When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

You owe me a keyboard....

It is true some of the haters of Obama was plain prejudice with a passion and some of the haters of Hillary is because she didn't keep her proper place as First Lady and that hatred continued following her career. However, in those cases some of it is simple conservative vs. liberalism. Moreover, some in the case Hillary is carryover from the days of Bill and Hillary Clinton, those conservatives just hated the Clintons and that hatred has persisted unto this present day. It is one of the reasons why I first didn't want her to run and why I wanted Biden over her. However, he didn't choose to run and Sanders did and I felt and continue to feel Sanders is one subject man and you can't be a one subject person if you are President. The more I listened to Hillary Clinton herself, the more I came to like her and believe in her. However, the hatred is still there and will be there throughout her presidency of which she will win. (just my )

I've already pointed out to you that if Clinton never placed the emails in the proper place of custody to begin with, then it is not possible for her to remove them from their proper place of custody. It is willful ignorance on your part to pretend that you do not understand this.

For your own purposes, you are still trying to be clever with your loophole theory, which doesn't really exist. A good analogy of your theory is if I drive a delivery truck for Walmart, and it is later discovered that there are missing items in the shipments. And when it is found that I have all the missing items in my garage, and I am accused of removing them from their proper place of custody--the Walmart stock room--I invoke your defense theory, telling the investigator that if he cannot show that I removed the items from their proper place--the Walmart stock room--then he has no case against me because the items were never in their proper place of custody in the first place--the Walmart stock room. I trust I don't have to point out the silliness of such a proposition.

In Clinton's case, the items are the emails. The proper place for those emails are on a secure government server. So the items were never removed from their proper place only because she negligently failed to place them in their proper place to begin with. You will not concede the point because it blows your defense of Clintons actions. And in a line of thinking completely devoid of common sense and reason, you instead attempt to show that her blatant failure to adhere to State Department policy is actually a defense of her actions rather than proof of her wrong doing. You see your problem?

The former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs acknowledge it for what it is--a serious breach. Jason Baron, a lawyer and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013, said:

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business."

“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business."

Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records, and that Clinton and her aides failed to do so. It's called gross negligence, and does not require malicious intent. It didn't in the case of Bryan Nishimura, and it doesn't in the case of Hillary Clinton. Your claim that Nishimura's case is not the same as Clinton's case because Clinton never placed her emails in the proper place to begin with is just silly.

Also, you've been shown numerous time that she signed a governmental, legally binding agreement which made clear her legal obligations under the law. But you, again for your own purposes, have taken the position that nothing Clinton has done, or failed to do, can be construed as illegal even though the agreement she signed stipulates that she is legally bound to the conditions set forth in that agreement. Ridiculous. What do you think the purpose of her signing that document was, if not to acknowledge her legal obligations?

When being questioned, she says that she does not recall that it was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that her use of a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal record keeping laws.

That claim is interesting, but for all the wrong reasons. Firstly, ignorance is no excuse for the law. Secondly, under the heading “Safe Handling of Information” on page 21 the bureau (United States Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security) boasted of its efforts to quickly bring new Obama administration appointees up to speed on security issues:

"DC contributed to the smooth transition of U.S. government officials by providing more than 180 members of the new Obama administration–ranging from Secretary Clinton to various ambassadors and other presidential appointees–with security training, and immediate access to highly classified systems and other information products critical to their new rolls."
________________________________________

But despite her knowing better, Comey nevertheless found himself having to report:

"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."

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

Wow! Sure sounds like gross negligence, don't it? Yes it does. And according to an FBI agent whose identity and role in the case has been verified by Fox News, it was unanimous among the agents who worked the case that Clinton should have her security clearance pulled.

You do realize that you've lost this argument, right? You definitively lost it back in July when the FBI said it won't be pursuing criminal charges.....

He can't admit losing the argument any more than Drumpf will be able to admit losing in a week.

I can't wait for 2023 when these 'classified' emails are released and we finally get to see what warrants jail time for Hillary Clinton.

Yea, I hope you live with that 'dream' until 2023. LOL

What's funny about this CI. Classified information eventually becomes unclassified.

I typo'd the date though, it's actually around 2033. At least according to these news articles written about it.

Frankly, there are more important issues.

