PROVEN: Hillary Clinton DID COMPROMISE U.S. National Security

[task0778]

Section 793(f)(1) does not require intent, prosecutors told us that the Department has interpreted the provision to require that the person accused of having removed or delivered classified information in violation of this provision possess knowledge that the information is classified. In addition, based on the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), the prosecutors determined that conduct must be “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” be “criminally reckless,” or fall “just a little short of willful” to meet the “gross negligence” standard.

In other words, the Justice Department added proof elements that are not in the statute. The Espionage Act literally says that if you are a government official who has been entrusted with sensitive information, you are guilty if you either willfully cause its transmission to an unauthorized person or place (Section 793(d)), or are grossly negligent in permitting it to be removed from its proper custody, transmitted to an unauthorized person, or lost, stolen, or abstracted (Section 793(f)(1)).

The DoJ didn't "add elements" - the Supreme Court did. Legal precedence is just as important as statutory language, in our common-law system.

What could be more gross, reckless, and willful than imposing a non-secure private email system on the communications of the government’s highest-ranking national-security officials?

What about taking notes during classified briefings, taking those notes home, and leaving them on your desk for the maid to see?

Alberto Gonzales did that. He wasn't charged - for the same reasons that Hillary wasn't.

Notice, to establish guilt, the law does not require proof that the official had knowledge of every individual bit of classified information that was transmitted. If the government official establishes a blatantly unauthorized, absurdly non-secure system for government communications among officials who have top-level national-security duties, a rational jury could surely find the willful transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons or locations.

And if the jury had doubt about that — notwithstanding the thousands of emails containing classified information on Clinton’s system — gross negligence is the fall-back position. The official is also guilty if, by her recklessness, she enabled to exposure of classified information in an unprotected setting, enabled its transmission to unauthorized people, or created a situation that directly caused its compromise, theft, or loss.

You tell me: what could be more willful and intentional than removing classified markings from a classified document and sending over the nonsecure transmission network through an unprotected and unsecured server in Hillary Clinton's basement?

That last part sounds very damning and dramatic. It's a shame there's no evidence that it ever happened.

I don't give a shit what Alberto Gonzalez did. Sounds to me like he shoulda been charged, but I'm not going off on any tangents here.

Sure there's evidence, that Hillary Clinton email I posted in #338.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.

"approved to handle classified information"? by whom? There was no such language in the law (though it was revised after Hillary's time at DoS).

No they use they term "authorized location", which her server was NOT an authorized location.

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

INTENT?
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News


.

...read the sentence before the one you highlighted.

Did Clinton "knowingly remove" any classified documents without authority?

 

[OKTexas]

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......

You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Section 793(f)(1) does not require intent, prosecutors told us that the Department has interpreted the provision to require that the person accused of having removed or delivered classified information in violation of this provision possess knowledge that the information is classified. In addition, based on the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), the prosecutors determined that conduct must be “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” be “criminally reckless,” or fall “just a little short of willful” to meet the “gross negligence” standard.

In other words, the Justice Department added proof elements that are not in the statute. The Espionage Act literally says that if you are a government official who has been entrusted with sensitive information, you are guilty if you either willfully cause its transmission to an unauthorized person or place (Section 793(d)), or are grossly negligent in permitting it to be removed from its proper custody, transmitted to an unauthorized person, or lost, stolen, or abstracted (Section 793(f)(1)).

The DoJ didn't "add elements" - the Supreme Court did. Legal precedence is just as important as statutory language, in our common-law system.

What could be more gross, reckless, and willful than imposing a non-secure private email system on the communications of the government’s highest-ranking national-security officials?

What about taking notes during classified briefings, taking those notes home, and leaving them on your desk for the maid to see?

Alberto Gonzales did that. He wasn't charged - for the same reasons that Hillary wasn't.

Notice, to establish guilt, the law does not require proof that the official had knowledge of every individual bit of classified information that was transmitted. If the government official establishes a blatantly unauthorized, absurdly non-secure system for government communications among officials who have top-level national-security duties, a rational jury could surely find the willful transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons or locations.

And if the jury had doubt about that — notwithstanding the thousands of emails containing classified information on Clinton’s system — gross negligence is the fall-back position. The official is also guilty if, by her recklessness, she enabled to exposure of classified information in an unprotected setting, enabled its transmission to unauthorized people, or created a situation that directly caused its compromise, theft, or loss.

