law applies now and applies to prosecutions under 793, until this or another court changes it.
She hasn't been charged with anything yet. The very idea of deciding someone is guilty before a trial goes against every element of fairness and the rule of innocent until proven guilty. I find it rather Un American that you even suggest it.
The portion of the law that I just posted was NOT in existence when Gorin was adjudicated..
I'll try again. Do you acknowledge that the law as written does NOT require intent?
I realize you want to pretend like a ruling made 40 years prior a law being written applies to said law, but it doesn't.
Supreme Court decided law is the arbiter of all law within the United States. Gorin was in place first and any law after that point must agree with its decisions. In other words, U.S.793 can decide the law in this case or any case in the U.S. but when it comes to review before the SC, Gorin v U.S. will set the standard by which the ruling is judged.
Oh my God you are stupid.
And arguing in circles
All to avoid admitting that you were wrong and intent is NOT a required element.
To Prosecute Clinton for Espionage, Evidence of Negligence Is Enough
Did you know, for example, that ONE of the charges against Patreus was that he kept classified material in an unlocked drawer at his house? As it should be, that is ILLEGAL. Obviously there was no intent there, just stupidity and carelessness with classfied material, which is ILLEGAL.
I'm moving on, because you quite clearly are just unwilling to admit simple facts.
Well since I have proved you are wrong in almost all of your assertions I'll put up with you for just a bit longer. I said you can prosecute under 793, but you damn well better be able to pass the test of intent and bad faith in Gorin or you're going to batting zero. Sorry that's the way it works. Petraeus plead guilty so we never got to see how that issue of unsecured classified material would have been handled.
Finally, all SC rulings are law no matter how "old" they are. See Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, ad infinitum, all laws in place over many, many, years all standing law.
You haven't proven anything except that you are a liar and an idiot.
The Espionage Act of 1917 SPECIFICALLY required intent, and that is what SCOTUS ruled on. The law has since been amended you fucking moron and intent is no longer a necessarily element.
Hundreds of people have been charged for being neglectful with classified documents.
The portion of the law that I just posted was NOT in existence when Gorin was adjudicated..
I'll try again. Do you acknowledge that the law as written does NOT require intent?
I realize you want to pretend like a ruling made 40 years prior a law being written applies to said law, but it doesn't.
Supreme Court decided law is the arbiter of all law within the United States. Gorin was in place first and any law after that point must agree with its decisions. In other words, U.S.793 can decide the law in this case or any case in the U.S. but when it comes to review before the SC, Gorin v U.S. will set the standard by which the ruling is judged.
Oh my God you are stupid.
And arguing in circles
All to avoid admitting that you were wrong and intent is NOT a required element.
To Prosecute Clinton for Espionage, Evidence of Negligence Is Enough
Did you know, for example, that ONE of the charges against Patreus was that he kept classified material in an unlocked drawer at his house? As it should be, that is ILLEGAL. Obviously there was no intent there, just stupidity and carelessness with classfied material, which is ILLEGAL.
I'm moving on, because you quite clearly are just unwilling to admit simple facts.
Well since I have proved you are wrong in almost all of your assertions I'll put up with you for just a bit longer. I said you can prosecute under 793, but you damn well better be able to pass the test of intent and bad faith in Gorin or you're going to batting zero. Sorry that's the way it works. Petraeus plead guilty so we never got to see how that issue of unsecured classified material would have been handled.
Finally, all SC rulings are law no matter how "old" they are. See Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, ad infinitum, all laws in place over many, many, years all standing law.
You haven't proven anything except that you are a liar and an idiot.
The Espionage Act of 1917 SPECIFICALLY required intent, and that is what SCOTUS ruled on. The law has since been amended you fucking moron and intent is no longer a necessarily element.
Hundreds of people have been charged for being neglectful with classified documents.
Gorin decided the basis for bad faith and intent for espionage. If the law has been amended as you say, you owe the readership a cite.
Supreme Court decided law is the arbiter of all law within the United States. Gorin was in place first and any law after that point must agree with its decisions. In other words, U.S.793 can decide the law in this case or any case in the U.S. but when it comes to review before the SC, Gorin v U.S. will set the standard by which the ruling is judged.
Oh my God you are stupid.
And arguing in circles
All to avoid admitting that you were wrong and intent is NOT a required element.
To Prosecute Clinton for Espionage, Evidence of Negligence Is Enough
Did you know, for example, that ONE of the charges against Patreus was that he kept classified material in an unlocked drawer at his house? As it should be, that is ILLEGAL. Obviously there was no intent there, just stupidity and carelessness with classfied material, which is ILLEGAL.
I'm moving on, because you quite clearly are just unwilling to admit simple facts.
