When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

@Glennn,

Yeah, you got nuthin.

Glennn wrote:

The link you provided has to do with two mismarked emails. It does not negate the State Department's claim that top secret information passed through Clinton's email server.

Thanks, I'll take testimony by the FBI Director over a article with no citations....

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Thanks, I'll take testimony by the FBI Director over a article with no citations....

And I'll take that as your failure to produce something that negates the State Department's claim that top secret information passed through Clinton's email server.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

And I'll take that as your failure to produce something that negates the State Department's claim that top secret information passed through Clinton's email server.

Lol. It's up to you to prove the allegation, not just cite outdated articles.

Good luck with that.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Answer me this: was the material classified Top Secret at the time they were sent and/or received?

According to the State Department, yes. Unless you can produce something that shows that they retracted that claim. Can you do that?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Answer me this: was the material classified Top Secret at the time they were sent and/or received?

According to the State Department, yes. Unless you can produce something that shows that they retracted that claim. Can you do that?

Yeah, can you provide that reference?

0 Replies

@parados,

[/quote]What evidence do you have that Clinton didn't protect those emails after they were received? [/quote]
You miss the point completely and deliberately. It is that she was complicit in allowing top secret information to pass through her private email server.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Here Glenn, let me give you a hand. You may have better luck talking to this than DrewDad...

http://www.highresolutiontextures.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/brick-wall-free-textures-01.jpg

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

You miss the point completely and deliberately. It is that she was complicit in allowing top secret information to pass through her private email server.

Again, classified material should never be sent via Internet email.

If classified material ended up on the Clinton mail server, the sender is at fault, not the recipient.

Please show where Clinton violated rules by sending classified materials.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288954-three-clinton-aides-received-top-secret-info

Quote:

Emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server marked “top secret” ended up in the inboxes of three total Clinton aides, the State Department revealed.

...

In his report on the investigation into Clinton’s private email server, FBI Director James Comey said that the emails were not put under stricter classification after the fact.

"Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received," Comey said. "These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”

...

No indication of mishandling classified documents.

This is old news, and it has been investigated by the FBI.

But don't let that stop you from speculating wildly, and stating that you know better than the FBI about what should be prosecuted.....

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Irony, thy name is McGentrix.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

I didn't miss the point at all. You seem to be deliberately running away from it.

You have stated the Clinton violated the US Code. -

Glenn wrote:

The fact is that Clinton violated the U.S. Code concerning classified material.

http://able2know.org/topic/343327-44#post-6293944

So, which code did she violate and what factual evidence do you have to show she did so. I have asked you for this now several times. You have not shown evidence to support violating any US Code.

You keep running away from supporting your statement about violating the US Code. Do you not have anything to support your statement you claimed was fact?

Quote:

It is that she was complicit in allowing top secret information to pass through her private email server.

This is not evidence of a crime. It is a nonsense statement on your part. If you own a car and someone gets in your car with classified documents does that make you complicit in allowing top secret info to pass through your car?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

So, which code did she violate and what factual evidence do you have to show she did so.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

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 one year, or both.
_________________________________________

So, by setting up a home-brewed server at her personal residence that contained classified emails, Clinton is in violation. The statute above confirms that one cannot become possessed of documents containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. That's what Clinton did. It's also what Bryan Nishimura did. He was convicted. This speaks to a double standard.
___________________________________________
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these em ails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
_________________________________________

Does that make it any more clear to you?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Here Glenn, let me give you a hand. You may have better luck talking to this than DrewDad...

What I hear over and over from these guys is, "Help me, help me, I can't google."

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

"Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received," Comey said. "These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”

What do you think that means?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Clinton may have violated state department rules, which I admit is not good and she apologized. However, she did not violate any laws by having a private server. She would have violated laws if she knowingly stored or removed classified information, since she did not do that, she was not prosecuted. I remember Comey said at the time, one of the main facts they look at is whether the law if it was broken was intentionally broken and he concluded after looking at the evidence that she didn't intend to break laws, she was careless with important information some of which turned out to be classified after the fact and others marked in a confusing way.

