When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

@Glennn,

Quote:

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

And?

It seems you think you can just throw out unrelated accusations and somehow it will add up to a criminal charge. Sorry, Glenn, but without facts related directly to a specific law, no prosecutor will charge a crime and no judge would let it in their courtroom.

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

And?

It seems you think you can just throw out unrelated accusations and somehow it will add up to a criminal charge. Sorry, Glenn, but without facts related directly to a specific law, no prosecutor will charge a crime and no judge would let it in their courtroom.

You'd think he'd be more upset at the people who committed the hacking.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Bringing facts and information to a debate will always feel like hatred or an attack to those who don't like seeing that kind of thing. And they do answer with a fair amount of hatred.

I'm just concerned about temperature of this election. I can't control the outcome, and I doubt there are any truly undecided voters.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information

0 Replies

@parados,

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.
_____________________________________________

Well, if that doesn't describe gross negligence, then why don't you tell me what it describes. Go ahead and put a name on it. It is what Clinton did.
_____________________________________________

(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.
____________________________________________

Yes, I did have a mix up concerning those two documents. At any rate, I've highlighted the gross negligence segment so that you can see it this time.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

Do you agree that it is likely there are documents that are considered 'top secret' that have no business being top secret?

Gee, I don't know. I'm not privy to top secret stuff.

Quote:

Do you agree that within the vast number of documents marked top secret, that there are some that are way way less secret than others?

Well, if you bring them to me, I'll give you my honest assessment.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

It seems you think you can just throw out unrelated accusations and somehow it will add up to a criminal charge. Sorry, Glenn, but without facts related directly to a specific law, no prosecutor will charge a crime and no judge would let it in their courtroom.

So, what Comey said here:

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

. . . is an unrelated accusation when it comes to the Clinton email issue?

(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.

What part of Comey's assessment convinced you that what Clinton did was no worse than running a stop light? Remember, she received adequate training in these matters.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Do you agree that it is likely there are documents that are considered 'top secret' that have no business being top secret?

Gee, I don't know. I'm not privy to top secret stuff.

Quote:
Do you agree that within the vast number of documents marked top secret, that there are some that are way way less secret than others?

Well, if you bring them to me, I'll give you my honest assessment.

Again....you're not fooling anybody. But, be that way.

You have ZERO problem with hypotheticals and conjecture when it serves your purpose, I'd like to point out.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Sorry, Glenn, but without facts related directly to a specific law, no prosecutor will charge a crime and no judge would let it in their courtroom.

But Glennn really, really wants Hillary to be guilty of something. That should count, right?

He thinks she's super annoying, and doesn't follow rules, and stuff? And that she should be, like, found guilty of gross negligence, or something? 'Cause she's, like, gross, and like, negligent. And she probably has cooties, and we don't want those in the White House?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

maporsche, I have personally never seen classified documents that didn't require it. I also maintained tech manuals revisions on nuclear weapons, and found mistakes that I reported to my commander. I was rewarded with being the airman for six months at Walker AFB in NM under General Kingsberry.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I believe you forgot to make a point in your last post.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I believe that you forgot to make a point or counterpoint in your last post.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

I believe that you forgot to make a point or counterpoint in your last post.

It might be because we're going absolutely no where in this conversation.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

maporsche, I have personally never seen classified documents that didn't require it. I also maintained tech manuals revisions, and found mistakes that I reported to my commander. I was rewarded with being the airman for six months at Walker AFB in NM under General Kingsberry.

Your one person opinion is not relevant to question I asked.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Here's a patch I designed at Walker AFB. Look for the 37th Aviation Depot Squadron patch.
http://www.ericsusafpatches.nl/supporting%20units/squadrons-flights/squadrons-flights%201_50.htm

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You are indeed a man who has had an eventful life, cicerone.

0 Replies

It's really difficult to find articles about the over-classification of documents in the Obama administration....if by "really difficult" I mean "extremely easy".

Just a sample of ones from around the time Snowden leaked documents. Republicans criticized the Obama administration rightfully so about how many things that were marked classified indeed shouldn't have been.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/nsa-surveillance-too-many-documents-classified

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/opinion/la-oe-leonard-classified-information-20110810

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article24756892.html

1 Reply

Well, those leaves ain't gonna rake themselves. Good day, people.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

I guess your argument is that if over-classified documents exist, then the State Department's acknowledgment that “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton while leading the agency can be dismissed as the State Department talking out their ass.

If you believe the top secret stuff that passed through her private email server was over-classified, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to locate it and post it.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Go rake your leaves Glenn.

This conversation is boring me in it's repetitiveness.

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know