You tell me: what could be more willful and intentional than removing classified markings from a classified document and sending over the nonsecure transmission network through an unprotected and unsecured server in Hillary Clinton's basement?

That last part sounds very damning and dramatic. It's a shame there's no evidence that it ever happened.

I don't give a shit what Alberto Gonzalez did. Sounds to me like he shoulda been charged, but I'm not going off on any tangents here.

Sure there's evidence, that Hillary Clinton email I posted in #338.

An out-of-context email is not "evidence" of anything.

For it to be evidence, you'd need to show that (1) the document they were discussing was actually classified; and (2) that it was sent, unredacted, through email.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......

You're saying that Hillary Clinton knew that she was "removing" classified material without authority, and with the intent to retain those documents?

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points "nonsecure" - CBS News


.

Yes, I see you've found the same out-of-context email as Leo. See my responses to him.

 

[The Original Tree]

She is as guilty as the Doctor is in.

 

[OKTexas]

no - you just keep wordsmithing and giggling.

"No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server"

she conducted official business on this server. there is no denying it. there was classified info on there, there is no denying that. there is mail from obama on here of which he said he never knew about it, of which cannot be denied. why would obama deny knowledge of a perfectly legal server?

you're just walking in circles and playing word games so i'm out.

have fun.

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.

i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.

i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.

you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.

tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?

This is all nonsense.

You have provided one (1) statute that you claim Hillary has broken. I showed you, very explicitly, that the statute you provided requires intent for a violation. It's in plain English.

You are arguing that intent doesn't matter. That is factually incorrect. Period. Whether or not you have a different opinion, the law is clear, and your feelings don't matter.

We are discussing the law. Not how you feel, not how you're trying to meet me half way, not what you think should be true.

We know for a fact that at least on Secret document was stolen by a foreign actor.

(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


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.

i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.

i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.

you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.

tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?

This is all nonsense.

You have provided one (1) statute that you claim Hillary has broken. I showed you, very explicitly, that the statute you provided requires intent for a violation. It's in plain English.

You are arguing that intent doesn't matter. That is factually incorrect. Period. Whether or not you have a different opinion, the law is clear, and your feelings don't matter.

We are discussing the law. Not how you feel, not how you're trying to meet me half way, not what you think should be true.

We know for a fact that at least on Secret document was stolen by a foreign actor.

(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


.

You mean the email that was hacked from one of her aide's official state.gov email address?

You can keep repeating that section as many times as you want - as the IG report made clear, there's a reason why 793(f) has never been used to prosecute anyone, without proven intent.

You guys are always crowing about a "two-tiered" justice system, benefiting the elites - how can you then claim you want Clinton prosecuted under a statute that has never been used to prosecute anyone in that way?

 

[task0778]

This email from Hillary Clinton to a subordinate deliberately tells him to strip off the classification heading from a document and send it non-secure. That is the textbook definition of compromising national security.

What makes you think that document was classified?

Maybe it was that line where the subordinate says "We're having issues sending a secure fax". Geez Doc, are you seriously going to deny what your own eyes are telling you? Hillary Clinton was sending and receiving hundreds of classified information over that unprotected server, and she damn well knew it cuz she told an underling to remove the heading and send it nonsecure.

So that's your evidence? The words "secure fax".

That's quite a water-tight case you've got there.

Do you know of any other meaning for the words "secure fax", in the context of being unable to send it as is through the NIPRNET?

Looks like enough context to me to figure out what's going on.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This email from Hillary Clinton to a subordinate deliberately tells him to strip off the classification heading from a document and send it non-secure. That is the textbook definition of compromising national security.

What makes you think that document was classified?

Maybe it was that line where the subordinate says "We're having issues sending a secure fax". Geez Doc, are you seriously going to deny what your own eyes are telling you? Hillary Clinton was sending and receiving hundreds of classified information over that unprotected server, and she damn well knew it cuz she told an underling to remove the heading and send it nonsecure.

So that's your evidence? The words "secure fax".

That's quite a water-tight case you've got there.

Do you know of any other meaning for the words "secure fax", in the context of being unable to send it as is through the NIPRNET?