Well since I have proved you are wrong in almost all of your assertions I'll put up with you for just a bit longer. I said you can prosecute under 793, but you damn well better be able to pass the test of intent and bad faith in Gorin or you're going to batting zero. Sorry that's the way it works. Petraeus plead guilty so we never got to see how that issue of unsecured classified material would have been handled.
Finally, all SC rulings are law no matter how "old" they are. See Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, ad infinitum, all laws in place over many, many, years all standing law.
You haven't proven anything except that you are a liar and an idiot.
The Espionage Act of 1917 SPECIFICALLY required intent, and that is what SCOTUS ruled on. The law has since been amended you fucking moron and intent is no longer a necessarily element.
Hundreds of people have been charged for being neglectful with classified documents.
Gorin decided the basis for bad faith and intent for espionage. If the law has been amended as you say, you owe the readership a cite.
I gave you not just a cite of the law itself, but a cite that PROVED that Patraeus was charged with a crime for leaving classified documents in an unlocked drawer at his house.
Not my fault you didn't read them.
Oh my God you are stupid.
And arguing in circles
All to avoid admitting that you were wrong and intent is NOT a required element.
To Prosecute Clinton for Espionage, Evidence of Negligence Is Enough
Did you know, for example, that ONE of the charges against Patreus was that he kept classified material in an unlocked drawer at his house? As it should be, that is ILLEGAL. Obviously there was no intent there, just stupidity and carelessness with classfied material, which is ILLEGAL.
I'm moving on, because you quite clearly are just unwilling to admit simple facts.
Well since I have proved you are wrong in almost all of your assertions I'll put up with you for just a bit longer. I said you can prosecute under 793, but you damn well better be able to pass the test of intent and bad faith in Gorin or you're going to batting zero. Sorry that's the way it works. Petraeus plead guilty so we never got to see how that issue of unsecured classified material would have been handled.
Finally, all SC rulings are law no matter how "old" they are. See Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, ad infinitum, all laws in place over many, many, years all standing law.
You haven't proven anything except that you are a liar and an idiot.
The Espionage Act of 1917 SPECIFICALLY required intent, and that is what SCOTUS ruled on. The law has since been amended you fucking moron and intent is no longer a necessarily element.
Hundreds of people have been charged for being neglectful with classified documents.
Gorin decided the basis for bad faith and intent for espionage. If the law has been amended as you say, you owe the readership a cite.
I gave you not just a cite of the law itself, but a cite that PROVED that Patraeus was charged with a crime for leaving classified documents in an unlocked drawer at his house.
Not my fault you didn't read them.
That is not an amendment to the law it is usc793 You need to stop before people start laughing at you.
Well since I have proved you are wrong in almost all of your assertions I'll put up with you for just a bit longer. I said you can prosecute under 793, but you damn well better be able to pass the test of intent and bad faith in Gorin or you're going to batting zero. Sorry that's the way it works. Petraeus plead guilty so we never got to see how that issue of unsecured classified material would have been handled.
Finally, all SC rulings are law no matter how "old" they are. See Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade, ad infinitum, all laws in place over many, many, years all standing law.
You haven't proven anything except that you are a liar and an idiot.
The Espionage Act of 1917 SPECIFICALLY required intent, and that is what SCOTUS ruled on. The law has since been amended you fucking moron and intent is no longer a necessarily element.
Hundreds of people have been charged for being neglectful with classified documents.
Gorin decided the basis for bad faith and intent for espionage. If the law has been amended as you say, you owe the readership a cite.
I gave you not just a cite of the law itself, but a cite that PROVED that Patraeus was charged with a crime for leaving classified documents in an unlocked drawer at his house.
Not my fault you didn't read them.
That is not an amendment to the law it is usc793 You need to stop before people start laughing at you.
You are stupid , when the espionage act was reorganized from title 50 to title 18 it was AMENDED to include several sections, including section F which SPECIFICALLY fucking says that neglect towards classified material is a crime.
I even showed you where Patreus was CHARGED and plead GUILTY to such provision.
You fucking idiot.
You haven't proven anything except that you are a liar and an idiot.
The Espionage Act of 1917 SPECIFICALLY required intent, and that is what SCOTUS ruled on. The law has since been amended you fucking moron and intent is no longer a necessarily element.
Hundreds of people have been charged for being neglectful with classified documents.
Gorin decided the basis for bad faith and intent for espionage. If the law has been amended as you say, you owe the readership a cite.
I gave you not just a cite of the law itself, but a cite that PROVED that Patraeus was charged with a crime for leaving classified documents in an unlocked drawer at his house.
Not my fault you didn't read them.
That is not an amendment to the law it is usc793 You need to stop before people start laughing at you.
You are stupid , when the espionage act was reorganized from title 50 to title 18 it was AMENDED to include several sections, including section F which SPECIFICALLY fucking says that neglect towards classified material is a crime.
