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

[theDoctorisIn]

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.


.

You're using some weird terminology here.

You understand that we didn't "lose" that information, right? We still have it.

 

[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.

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?

Like Gowdy asked, will there ever be a first?


.

 

[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.

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.

Damn, you have more excuses than a 3 year old.


.

 

[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.

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?

Like Gowdy asked, will there ever be a first?


.

A first what?

A first person charged with violating the Espionage Act for spillage? As the law stands now, probably not.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

We know exactly what they were talking about, a document classified as confidential containing talking points.


.

 

[task0778]

This wasn't spillage, this was outright gross negligence. There's nothing in 793(f)(1) that mentions intent, nothing at all. She broke that law, deliberately and should have been charged for it. So what if nobody else has ever been convicted without intent, if it ain't inthe law then you shouldn't have to prove it.

And BTW that law is Constitutional until the SCOTUS says it isn't.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

You're using some weird terminology here.

You understand that we didn't "lose" that information, right? We still have it.

It was compromised by a foreign actor, that is a loss in the security world.


.

 

[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.

We know exactly what they were talking about, a document classified as confidential containing talking points.


.

Information is classified, not documents. Documents get markings if they contain classified material - but the documents themselves are no longer classified if that information is redacted.

What information was she requesting, and how was it sent to her?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Like Gowdy asked, will there ever be a first?


.

A first what?

A first person charged with violating the Espionage Act for spillage? As the law stands now, probably not.

I don't recall the term "spillage" anywhere in the law or in the investigation. You're just making shit up trying to minimize the bitches crimes.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.


.

You're using some weird terminology here.

You understand that we didn't "lose" that information, right? We still have it.

It was compromised by a foreign actor, that is a loss in the security world.


.

I'm commenting on your use of "loss" and "removed" - the information was not, technically "lost" or "removed".

It was compromised - that's a term I'll accept.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Like Gowdy asked, will there ever be a first?


.

A first what?

A first person charged with violating the Espionage Act for spillage? As the law stands now, probably not.

I don't recall the term "spillage" anywhere in the law or in the investigation. You're just making shit up trying to minimize the bitches crimes.


.

Spillage means a security incident that results in the transfer of classified or CUI information onto an information system not accredited (i.e., authorized) for the appropriate security level.

This document might help explain it better than me: https://fas.org/sgp/library/cnssi-1001.pdf

 

[OKTexas]

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.

We know exactly what they were talking about, a document classified as confidential containing talking points.


.

Information is classified, not documents. Documents get markings if they contain classified material - but the documents themselves are no longer classified if that information is redacted.

What information was she requesting, and how was it sent to her?

Damn you just keep inventing shit, removing the headers didn't alter the classification of the material. And that's not the point, she intentionally instructed aids to violate classified procedures. How she eventually received the information is also irrelevant. She demonstrated intent to violate the law. No other way to spin it.


.

 

[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.

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.

We know exactly what they were talking about, a document classified as confidential containing talking points.


.

Information is classified, not documents. Documents get markings if they contain classified material - but the documents themselves are no longer classified if that information is redacted.

What information was she requesting, and how was it sent to her?

Damn you just keep inventing shit, removing the headers didn't alter the classification of the material. And that's not the point, she intentionally instructed aids to violate classified procedures. How she eventually received the information is also irrelevant. She demonstrated intent to violate the law. No other way to spin it.


.

Removing the headers does not alter the classification of the material. That is true, and I never claimed otherwise.

The rest of your post is a narrative you've created in your head, around a single email.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

You're using some weird terminology here.

You understand that we didn't "lose" that information, right? We still have it.

It was compromised by a foreign actor, that is a loss in the security world.


.

I'm commenting on your use of "loss" and "removed" - the information was not, technically "lost" or "removed".

It was compromised - that's a term I'll accept.

I'm thinking you've never held a security clearance, making a copy and taking it out of a secure facility is a removal, even if the original remains. Compromised information is lost, because someone has it that isn't supposed to.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.


.

You're using some weird terminology here.

You understand that we didn't "lose" that information, right? We still have it.

It was compromised by a foreign actor, that is a loss in the security world.


.

I'm commenting on your use of "loss" and "removed" - the information was not, technically "lost" or "removed".

It was compromised - that's a term I'll accept.

I'm thinking you've never held a security clearance, making a copy and taking it out of a secure facility is a removal, even if the original remains. Compromised information is lost, because someone has it that isn't supposed to.


.

I understand the law. My point is only about the wording of it, which reflects an earlier time. You're seeking to use the words that appear in the statute to make Clinton look more guilty, rather than words that are more accurately reflective of what actually happened.

Did you read that link on spillage?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Like Gowdy asked, will there ever be a first?


.

A first what?

A first person charged with violating the Espionage Act for spillage? As the law stands now, probably not.

I don't recall the term "spillage" anywhere in the law or in the investigation. You're just making shit up trying to minimize the bitches crimes.


.

Spillage means a security incident that results in the transfer of classified or CUI information onto an information system not accredited (i.e., authorized) for the appropriate security level.

This document might help explain it better than me: https://fas.org/sgp/library/cnssi-1001.pdf

That's the same as removal. The information is moved from an authorized system to a unauthorized system. Once again we're talking about information, not necessarily the original. That's illegal, someone had to initiate the removal or transfer.

The fact is the bitch owned the system, she is responsible for everything that made its was to it.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

We know exactly what they were talking about, a document classified as confidential containing talking points.


.

Information is classified, not documents. Documents get markings if they contain classified material - but the documents themselves are no longer classified if that information is redacted.

What information was she requesting, and how was it sent to her?

Damn you just keep inventing shit, removing the headers didn't alter the classification of the material. And that's not the point, she intentionally instructed aids to violate classified procedures. How she eventually received the information is also irrelevant. She demonstrated intent to violate the law. No other way to spin it.


.

Removing the headers does not alter the classification of the material. That is true, and I never claimed otherwise.

The rest of your post is a narrative you've created in your head, around a single email.

No, it's documented fact. And is just one more point to prove intent.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

You're using some weird terminology here.

You understand that we didn't "lose" that information, right? We still have it.

It was compromised by a foreign actor, that is a loss in the security world.


.

I'm commenting on your use of "loss" and "removed" - the information was not, technically "lost" or "removed".

It was compromised - that's a term I'll accept.

I'm thinking you've never held a security clearance, making a copy and taking it out of a secure facility is a removal, even if the original remains. Compromised information is lost, because someone has it that isn't supposed to.


.

I understand the law. My point is only about the wording of it, which reflects an earlier time. You're seeking to use the words that appear in the statute to make Clinton look more guilty, rather than words that are more accurately reflective of what actually happened.

Did you read that link on spillage?

I read it, none of the procedures were followed. We're also talking about more than 100 incidents, that doesn't indicate an innocent accident.


.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.

 

[Leo123]

Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.

Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.