Post the Law or Regulation that...

[Coyote]

Still waiting.

Might depend on how the information was obtained.

If it was obtained as part of a crime then I think some law would apply...kind of like having or trafficking in stolen goods.

 

[yiostheoy]

Defamation is regarding false information to harm another- not factual information.

If in 1939, the FBI released a report suggesting that Nazi Germany may have broken into the Republican Party headquarters in an attempt to influence the 1940 election, Sarge would be asking "where is the crime in that"?

In 1939 the Republicans had absolutely NO CHANCE if beating FDR so it would have been a wasted effort. As to this election there is no actual evidence the Russians did anything. And even if they did it is not illegal to pass dirt on politicians.

Slander and defamation are always illegal (in the tort sense).

You could get your poor lame azz sued.

depotoo you sound like yet another graduate of public schools who slept through high school and never went to college.

 

[yiostheoy]

Post the law or Regulation that makes it illegal for a 3rd party to release damaging information about a Presidential Candidate please.

These laws are called defamation laws and slander.

Slander is speaking lies.

Defamation is releasing info which you had a legal duty to keep confidential.

Each state has them.

If you want to find one yourself then google is your friend.

Just google defamation or slander and the name of the state you are interested in.

Note that there are 50 states and also several territories and DC.

So you got nothing, I figured as much or when will the people that released this information be arrested and charged? LOL.

You don't "get arrested" for committing person-to-person torts.

A tort is an offense against another individual.

A crime is an offense against the people of a state or nation.

There is a huge difference.

Since you were a gunny you obviously did not go to college or take business or criminal law.

You should stick to your knitting Gunny.

 

[Synthaholic]

But while we talk about the Russians there is NO actual evidence they provided any information on Hillary Clinton

Unless you are privy to classified information, and are divulging it illegally, you are talking out your ass.

Actually Congress demanded the proof and they have the clearance and guess what? The agencies REFUSED to brief them. No evidence hurts when called on it.

Link to that, please.

 

[depotoo]

You, sir, are incorrect. For a public or government figure, different standards apply. Such people are considered to be held in a position that would draw or even demand public scrutiny. They also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254.
The courts alsoidentify candidates for public office and people who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety as fitting this description. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967).

Defamation is regarding false information to harm another- not factual information.

If in 1939, the FBI released a report suggesting that Nazi Germany may have broken into the Republican Party headquarters in an attempt to influence the 1940 election, Sarge would be asking "where is the crime in that"?

In 1939 the Republicans had absolutely NO CHANCE if beating FDR so it would have been a wasted effort. As to this election there is no actual evidence the Russians did anything. And even if they did it is not illegal to pass dirt on politicians.

Slander and defamation are always illegal (in the tort sense).

You could get your poor lame azz sued.

depotoo you sound like yet another graduate of public schools who slept through high school and never went to college.

 

[Synthaholic]

But while we talk about the Russians there is NO actual evidence they provided any information on Hillary Clinton

Unless you are privy to classified information, and are divulging it illegally, you are talking out your ass.

Actually Congress demanded the proof and they have the clearance and guess what? The agencies REFUSED to brief them. No evidence hurts when called on it.

Link to that, please.

Three days later and RetiredGySgt ain't got shit.

Everyone: act shocked!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But while we talk about the Russians there is NO actual evidence they provided any information on Hillary Clinton

Unless you are privy to classified information, and are divulging it illegally, you are talking out your ass.

Actually Congress demanded the proof and they have the clearance and guess what? The agencies REFUSED to brief them. No evidence hurts when called on it.

Link to that, please.

Three days later and RetiredGySgt ain't got shit.

Everyone: act shocked!

You deny it happened, retard. everyone knows it happened it was in the news and posted here more then once, go play in the road with plastic bag and tie clip.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A link for stupid. CIA officials refuse to brief Congress on the truth about Russian hacking claims | Daily Mail Online

 

[Moonglow]

Julian Assange's claim about the source of DNC emails is disproved by WikiLeaks' own website

The US intelligence community has its own sources and methods to conclude that the most likely culprit is Russia, and it plans to release a report of its findings next week. But Assange has nothing of the sort. He just has an anonymous drop box.
Julian Assange's claim about the source of DNC emails is disproved by WikiLeaks' own website

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The CIA never had access to the server or computers in the DNC or Podesta's, they have no hard evidence of anything and the civilian firm that did have access has a known axe to grind.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Lol at citing UN Charter!