The Hill: Was Loretta Lynch coordinating with James Comey in the Clinton investigation?

[westwall]

And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?

Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.

From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?

Of course she did. There were more than 125 that were classified as Secret as of 2015. The claim that they were retroactively classified is laughable. Emails are Classified by the issuing Agency UPON SENDING. That's how the system works. I have many friends who work in the defense industry and they are bound by the same laws as hillary was.

Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.

Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.

Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.

They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

 

[Markle]

Do you guys really think that a greek chorus of "He's a troll" will really work to distract from the fact that none of you have been able to answer a simple question?

I ask again:

Do you believe that a crime occurred involving Comey, Lynch, and Clinton and the meeting on the tarmac?

If so, what law was broken?

 

[AntonToo]

Changing the wording in the statement didn't change anything. That was a matter of rhetoric.

The reason why the FBI opted to not recommend charges against Hillary wasn't because of the words that Comey used in his statement - it was that only one person in history has ever been charged under that 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) absent specific intent.

The root of this is the idea that § 793(f) was unconstitutionally vague. As the only section of the Espionage Act that did not require intent as a statutory element, the courts were mixed on how to apply it in cases where intent wasn't proven. Only one such case ever ended up being prosecuted - and even in that case, the plaintiff was already known to be in the employ of a hostile foreign power.

If it wasn't already clear, in 1941, the SCOTUS ruled on a § 793(f) case called Gorin v. United States, in which the court held that without proof of intent, the definition of "against the national interest" was unconstitutionally vague.

Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.

Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.

The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.

Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!

And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.

The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.

And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?

WOW - Saucier had no intent when he methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor?

Is that what you are going with? Well sorry buddy, but prosecutor in the case had a different take and clearly did see intent.

When Comey said that no persecutor would recommend prosecution under these status without intent he was 100% correct, AS THEY NEVER HAVE.

 

[Markle]

Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.

From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?

You know as well as anyone that laws were broken with the meeting on the tarmac as well as a dozen other places. You're simply another troll.

 

[westwall]

Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.

Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.

The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.

Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!

And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.

The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.

And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?

WOW - Saucier had no intent when he methodically documented the entire propulsion system of the nuclear submarine, including the design of its nuclear compartment and its nuclear reactor?

Is that what you are going with? Well sorry buddy, but prosecutor in the case had a different take and clearly did see intent.

When Comey said that no persecutor would recommend criminal prosecution without intent he was 100% correct, AS THEY NEVER HAVE under these statutes.

He was showing his friends and family where he worked. None of those images were going to anyone else. hillary KNOWINGLY ignored US security laws in an effort to avoid FOIA laws, which in itself is a crime. And no, comey was only correct because he was complicit in a massive effort to obstruct justice. That is as plain as day to a REASONABLE PERSON.

We all know that you're not reasonable. You're a biased political hack.

 

[westwall]

Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.

From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?

You know as well as anyone that laws were broken with the meeting on the tarmac as well as a dozen other places. You're simply another troll.

That is not necessarily true. It was absolutely unethical, but whether it was illegal or not is an open question.

 

[AntonToo]

Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.

From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?

Of course she did. There were more than 125 that were classified as Secret as of 2015. The claim that they were retroactively classified is laughable. Emails are Classified by the issuing Agency UPON SENDING. That's how the system works. I have many friends who work in the defense industry and they are bound by the same laws as hillary was.

Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.

Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.

Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.

They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

 

[westwall]

Of course she did. There were more than 125 that were classified as Secret as of 2015. The claim that they were retroactively classified is laughable. Emails are Classified by the issuing Agency UPON SENDING. That's how the system works. I have many friends who work in the defense industry and they are bound by the same laws as hillary was.

Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.

Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.

Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.

They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

 

[AntonToo]

Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.

From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?

You know as well as anyone that laws were broken with the meeting on the tarmac as well as a dozen other places. You're simply another troll.

That is not necessarily true. It was absolutely unethical, but whether it was illegal or not is an open question.

It was not ABOLUTELY unethical, the only thing it ABSOLUTELY was bad optics. Their conversation could have been 100% ethical.

 

[AntonToo]

Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.

Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.

Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.

They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

NO THEY WERE NOT, thats what made them PRIVATE, duh.

 

[AntonToo]

He was showing his friends and family where he worked.

I've got a Brooklyn bridge to sell you, because his prosecutor wasn't interested in that baloney.

 

[AntonToo]

Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.

Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.

Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.

They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

Where do you get this assertion from? Do you just make this up as you go along?

 

[AntonToo]

Powell used his AOL account. Private company, not government organization last I checked.

U.S. lawmakers to press AOL for Powell's State Department emails

Shame on you mr.Officer-of-the-Court for making up bullshit...

 

[westwall]

Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.

From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?

