What Will Happen to Hillary Over the Mishandling of Classified Material?

[leftwinger]

They think it RW hit job. But I think it all started when Blumenthal was hacked and link to HER..........so on and so on.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88403.pdf

Why doesn;'t the MEDIA know this stuff? MILLIONS of Americans know how this stuff works... And as you just demonstrated MOST of the procedures and vetting and reporting rules are unclassified.

The Media is owned by people who decide what is reported..............I've signed similar documents..........They are clear that if you disclose information you are committing a crime, and you will go to jail.............The State Dept's version is not as harsh as those I had to sign.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

US judge to allow further digging in Clinton email lawsuit

 

[Uncensored2008]

Someone smarter than you will determine whether or not she mishandled classified material.

Savvy?

I am a lot smarter than you are, as are 90% of the other posters on this site.

She mishandled classified material.

She is part of the party elite, thus the laws on the books do not apply to her. Nothing will happen to her other than she will never be president. This is because we are not a nation of laws. Law does not accrue to our aristocracy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why doesn;'t the MEDIA know this stuff? MILLIONS of Americans know how this stuff works... And as you just demonstrated MOST of the procedures and vetting and reporting rules are unclassified.

The job of the media is to obfuscate information embarrassing to the party. The MSM exists to deceive, not inform.

 

[Skylar]

Someone smarter than you will determine whether or not she mishandled classified material.

Savvy?

I am a lot smarter than you are, as are 90% of the other posters on this site.

She mishandled classified material.

She is part of the party elite, thus the laws on the books do not apply to her. Nothing will happen to her other than she will never be president. This is because we are not a nation of laws. Law does not accrue to our aristocracy.

Or....she didn't violate the law.

Did [Hillary Clinton] commit a crime? Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is "no."

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

AP ran a similar articles and asked legal experts on the matter. The consensus was that Hillary hadn't violated any laws.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Or....she didn't violate the law.

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Did [Hillary Clinton] commit a crime? Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is "no."

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

AP ran a similar articles and asked legal experts on the matter. The consensus was that Hillary hadn't violated any laws.

The job of the media is to obfuscate for the ruling elite.

The law has been posted, Hillary violated it. This is a simply case of the fact that she is above the law.

 

[Skylar]

Or....she didn't violate the law.

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

Of course they would, and you would you would be screaming for them to.

You care only about party, which I understand. If you get high enough in the party, then the only law that will apply to you is "serve the party."

I cling to the old republic, the nation of laws that once held that all answered to one law. When I was young, a president engaged in acts that violated laws, he suggested that the IRS be used to audit his political enemies and was held accountable. I had pride in living in a nation where all, even the president were held to the law.

But in the 90's another president engaged in perjury and threatened witnesses. But he was a party member, and America learned that law does not apply to the party elite. A few years ago we found out that our current president it using the the IRS to attack political enemies, the very thing the Nixon resigned over merely suggesting, But the current president is a party member, so thus is above the law.

I had to accept that we are not a nation of laws. The law is a club to beat the common people with, it has no power over party members of sufficient stature. It is a weapon, not a means of civil society.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

The radical left Los Angeles Times can print all the lies they like in defense of justifying the fact that party members are above the law, it alters nothing.

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

General consensus among the party elite is that Hillary is a party member, ergo above the law.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Skylar]

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

Of course they would, and you would you would be screaming for them to.

Nope and nope. Again, the actions in question don't meet the standards of indictment under the law. Which is why the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security that have been asked.....indicated no crime was committed.

You insist I ignore all of the legal experts that have commented on the matter....and instead believe you.

No thank you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope and nope. Again, the actions in question don't meet the standards of indictment under the law. Which is why the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security that have been asked.....indicated no crime was commited.

Skylar, you are 100% hack. You say that which serves the party. Fact, legality, and rationality aren't even considerations. If a phrase helps the party, you say it, if not, you deny it. Nothing more or less to it.

 

[Skylar]

Nope and nope. Again, the actions in question don't meet the standards of indictment under the law. Which is why the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security that have been asked.....indicated no crime was commited.

Skylar, you are 100% hack. You say that which serves the party. Fact, legality, and rationality aren't even considerations. If a phrase helps the party, you say it, if not, you deny it. Nothing more or less to it.

I'm just a person that put more weight in the professional assessment of the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security ......than I do your personal opinion.

As would most rational people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

{The email system operated in those first two months without the standard encryption generally used on the Internet to protect communication, according to an independent analysis that Venafi Inc., a cybersecurity firm that specializes in the encryption process, took upon itself to publish on its website after the scandal broke. Not until March 29, 2009 — two months after Clinton began using it — did the server receive a “digital certificate” that protected communication over the Internet through encryption, according to Venafi’s analysis. It is unknown whether the system had some other way to encrypt the email traffic at the time. Without encryption — a process that scrambles communication for anyone without the correct key — email, attachments and passwords are transmitted in plain text. “That means that anyone could have accessed it. Anyone,” Kevin Bocek, vice president of threat intelligence at Venafi, told The Post. The system had other features that made it vulnerable to talented hackers, including a software program that enabled users to log on directly from the World Wide Web.}

How Clinton’s email scandal took root

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm just a person that put more weight in the professional assessment of the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security ......than I do your personal opinion.

As would most rational people.

You recite highly biased opinions from radical left sources.

Again, what you post is intended to serve the party. If the truth serves the party, you will post it. If lies serve the party, you will post them. If distortions serve the party, you will post them.

 

[Skylar]

I'm just a person that put more weight in the professional assessment of the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security ......than I do your personal opinion.

As would most rational people.

You recite highly biased opinions from radical left sources.

AP is a 'radical left' source? I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

 

[Redfish]

I'm just a person that put more weight in the professional assessment of the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security ......than I do your personal opinion.

As would most rational people.

You recite highly biased opinions from radical left sources.

AP is a 'radical left' source? I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

 

[Skylar]

I'm just a person that put more weight in the professional assessment of the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security ......than I do your personal opinion.

As would most rational people.

You recite highly biased opinions from radical left sources.

AP is a 'radical left' source? I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

 

[Uncensored2008]

AP is a 'radical left' source?

The Los Angeles Time is, they are the Daily KOS of print media.

I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

If Hillary cut the head off of Marco Rubio on live TV, the LA Times would say there was no crime, as would you.

The Times is a trash left pile of shit, zero credibility.

 

[Skylar]

AP is a 'radical left' source?

The Los Angeles Time is, they are the Daily KOS of print media.

The lawyers consulted by AP said the same thing as the lawyers consultd by the LA Times; there was no crime.

You ignore both. And all the lawyers specializing in national security they consulted, insisting you know better.

But why would I ignore them and instead believe you?

 

[Redfish]

I'm just a person that put more weight in the professional assessment of the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security ......than I do your personal opinion.

As would most rational people.

You recite highly biased opinions from radical left sources.

AP is a 'radical left' source? I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.