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

[theDoctorisIn]

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


.

Ok. He's describing spillage.

No one has ever been persecuted under the Espionage Act for spillage.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Try reading the area below INTENT. Hell yes she knowingly told people to remove classified headers and move the document to an unsecured system.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Try reading the area below INTENT. Hell yes she knowingly told people to remove classified headers and move the document to an unsecured system.


.

Did she?

All I've seen is an out-of-context email with no point of reference as to what they were referring to.

Do you have any evidence that this supposed stripping of headers actually occurred?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Didn't read the link did ya, it puts it in context.


.

 

[task0778]

The simple truth is that Comey and everyone else in or out of the FBI, DOJ, and every other gov't agency believed that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected the next president, and so they were trying to avoid pissing her off while at the same time doing their jobs to investigate her and her opponent. And by all accounts, she was and still is a vindictive bitch, so it couldn't have been easy.

BUT - she was guilty as sin of breaking several laws:

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Federal Records Act
Section 1924 Of Title 18 — Classified Information
18 USC 793(f)(1) - gross negligence

And on top of all that, Obstruction of Justice. I won't say she would have been convicted, our system of justice being what it is today. And on numerous occasions, she lied her ass off to us. Proof is hard to come by with these people, as experienced as they are in hiding or destroying evidence and employing legal teams that most of us couldn't dream about.

Tell you the truth, I have no doubt there are foreign gov'ts who are less than friendly to the US that know more about her emails than we do. I have no doubt there are conversations in those emails that may not have indicated illegal activity but did show a lot of improper activities that a person who wanted to run for president wouldn't want to be known. Convenience my ass, she was hiding stuff that would have been politically damaging if not illegal. Connect the dots, that's all you gotta do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Didn't read the link did ya, it puts it in context.


.

No, it doesn't.

To understand the context of that email, we'd need to know what specific information Hillary was requesting, and whether it was actually classified.

 

[task0778]

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.

Didn't read the link did ya, it puts it in context.


.

No, it doesn't.

To understand the context of that email, we'd need to know what specific information Hillary was requesting, and whether it was actually classified.

Not true, we do not need to know the specific information at all, doesn't matter one bit. Hell Doc, if it wasn't classified it woulda passed through the NIPRNET. I know you don't want to believe it, but damn, the facts are staring you right in the face.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Didn't read the link did ya, it puts it in context.


.

No, it doesn't.

To understand the context of that email, we'd need to know what specific information Hillary was requesting, and whether it was actually classified.

Not true, we do not need to know the specific information at all, doesn't matter one bit. Hell Doc, if it wasn't classified it woulda passed through the NIPRNET. I know you don't want to believe it, but damn, the facts are staring you right in the face.

Yes, we do need to know the context. Because our legal system doesn't function based on what you believe.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, we do need to know the context. Because our legal system doesn't function based on what you believe.

It functions on what you can get someone else to believe ... Just ask a FISA Judge ...

.​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, we do need to know the context. Because our legal system doesn't function based on what you believe.

It functions on what you can get someone else to believe ... Just ask a FISA Judge ...

.​

You guys are still running with that stale talking point?

I guess we'll have to wait for the next IG report - although I'm sure you guys will continue to deny reality even after that. See this thread for an example.

 

[BlackSand]

You guys are still running with that stale talking point?

I guess we'll have to wait for the next IG report - although I'm sure you guys will continue to deny reality even after that. See this thread for an example.

So are you suggesting our justice system doesn't function as the result of what you can get someone else to believe?
Or ... Are you just talking more crap?

.​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys are still running with that stale talking point?

I guess we'll have to wait for the next IG report - although I'm sure you guys will continue to deny reality even after that. See this thread for an example.

So are you suggesting our justice system doesn't function as the result of what you can get someone else to believe?
Or ... Are you just talking more crap?

.​

No, I was expressing surprise that you guys are still going with the "THEY LIED TO THE FISA JUDGE!!11!!!!!!" talking point.