There most certainly are.

It's definitely time that people understood the signifigance of the moment.

Days out from an election, and clouds of uncertainty surrounding the major players.

As for Stein being filmed in Moscow, remember that she got incarcerated, (along with her running mate), for attempting to attend the last presidential "debate" between Obama and Romney. The MSM in the US give her no air time at all. Many US voters aren't even aware of other candidates.

So, does it surprise anyone that she's willing to go on RT news? Gotta get some exposure.

Re: Glennn (Post 6295790)


Dogpiling indicates nothing more than dogpiling.

Just like your up/down "votes"; meaningless.

No, but I do realize that you actually believe that this mindless post of yours is a rebuttal to the points I have made in my last post. But since you're here and willing to answer for another, let's play.

Consider this:

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.
__________________________________________________

From the above, show me what caused you to believe that gross negligence depends on "intent." Is intent mentioned in the above? Do you see a synonym for the word "intent?" Yeah, me neither. So what makes you believe that intent is a necessary ingredient in the crime of gross negligence? And even assuming that intent must be proven in order to prove gross negligence, how would one go about proving that? By asking the guilty party if they intended to break the law? Wouldn't that be stupid?

Even Comey understands that intent is irrelevant when considering what constitutes gross negligence.

Let's hear what he has to say about it:

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

But you, in your capacity to blow with the wind when you believe it is to your advantage, have opted to engage in selective reasoning. Your authority figure of choice in this matter (Comey) contradicted himself by first drawing a distinction between an intentional act and gross negligence, and then claiming that there was no evidence of intention on Clinton's part, and so no charges of gross negligence can be filed. Comey contradicted himslf, and you embrace that same contradiction because your ability to think in this case begins and ends with Comey.

But you should start out by pointing to where you believe the word "intent" or a synonym for the word "intent" is found in the above Statute. And after you fail to do so, explain why you choose to believe Comey like a lapdog when he falsely states that "intent" is necessary to prove gross negligence, but ignore him when he makes a distinction between intent and gross negligence.

<yawn>

You haven't argued anything. So consider the above post directed at you as well.

Yeah, these guys debate with their thumbs and consider themselves conquerors.

Yeah, I didn't think so . . .

That's actually a very thoughtful post by DrewDad. It's also about as good as it gets.

It is willful ignorance on your part to understand if the were not removed from their proper place then there is no crime. This isn't me being clever. This is me reading the law as written.

Which is why the law you are attempting to apply does not apply. What part of this do you not get? You don't get to pretend laws read differently then they do.

You keep coming up with more red herrings and idiotic assumptions. US Code 188 section 793 says absolutely nothing about keeping records for the National Archives. Bryan Nishaurma was not convicted of failing to preserve records for the National Archives.

Continuing to throw out baseless accusations that have nothing to do with showing she broke the law you claim she broke doesn't show us anything other than you are incapable of supporting your argument.

You seem to think your ignorance is a good excuse to keep making ridiculous arguments. Your ignorance is not an excuse at this point. It seems you are determined to show us your ignorance in spite of having things explained to you simply.


All you have to do to show she committed a crime is show us the 4 things the law requires. I have made a simple list for you.


1. name the item.
2. Tell us the proper place for the item.
3. tell us when or how the item was removed from it's proper place.
4. Show us that Clinton was responsible for the removal.

You seem to find more value in law than ethics, You seem to be like many attorneys who do not know anything about the preamble. Do you think all laws would have been accepted by modern thinking? Slavery was once legal.

Repeating the law and then failing to understand it only shows your ignorance. Let me make this simple for you.


So to recap, you need provide only the following simple things to meet the law.
1. name the item.
2. Tell us the proper place for the item.
3. tell us when or how the item was removed from it's proper place.
4. Show us that Clinton was responsible for the removal.

I'll color code the law for you...
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 custodyor 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—


This is simple stuff, Glenn. It's basic English sentence structure.

What a silly argument on your part. The law doesn't say "intent" but it does say an item has to be removed from its proper place for the gross negligence to occur. You don't get to ignore all the words in the sentence simply because you want to.

You can keep repeating the same argument, Glenn but it will become more and more apparent how specious your argument is when you continue to not address the obvious failings that have been repeatedly pointed out to you.