Of course. I can do what you're doing, and use my imagination to come up with lots and lots of stories that fit what I want to believe.

I already told you what you'd need to demonstrate -

1. That that specific information being discussed was classified; and
2. That it was later sent, unredacted, through email.

 

[task0778]

This email from Hillary Clinton to a subordinate deliberately tells him to strip off the classification heading from a document and send it non-secure. That is the textbook definition of compromising national security.

What makes you think that document was classified?

Maybe it was that line where the subordinate says "We're having issues sending a secure fax". Geez Doc, are you seriously going to deny what your own eyes are telling you? Hillary Clinton was sending and receiving hundreds of classified information over that unprotected server, and she damn well knew it cuz she told an underling to remove the heading and send it nonsecure.

So that's your evidence? The words "secure fax".

That's quite a water-tight case you've got there.

Do you know of any other meaning for the words "secure fax", in the context of being unable to send it as is through the NIPRNET?

Of course. I can do what you're doing, and use my imagination to come up with lots and lots of stories that fit what I want to believe.

I already told you what you'd need to demonstrate -

1. That that specific information being discussed was classified; and
2. That it was later sent, unredacted, through email.

1. We're talking about a secure fax that wouldn't go through the NIPRNET. Which means it was makred as classified, otherwise it woulda gone through the unsecured network as it was.

2. Bull shit. You're saying the subordinate didn't do what he was told by the SoS? That ain't an overactive imagination, that's plain old common sense.

 

[OKTexas]

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

Now post the section dealing with gross negligence.


.

You mean the section that has never been used to convict anyone, ever - because it's almost certainly unconstitutional?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horse shoes and atom bombs. You want to play the intent game, go back to Gowdy's interactions with Comey on intent. She set up the server to avoid the law, she continued to use it to avoid the law, she instructed aids to "remove headers and send nonsecure", she made false exculpatory statement to congress. All would go to intent in a criminal case.


.

 

[Leo123]

This email from Hillary Clinton to a subordinate deliberately tells him to strip off the classification heading from a document and send it non-secure. That is the textbook definition of compromising national security.

What makes you think that document was classified?

Maybe it was that line where the subordinate says "We're having issues sending a secure fax". Geez Doc, are you seriously going to deny what your own eyes are telling you? Hillary Clinton was sending and receiving hundreds of classified information over that unprotected server, and she damn well knew it cuz she told an underling to remove the heading and send it nonsecure.

So that's your evidence? The words "secure fax".

That's quite a water-tight case you've got there.

Do you know of any other meaning for the words "secure fax", in the context of being unable to send it as is through the NIPRNET?

Of course. I can do what you're doing, and use my imagination to come up with lots and lots of stories that fit what I want to believe.

I already told you what you'd need to demonstrate -

1. That that specific information being discussed was classified; and
2. That it was later sent, unredacted, through email.

Comey told us she was guilty but he let her off. I watched him do it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What makes you think that document was classified?

Maybe it was that line where the subordinate says "We're having issues sending a secure fax". Geez Doc, are you seriously going to deny what your own eyes are telling you? Hillary Clinton was sending and receiving hundreds of classified information over that unprotected server, and she damn well knew it cuz she told an underling to remove the heading and send it nonsecure.

So that's your evidence? The words "secure fax".

That's quite a water-tight case you've got there.

Do you know of any other meaning for the words "secure fax", in the context of being unable to send it as is through the NIPRNET?

Of course. I can do what you're doing, and use my imagination to come up with lots and lots of stories that fit what I want to believe.

I already told you what you'd need to demonstrate -

1. That that specific information being discussed was classified; and
2. That it was later sent, unredacted, through email.

1. We're talking about a secure fax that wouldn't go through the NIPRNET. Which means it was makred as classified, otherwise it woulda gone through the unsecured network as it was.

2. Bull shit. You're saying the subordinate didn't do what he was told by the SoS? That ain't an overactive imagination, that's plain old common sense.

You can speculate about it as much as you want to. The fact remains, neither you nor I have access to the information required to know whether or not your narrative is correct.

We don't know what information she was requesting or whether that particular piece of information was classified. We don't know even know the context of the conversation. We don't know what Sullivan ended up actually doing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

Now post the section dealing with gross negligence.