But that's a nice straw man you've built.

 

[task0778]

Yes, we do need to know the context. Because our legal system doesn't function based on what you believe.

It functions on what you can get someone else to believe ... Just ask a FISA Judge ...

.​

You guys are still running with that stale talking point?

I guess we'll have to wait for the next IG report - although I'm sure you guys will continue to deny reality even after that. See this thread for an example.

I don't think it's us who is denying reality. It really does not matter what was specifically in the document, the court is not going to decide whether it was really classified or not. That's not in their purview, the only thing that matters is that is was classified, and we know that it was because of the simple fact that it would not pass through the unclassified (NIPRNET) network. Why? Because there were markings on it that tell you it was classified and at what level. It's just that simple.

Are we to believe that the subordinate did not do as he was instructed by the Secy of State? Seriously? And you think we're the ones denying reality?

 

[BlackSand]

No, I was expressing surprise that you guys are still going with the "THEY LIED TO THE FISA JUDGE!!11!!!!!!" talking point.

But that's a nice straw man you've built.

Are you suggesting a FISA judge wouldn't be an excellent source of information ...
helping you better understand how someone convincing someone else to believe something is crucial to every aspect of our judicial process?

Or ... Are you just talking more crap?

.​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, we do need to know the context. Because our legal system doesn't function based on what you believe.

It functions on what you can get someone else to believe ... Just ask a FISA Judge ...

.​

You guys are still running with that stale talking point?

I guess we'll have to wait for the next IG report - although I'm sure you guys will continue to deny reality even after that. See this thread for an example.

I don't think it's us who is denying reality. It really does not matter what was specifically in the document, the court is not going to decide whether it was really classified or not. That's not in their purview, the only thing that matters is that is was classified, and we know that it was because of the simple fact that it would not pass through the unclassified (NIPRNET) network. Why? Because there were markings on it that tell you it was classified and at what level. It's just that simple.

Are we to believe that the subordinate did not do as he was instructed by the Secy of State? Seriously? And you think we're the ones denying reality?

It's not up to the court to decide whether it was classified or not - it's up to whoever decided to classify (or not classify) the information in the first place. Since we don't know what document they're discussing, or what information from that document Clinton wanted, we can't even begin to make a determination.

As for your second question - it's not a matter of what we "believe" - it's a matter of what actually happened. You can come up with narratives all you want, but if you don't have any evidence to support them it doesn't mean much.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, I was expressing surprise that you guys are still going with the "THEY LIED TO THE FISA JUDGE!!11!!!!!!" talking point.

But that's a nice straw man you've built.

Are you suggesting a FISA judge wouldn't be an excellent source of information ...
helping you better understand how someone convincing someone else to believe something is crucial to every aspect of our judicial process?

Or ... Are you just talking more crap?

.​

Another straw man.

Why is it that you can't respond to what I actually said?

 

[BlackSand]

Another straw man.

Why is it that you can't respond to what I actually said?

You responded to me, and I didn't ask you any questions ... I don't give a crap where you want to take the conversation.
What I posted was correct in every aspect ... If you don't like it ... Go pound sand ...

.​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Another straw man.

Why is it that you can't respond to what I actually said?

You responded to me, and I didn't ask you any questions ... I don't give a crap where you want to take the conversation.
What I posted was correct in every aspect ... If you don't like it ... Go pound sand ...

.​

Ok. I don't give a fuck about whatever you're trying to deflect to. Feel free to go fuck off.

 

[BlackSand]

Ok. I don't give a fuck about whatever you're trying to deflect to. Feel free to go fuck off.

I didn't deflect anything ... I commented on your comment that our justice system doesn't function on what you (someone) believes.
It most certainly functions on what someone believes ... In every aspect ... Deal with it ...

.​

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Doesn't matter where it was hacked, it was lost, and it wouldn't have been there had it not been removed form the secure system.


.