When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

I never said I don't want small countries listed. I said you can't compare the US to a country like Qatar or Singapore. Or to a tiny rich country like Monaco or Leichenstein. I think, when analyzing living standards, the US should be compared to large industrial countries, preferably those who take in a lot of immigrants from poorer countries.

George, I weep over the lack of accountability in both parties and the contentiousness that exists in the House and Senate because they work a 3 day week and spend the rest of the time raising money. I mention the tea party because of the sourness and lack of intellectual curiosity that seems to spur it on.

I tend to be direct because of my profession and the need to be clear. You may think you know what I 'imply', but I have never mastered the art of obfuscation and its not in my nature to pussyfoot around and try 'hints' to express my opinion. In my line of work, you need to be able to backup your research and you don't use single source to make decisions. I have sat around tables with my peers from the rest of the intel community and other departments when necessary and hammered out a draft with the upside and the downsides so that the leaders who need the information have all we can provide to allow them to make an informed decision.

During your Navel career I'm sure you were aware of the assistance my agency provided the pilots and carriers and the fleet. We are everywhere, we work around the clock with little fanfare to make sure our men and women in uniform have as much advance knowledge to stay safe and to be successful. It's not a laid-back mission for us. Thanksgiving of 1979 I watched as a colleague was released from our Embassy in Iran, I had forgotten he was there. I knew some of the civilians who were injured in the Beirut bombings and on 9/11 i was home when the planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon. I couldn't reach my husband who was working that day because the lines were jammed but thankfully the entire community was sent home after the pentagon because they just were not sure what else might be coming.

Being an intelligence officer is not as risky as flying fighters or serving in the military, but it's not without risks and heartbreak. My agency is now a Fortress and has expanded far beyond anything I ever imagined.

But in about 30 minutes it will be Independence day. For the next few days I prefer to think about the sacrifices our armed forces have made to ensure our freedoms and the brilliance of the founding Fathers. I will not be watching the broadcasts that claim to be the news and will stick to the newspapers.

During your navel career... ??

Seriously?

It's called a pun. Georgebob is one of the biggest navel gazers on A2K.

What about the substance of GB's post?

She had a misspelling; big whoop.

I'm trying to think of a suitable anatomical metaphoe for Izzy, something that captures the impression he leaves ..... give me time, I'll think of it.

What do you think would have happened to you in the NSA if it was found that you had been doing or even discussing official business on a private e mail account, or excerpting parts of NSA reports, with the classification header removed to people outside the agency?

I didn't ignore that, I just didn't highlight all the instances covered. But let's look at that in context.

Your argument is asinine if you think you can argue that sending an email to a public officer is the same thing as filing or depositing something with them. While some items can be done be email, all emails are NOT filed or deposited.



Failing to return is NOT the same thing as taking or destroying something that was filed or deposited.

Your entire argument relies on the premise that all emails that Hillary received are filed or deposited with a public office or a public officer. That is a pretty high hurdle to meet. No jury or judge is going to accept that argument since there is no precedent or law saying that is true. That is unlikely to happen and you certainly have no evidence supporting a willful act on her part.

That is even before we get to the "willfully" part of the law. You would have to prove that even though Clinton turned over 55,000 emails, she willfully hid a few hundred or less. The fact that she turned over so many emails is evidence of a good faith attempt. The bar to prove a willful attempt on her part would require an admission by her.


So... in order for her to be charged under this law, you would have to prove that all emails received by public officials are officially filed or deposited documents then you would have to prove that deleting emails is equivalent to destroying documents. But then you would have to finally prove willful intent on her part when she destroyed emails after she turned over 55,000 of them.

There is no realistic way for Clinton to be charged under this law. You would have to manufacture meanings that have never existed in US law. Filing or depositing a document has a very real meaning under the law. It often comes with a fee being paid for the official act to happen.

The only one doing selective distortions is you george.

The law you cited still requires you prove she "willfully" did the act. That is a bar that you have not met even if we accept all your other ludicrous arguments.

That Secretary Clinton did willfully put all her official e mail on her server, some of it containing classified information, and then fail to hand over to the State Department all of her official e mails on it has already been deternined by officials of the State Department.

Well... the law you cited says nothing about emails, does it? It says nothing about failing to turn over emails, does it? The law you cited does say that she had to willfully destroy, remove or hide documents, doesn't it?

You are reaching beyond what the law says and beyond what the facts are to try to make that law work.

1. You have no evidence that emails are official records under the law you cited.
2. You have no evidence that deleting emails violates the law you cited. (Other regulations allow for deletion of emails after the appropriate ones are archived in some fashion. Those regulations would make it impossible for emails to be official records.)
3. The law never states that willfully putting emails on a private server is a violation. It only states that willfully destroying them etc is illegal.
4. You have no evidence that Clinton willfully destroyed documents that were filed as required under the law.


The problem we are having here, george, is you somehow think it is pedantic to require the law to be read word for word. That isn't being pedantic. It is being legalistic as required in order to charge someone under the law.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no law that Clinton violated by using a private server or by receiving emails that were later classified by other agencies as containing classified information.

I asked you to provide a specific law she would have violated. You claimed there was one that only required gross negligence. I am still waiting for that one from you. If you think such a law exists and applies, please cite it so we can look at it. This idea that you can make wild allegations without providing any facts or arguments in support of your allegation seems to be the opposite of pedantic which would be what? Idiotic? Simple minded? Incapable of understanding simple concepts?

I'm sure you know the difference between DOD and the State Department. One includes military and intel assets and the other is a building full of Diplomats.

It was very simple in the military. I was given a Top Secret clearance to work with nuclear weapons. We were told not to talk about our jobs outside of the secured area where the bombs were stored. Very straight forward and simple. If caught, the penalty was $10,000 and 10 years in prison, but this was back in the late fifties. This is half century later.

Reminder:


Kevin McCarthy, Sept 2015

No indictment, as everybody in the country could have predicted at least a year ago.

we'll wait to see who carries in the RT link (or one that threads back to RT) on the FBI release/comments

I've got real-life $ on it.

What a surprise.

FBI Director Comey: It is possible hostile actors gained access to Clinton's email account.