I even showed you where Patreus was CHARGED and plead GUILTY to such provision.
You fucking idiot.
I'm starting to be embarrassed that we belong to the same specie. You can amend the law and create new law to your hearts content. That law however, must conform to SC rulings or it will be found wrong. Obviously you aren't humiliated one bit for showing gross legal ignorance, it seems you enjoy wearing it as a badge of honor.
Gorin decided the basis for bad faith and intent for espionage. If the law has been amended as you say, you owe the readership a cite.
I gave you not just a cite of the law itself, but a cite that PROVED that Patraeus was charged with a crime for leaving classified documents in an unlocked drawer at his house.
Not my fault you didn't read them.
That is not an amendment to the law it is usc793 You need to stop before people start laughing at you.
You are stupid , when the espionage act was reorganized from title 50 to title 18 it was AMENDED to include several sections, including section F which SPECIFICALLY fucking says that neglect towards classified material is a crime.
I even showed you where Patreus was CHARGED and plead GUILTY to such provision.
You fucking idiot.
I'm starting to be embarrassed that we belong to the same specie. You can amend the law and create new law to your hearts content. That law however, must conform to SC rulings or it will be found wrong. Obviously you aren't humiliated one bit for showing gross legal ignorance, it seems you enjoy wearing it as a badge of honor.
You should bee embarrased that you are so stupid.
SCOTUS ruled "no this law says intent is an element" so Congress then later said okay and passed an amendment to the law which specifically stated that intent is NOT required. SCOTUS did NOT rule on the amended law.
Jesus you are a moron. I even showed you where a fucking general was charged for being neglectful and plead guilty rather than fighting it and claiming he had no intent. Why did he do that?
I gave you not just a cite of the law itself, but a cite that PROVED that Patraeus was charged with a crime for leaving classified documents in an unlocked drawer at his house.
Not my fault you didn't read them.
That is not an amendment to the law it is usc793 You need to stop before people start laughing at you.
You are stupid , when the espionage act was reorganized from title 50 to title 18 it was AMENDED to include several sections, including section F which SPECIFICALLY fucking says that neglect towards classified material is a crime.
I even showed you where Patreus was CHARGED and plead GUILTY to such provision.
You fucking idiot.
I'm starting to be embarrassed that we belong to the same specie. You can amend the law and create new law to your hearts content. That law however, must conform to SC rulings or it will be found wrong. Obviously you aren't humiliated one bit for showing gross legal ignorance, it seems you enjoy wearing it as a badge of honor.
You should bee embarrased that you are so stupid.
SCOTUS ruled "no this law says intent is an element" so Congress then later said okay and passed an amendment to the law which specifically stated that intent is NOT required. SCOTUS did NOT rule on the amended law.
Jesus you are a moron. I even showed you where a fucking general was charged for being neglectful and plead guilty rather than fighting it and claiming he had no intent. Why did he do that?
Obviously you are way over your head and the partisanship makes you unreasonable. I have patiently pointed out the flaws in your arguments and demonstrated that the Supreme Court sets the law of the land. States, Cities, even the Federal government create laws to address situations that are important to them, case law developed over long periods of time sets the rules by which those laws are validated or rejected and legal decisions appealed to the Supreme Court are either heard or lower court rulings are allowed to stand. That's the way the law works in this country. Now when you have some time get a copy of U.S. law for dummies and get crackin you obviously need to be educated.
Petraeus was charged under USC793, at plead guilty rather than take the chance of a trial.
You just don't get it. Maybe someone else will explain it to you. You have no clue how the law works or how it is applied in this country and the fact that you are willing to make yourself look like an idiot without shame is pretty pitiful and sad to boot.
You just don't get it. Maybe someone else will explain it to you. You have no clue how the law works or how it is applied in this country and the fact that you are willing to make yourself look like an idiot without shame is pretty pitiful and sad to boot.
You have been exposed as a liar. There is NO WAY you received a security clearance in the last 30 years and didn't know that if you so much as accidentally lose classified material that is a crime. You are charged with not just purposely disseminating it, but with actively protecting it.
You just don't get it. Maybe someone else will explain it to you. You have no clue how the law works or how it is applied in this country and the fact that you are willing to make yourself look like an idiot without shame is pretty pitiful and sad to boot.
You have been exposed as a liar. There is NO WAY you received a security clearance in the last 30 years and didn't know that if you so much as accidentally lose classified material that is a crime. You are charged with not just purposely disseminating it, but with actively protecting it.
Well you have proved yourself an unhinged, kool-aid drinking, douchebag, so I'm not surprised to see you grasping at inconsequential straws for support. How did you get this far in life? because there is no way anyone like you being this ignorant and profoundly stupid, could have gotten this far without serious help from some social agency or mommy and daddy.