In my opinion, Comey jumped the gun and informed congress to make sure if anything is found at the end of day he covers his butt after all the crap he had taken since his first announcement. When he announced the reopening of the case, he hadn't yet reviewed them so he didn't know if anything was on them which would be negatively related to the email investigation.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

She received training concerning the handling of sensitive material. She acknowledged that she received training. Despite this, she used her own private email server for all of her government business.

And saying that intent is relevant in the case of gross negligence is incorrect. And even if it were relevant, she intentionally chose to have use her own personal email server despite being trained in such matters. But go ahead and see if you can find the segment in the statute below that stipulates that gross negligence must meet a standard of intent. It doesn't include an intent clause. Bryan Nishimura was also found to have acted without malicious intent, yet he was found guilty. Double standard?

(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.

1 Reply

Tell you one thing that trips me out about the whole, years-long email snipe hunt. They don't accuse Clinton of doing something subversive or traitorous. They don't accuse her of intentionally doing some crime against her country. They don't think she's some kind of double agent - hell, I don't even think they really believe she's criminally negligent.
And that's what trips me out. They aren't driven by some righteous need to see a wrongdoer brought to justice, because they can't even come up with a coherent charge. So they are clearly driven by some lizard-brained irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. And even if they could be made to admit that, it still wouldn't stop them. It's some crazy kimchi, man.

4 Replies

@Glennn,

That the FBI looked at the evidence and decided that there isn't sufficient evidence to prosecute Clinton for a crime.

People have careers, and they get **** done. People who worry all the time about dotting every i and crossing every t spend their time dotting i's and crossing t's and not getting **** done.

This is the real world. People are imperfect.

Also:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvYXj_EVIAAN6_p.jpg

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Read the law. Words matter. You can't charge Clinton under this law because it fails the "knowingly" test for Clinton before we even get to the fact that it fails the "removes" test.

Clinton and the FBI have both stated she didn't knowingly have classified info on her server. Impossible to charge her under the law let alone convict her with that fact in evidence.

Bryan Nishimura removed classified documents from a classified system, personally storing them on a digital device. At the time Nishimura downloaded the data it had a classification and Nishimura knew it was classified. Only a fool would claim the 2 are similar. Clinton did not personally download any classified information. In fact she would not have been aware of many of the emails if they were not sent to her. The FBI stated email chains that contained classified information included other people than Clinton.

Quote:

So, by setting up a home-brewed server at her personal residence that contained classified emails, Clinton is in violation. The statute above confirms that one cannot become possessed of documents containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

Utter nonsense that is easy to dispute. The law requires the person knowingly remove documents. Show that Clinton knowingly removed documents from anywhere. You should note the law states 2 parts are needed when it uses the word "and." Setting up a home server is not removing anything. Setting up a home server is certainly not intent to retain classified materials.

Quote:

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these em ails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

More bullshit from you. The emails were classified when SENT. Do you know what SENT means? It means the person sending the email would be the one subject to the law if they were aware the info was classified. Simply having the classified information or receiving it from someone else is not a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 1924.

So far, your "fact" is proving to be not a fact at all but simply your ignorant opinion.

1 Reply

@snood,

It is always the lies and cover up, never the crime. This e-mail scheme is just the latest scandal for the Clintons. She created this mess when she could have come clean at the beginning. She created the Benghazi mess and could have avoided the mess if she just told the truth from the beginning. You can go all the way back to her cashing in on cattle futures and Rose Law Firm billing records.

Maybe people are just tired of her elitists ways and her constant lying.
I know I am.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

They don't accuse Clinton of doing something subversive or traitorous. They don't accuse her of intentionally doing some crime against her country. They don't think she's some kind of double agent - hell, I don't even think they really believe she's criminally negligent.

Right. They found her to be grossly negligent. They didn't accuse Bryan Nishimura of intentionally doing what he did either, but it was a crime nonetheless.

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know