State Department finds no 'deliberate mishandling of classified information' related to Clinton

[Faun]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

Getting her own private server and then destroying everything to cover up her crimes definitely indicates intent to break a laws as well as cover them up. She's guilty as sin.

Great, then show me where in the State Department's report it states she broke the law...?

 

[Synthaholic]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

Getting her own private server and then destroying everything to cover up her crimes definitely indicates intent to break a laws as well as cover them up. She's guilty as sin.

I thought she kept her server in the basement of a pizza parlor?

you’re a moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

Getting her own private server and then destroying everything to cover up her crimes definitely indicates intent to break a laws as well as cover them up. She's guilty as sin.

Great, then show me where in the State Department's report it states she broke the law...?

Comrade, why did CNN lie about this?

 

[Faun]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

Getting her own private server and then destroying everything to cover up her crimes definitely indicates intent to break a laws as well as cover them up. She's guilty as sin.

Great, then show me where in the State Department's report it states she broke the law...?

Comrade, why did CNN lie about this?

Insane poster, don't just say it... prove it.

Quote the relevant section from the State Department report that contradicts CNN....

I won't be holding my breath while I wait for you to do so.

 

[TRFjr]

emails

"There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information," the report states.

The report is yet another instance of federal investigators clearing Clinton and her aides of deliberately mishandling classified information, which was the focus of attacks on the former secretary of state throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. Clinton was also cleared of wrongdoing by the FBI twice over her private email server during the campaign.

After the FBI closed its investigation of Clinton's email server in 2016, State Department investigators, over the next three years, interviewed dozens of former and current State Department employees and reviewed thousands of pages of documents.

State Department finds no 'deliberate mishandling of classified information' related to Clinton email server - CNNPolitics
----------------------------------------------------

I didn't think so. Now what is tramp going to talk about at his rallies??

funny no where in the law is the word "deliberate" used "negligence" is but not deliberate
and what can be more negligent then sending classified information to an unsecure private email


U.S. Code § 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(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.

but according to the self appointed power liberals have to read crap into laws that isnt there, all I have to do now is tell the officer next time im pulled over for speeding "I wasn't deliberately speeding" and he will have to let be go with no ticket

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Who cares!?!?!!?! She lost. Move on.

 

[TRFjr]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

No it doesn't just gross negligence is all that needs to be proven

U.S. Code § 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(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.


show me were it says or even implies intent?

 

[TRFjr]

Who cares!?!?!!?! She lost. Move on.

yes because losing an election is a get out of jail free card

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Who cares!?!?!!?! She lost. Move on.

Lots of people care. As soon as this issue is dealt with and the little quisling helpers rooted out of government I will move on because the issue will have been resolved.

Not until then.

 

[CWayne]

State Department.

Last I checked, it was the Justice Department that made these determinations.

 

[Faun]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

No it doesn't just gross negligence is all that needs to be proven

U.S. Code § 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(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.


show me were it says or even implies intent?

Show where she permitted such material to be removed, delivered, destroyed, etc....

 

[Uncensored2008]

State Department.

Last I checked, it was the Justice Department that made these determinations.

The State Department is trying to get out in front of the looming DOJ IG report.

 

[Faun]

Who cares!?!?!!?! She lost. Move on.

yes because losing an election is a get out of jail free card

LOLOL

You poor obsessed rightie. It's been investigated and there was no wrong doing on her part. Like Mulvaney said -- get over it.

 

[TRFjr]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

No it doesn't just gross negligence is all that needs to be proven

U.S. Code § 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(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.


show me were it says or even implies intent?

Show where she permitted such material to be removed, delivered, destroyed, etc....

sending an email is delivering
so anyone that sent Clinton an email containing classified information to her private email address is in violation of the law and Clinton knowing that classified information was sent to her private email without reporting and properly securing it is also in violation of the law

 

[wamose]

Hillary is the deep states favorite. So far she has made a mockery of our legal system if not our whole system of government. There's just sooo many reasons to dislike that woman.

 

[CWayne]

State Department.

Last I checked, it was the Justice Department that made these determinations.

The State Department is trying to get out in front of the looming DOJ IG report.

Yes, but I find it a losing battle, PR-wise.

The State Department says in their report:

***** In the latest probe, investigators determined Clinton’s conduct represented an increased degree of risk to the State Department. However, they emphasized there was “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” *****

We see that the language is important. No persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information. This is the State Department covering their own ass. Systemic means that the rank and file did not mishandle classified information, while they say Clinton's conduct represents an increased degree of risk to, you guessed it, The State Department.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Who cares!?!?!!?! She lost. Move on.

yes because losing an election is a get out of jail free card

She lost the election, her self respect, her foundation. She is forever going to be a joke politically. Punishment fits the crime IMO.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Who cares!?!?!!?! She lost. Move on.

yes because losing an election is a get out of jail free card

LOLOL

You poor obsessed rightie. It's been investigated and there was no wrong doing on her part. Like Mulvaney said -- get over it.

There was definitely wrong doing in the public eye, hence she lost the election. Move on people. Oh and Faun, you're a loser with no career path.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He could give a short lesson in the law, demonstrating that a lack of intent does not absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

Actually, intent has everything to do with it. Which is why Comey was right to not seek charges against Clinton.

U.S. Code § 1924

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.​

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

State Department.

Last I checked, it was the Justice Department that made these determinations.

The State Department is trying to get out in front of the looming DOJ IG report.

Yes, but I find it a losing battle, PR-wise.

The State Department says in their report:

***** In the latest probe, investigators determined Clinton’s conduct represented an increased degree of risk to the State Department. However, they emphasized there was “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” *****

We see that the language is important. No persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information. This is the State Department covering their own ass. Systemic means that the rank and file did not mishandle classified information, while they say Clinton's conduct represents an increased degree of risk to, you guessed it, The State Department.

The State Department needs a good purging.