@parados,
Quote:Just throwing random **** still doesn't prove your "fact" that she violated US Code.
Well let's start here:
§ 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.
_____________________________________________
Hillary Clinton was the head of the State Department. The 18 U.S. code, section 2071-B, states: "
Whoever having the custody of any federal record, willfully and unlawfully conceals removes or destroys the same shall be fined or imprisoned or both" and listen -- "and shall be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
_________________________________________
Hillary Clinton did not attempt to preserve her State business emails for the record. She left her position without having done so. When asked to turn them over, she decided which ones to turn over, and she based that decision on a key word search, after which she deleted 30,000 emails. Now it has come to light that classified information has passed through her unsecure email server. So your defense of Clinton is based on the fact that the senior most diplomatic official whose duty it was to make and preserve records, did not do so willfully. Even if that were true--and it's not--you still want to support her despite this demonstration of incompetence. But just for the sake of your failed argument, how does one go about deciding whether or not her incompetence was willful? By asking her? Wouldn't that be stupid?
Quote:She turned them over.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton withheld from the State Department several emails related to Libya, the State Department confirmed Thursday night — calling into question her insistence that she has handed over her complete public record.
The 2016 Democratic front-runner did not hand over 15 exchanges with longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal on the security situation in the Middle Eastern nation. The existence of the new correspondence only came to light days ago after Republicans subpoenaed the former Clinton White House adviser’s records and he turned them over.
Quote:Second lie on your part is that those emails are now archived because they were turned over.
The chairman of the House committee, Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said that many of the emails that Mrs. Clinton had not handed over showed that “she was soliciting and regularly corresponding with Sidney Blumenthal, who was passing unvetted intelligence information about Libya from a source with a financial interest in the country.”
“
It just so happens these emails directly contradict her public statement that the messages from Blumenthal were unsolicited,” he said. Mr. Blumenthal identified the source of his information as Tyler Drumheller, a former high-ranking C.I.A. official, according to a person with knowledge of his testimony to the Benghazi panel. Mr. Drumheller was part of a group that sought to do business in Libya.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/state-dept-gets-libya-emails-that-clinton-didnt-hand-over.html
____________________________________________
Clinton has said she cooperated with the House Benghazi Committee investigation by handing over all work-related communications, which she stored on her own personal server against official record-keeping rules.
“
This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton’s self-selected public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her personal server — especially before it could be analyzed by an independent, neutral third-party arbiter,” Benghazi panel Chairman Trey Gowdy said in a statement.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-didnt-turn-over-all-libya-emails-state-119453
____________________________________
So this exposes your lie that she turned over her emails.
And there's this:
The State Department's internal watchdog has found that many department employees are not preserving emails for the public record as required by the government. That could mean a substantial amount of lost government information.
The inspector general's office, in a report out Wednesday, said that in 2011, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state, department employees wrote more than 1 billion emails but only marked 61,156 for the public record. There's no way to know from the figures how many should have been designated as public records. Even fewer were marked for public records, 41,749, in 2013, the year when she left the department.
Clinton is under scrutiny for using her personal email exclusively for official non-classified business during her tenure and for doing so with a private server. The new report does not address the use of personal email accounts, which the department discouraged employees from using in earlier guidance.
______________________________________________
But we now know that Clinton used her own personal email server for classified information, don't we? Or are you still in the process of processing that information.
And you never did respond to 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—
__________________________________________________
Do you agree that "intent" is not a prerequisite when assessing gross negligence?