.

You mean the section that has never been used to convict anyone, ever - because it's almost certainly unconstitutional?

Almost only counts in hand grenades, horse shoes and atom bombs. You want to play the intent game, go back to Gowdy's interactions with Comey on intent. She set up the server to avoid the law, she continued to use it to avoid the law, she instructed aids to "remove headers and send nonsecure", she made false exculpatory statement to congress. All would go to intent in a criminal case.


.

So you're saying that Hillary should be charged with a crime that no one else has ever been charged with?

Do you think Clinton is the first person in history to spill classified information into their emails?

 

[Leo123]

Maybe it was that line where the subordinate says "We're having issues sending a secure fax". Geez Doc, are you seriously going to deny what your own eyes are telling you? Hillary Clinton was sending and receiving hundreds of classified information over that unprotected server, and she damn well knew it cuz she told an underling to remove the heading and send it nonsecure.

So that's your evidence? The words "secure fax".

That's quite a water-tight case you've got there.

Do you know of any other meaning for the words "secure fax", in the context of being unable to send it as is through the NIPRNET?

Of course. I can do what you're doing, and use my imagination to come up with lots and lots of stories that fit what I want to believe.

I already told you what you'd need to demonstrate -

1. That that specific information being discussed was classified; and
2. That it was later sent, unredacted, through email.

1. We're talking about a secure fax that wouldn't go through the NIPRNET. Which means it was makred as classified, otherwise it woulda gone through the unsecured network as it was.

2. Bull shit. You're saying the subordinate didn't do what he was told by the SoS? That ain't an overactive imagination, that's plain old common sense.

You can speculate about it as much as you want to. The fact remains, neither you nor I have access to the information required to know whether or not your narrative is correct.

We don't know what information she was requesting or whether that particular piece of information was classified. We don't know even know the context of the conversation. We don't know what Sullivan ended up actually doing.

There is much we don't know because Hillary destroyed phones and 'lost' server evidence.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So that's your evidence? The words "secure fax".

That's quite a water-tight case you've got there.

Do you know of any other meaning for the words "secure fax", in the context of being unable to send it as is through the NIPRNET?

Of course. I can do what you're doing, and use my imagination to come up with lots and lots of stories that fit what I want to believe.

I already told you what you'd need to demonstrate -

1. That that specific information being discussed was classified; and
2. That it was later sent, unredacted, through email.

1. We're talking about a secure fax that wouldn't go through the NIPRNET. Which means it was makred as classified, otherwise it woulda gone through the unsecured network as it was.

2. Bull shit. You're saying the subordinate didn't do what he was told by the SoS? That ain't an overactive imagination, that's plain old common sense.

You can speculate about it as much as you want to. The fact remains, neither you nor I have access to the information required to know whether or not your narrative is correct.

We don't know what information she was requesting or whether that particular piece of information was classified. We don't know even know the context of the conversation. We don't know what Sullivan ended up actually doing.

There is much we don't know because Hillary destroyed phones and 'lost' server evidence.

Look at the headings of those emails.

Did Hillary Clinton "lose" the state.gov server?

 

[OKTexas]

bullshit, you are responsible for keeping your car under the speed limit, equipment failure is not an excuse.

You are incorrect.

This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.

Not in matters of criminal negligence.


.

Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.

And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.


.

1. Comey didn't say that.

2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.

Really, he didn't say that? I paraphrased, here's what he actually said.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).


Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI


.

 

[OKTexas]

Not in matters of criminal negligence.


.

Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.

And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.


.

1. Comey didn't say that.

2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.

Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.

No, "gross negligence" is not intent.

Intent means you intended to do something. Gross negligence (in the criminal context) means an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the wilful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm.

Credit - Black's Law Dictionary.

Like telling an aid to remove headers and send nonseure? That's not intent, in who's reality?


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.

And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.


.

1. Comey didn't say that.

2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.

Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.

No, "gross negligence" is not intent.

Intent means you intended to do something. Gross negligence (in the criminal context) means an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the wilful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm.

Credit - Black's Law Dictionary.

Like telling an aid to remove headers and send nonseure? That's not intent, in who's reality?


.

No, a single out of context email does not show intent.

We don't know what they were discussing, or what actually happened.