You know as well as anyone that laws were broken with the meeting on the tarmac as well as a dozen other places. You're simply another troll.

That is not necessarily true. It was absolutely unethical, but whether it was illegal or not is an open question.

It was not ABOLUTELY unethical, the only thing it ABSOLUTELY was bad optics. Their conversation could have been 100% ethical.

Yes, it is unethical. If it is bad optics, that by definition is unethical. You need to take an ethics class dude.

 

[westwall]

They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

NO THEY WERE NOT, thats what made them PRIVATE, duh.

You can have a private email on a government server numbskull. You're not very well versed on this matter. I suggest you do some research of your own instead of parroting what your masters tell you, 'cause they're wrong.

 

[westwall]

Powell used his AOL account. Private company, not government organization last I checked.

U.S. lawmakers to press AOL for Powell's State Department emails

Shame on you mr.Officer-of-the-Court for making up bullshit...

When Powell was Sec of State they didn't have a email system silly boy. Like I said, you're not very good at this are you? From YOUR link...

"The State Department did not have a fully functioning email system when Powell joined it in 2001, according to agency officials. Powell has said he told technology officials to set up a computer with his AOL account in order to become the first secretary of state to use email.

In contrast, Clinton eschewed the official state.gov email system when she took office in 2009. Department officials have said she would not have received permission for this had she asked."

 

[tyroneweaver]

Obstruction of Justice for starters. But that seems sort of obvious. Don't you think?

There are at least 6 different sections of the US Code that address what could be called "Obstruction of Justice". Which are you referring to?

18 USC 1503 springs immediately to mind. Though a case can be made for 18 USC 1505 as well based on the 33,000 deleted emails while under subpoena.

Ok, we'll start with 1503.

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

Do you have evidence of these "threats" or "force"? Who do you believe threatened who? What juror or officer of the court are you referring to?

1505 is essentially the same thing, except for administrative or congressional investigations. Same questions as above.

Threats or force aren't the only ways that one obstructs. Surely you have to know that.

What I know is that our laws - particularly our criminal laws - are very specifically written in statute to enumerate the exact elements of a crime that need to be proven.

I asked for the Title and Chapter of the law you guys believe was broken. This is what I was given.

Can you make an argument that any actions of Lynch, Comey, either Clinton, or anyone else involved meets those elements?

Nonetheless should they be looking into a political enemies business?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Powell used his AOL account. Private company, not government organization last I checked.

U.S. lawmakers to press AOL for Powell's State Department emails

Shame on you mr.Officer-of-the-Court for making up bullshit...

He turned every last email of his back to the state when requested. What did Hil--Liar do again when they asked her for hers???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?

Did Hillary "intent" to place classified documents on her unclassified server? That's not the foregone conclusion you act as if it is.

From what I've seen, it could just as easily be explained as spillage. Do you have any conclusive reason to say that it was intentional?

Of course she did. There were more than 125 that were classified as Secret as of 2015. The claim that they were retroactively classified is laughable. Emails are Classified by the issuing Agency UPON SENDING. That's how the system works. I have many friends who work in the defense industry and they are bound by the same laws as hillary was.

Emails sent over the regular internet are never classified upon sending. The regular internet is not secure enough for classified information - Intentionally transmitting classified information via email is against the law.

Classified information is only disseminated via SCIF.

Sometimes, when you've got the clearance, you learn something in a SCIF that you later offhandedly mention in a regular email. That's called "spillage" - and that's what happened with Hillary Clinton.

They ABSOLUTELY are. You need to check up on the classification process. The SENDER classifies ALL communications immediately upon transmission. This is not a guess on my part. This is a fact.

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

That's exactly what Hillary and her buddy both did.

 

[Coyote]

All I'm asking for is the law that you think someone broke.

The question should neither be difficult, nor unexpected, since you seem so convinced that a crime was committed.

The 3 U.S. Criminal Laws Hillary Broke with Her Email

While that is a delightfully retarded blog you've managed to come up with, I'd much prefer if you tried to use your own words, rather than vomit up something you googled.

And if I used my own words you would then be asking me for a link. Just wanted to beat you to the punch.

I will ask you for a link to back up any factual claims you make, of course.

But you've linked to opinion, not facts.

I don't want someone else's opinion, I'm asking for your opinion.

You should expect to back up any claims you make with facts, of course. You understand the difference between facts and opinion, right?

Do you? I suppose you can prove that (through the link) those are not laws she broke?

Do you guys really think that a greek chorus of "He's a troll" will really work to distract from the fact that none of you have been able to answer a simple question?

I ask again:

Do you believe that a crime occurred involving Comey, Lynch, and Clinton and the meeting on the tarmac?

If so, what law was broken?

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, TROLL BOY, OR YOU GET REPORTED. STICK TO THE OP.

That is the topic dude.