CDZ Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate"

[Fair&Balanced]

Let's cut to the chase here. You are quoting some sections of code later on that have NO position on the egregious act that the meglomaniac perpetrated. It has NOTHING to do with sharing or knowingly transferring classified info. THose are espionage charges. THey are not relevant. USC 18 1924 is the misdemeanor version of the APPLICABLE law. It does require "intent".

So bottom line is you either believe that Secretary of Dept State was so careless, sloppy, negligence and CLUELESS that her job title would REQUIRE APPROVED SECURE methods of communications and didn't know the difference between her husband's (former PRESIDENT who ALSO KNEW this was illegal) basement server --- OR --- she completely knew when she REJECTED having the PROPER equipment installed in her office and REFUSED to carry PROPER AUTHORIZED equipment for communications and chose for her selfish convenience to WILLFULLY bypass the methods and standard practice of protecting secure information.

She went about constructing a scheme to take a pissdump on the rules when HER JOB was to set the standards to guarantee that classified information was efficiently and securely handled at State. Thus not only setting a NEW LOW in adminstrative example to her employees, but then LYING to Congress and the public about almost every detail of what she actually did.

What she actually did was to put US agents and field folks at mortal risk. And set HERSELF UP for potential blackmail by nefarious organizations and state actors that might very well compromise her ability to SERVE as President.

INTENT is not the problem. The problem is --- that Comey is correct. RARELY are these cases referred for prosecution because the agency involved does not want an average Joe/Jane grand jury hearing the sordid CLASSIFIED details of what transpired. So as Comey says -- the TRADITIONAL route is to FIRE, doc the pay, suspend or REVOKE THE CLEARANCES of the criminal.. In this case, because the PERP was the HEAD of the agency -- that kind of internal security review and proceeding was NEVER an option. Which is the PRIMARY reason why this malicious act SHOULD have been raised to the level of prosecution.

OR _---- set a new gutter level bar for expectations about consequences for mishandling classified info. Which is what YOU seem to be applauding here.

For the record -- I put in 7 years in Intelligence areas. If I was carrying any documents, I could not take a pee in a public bathroom without a hand on my briefcase. If I had - I would be sanctioned and called on the carpet. Tho THAT was inconceivable to me at the time.

Times apparently change.. And the uninformed partisan noise just grows.

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's cut to the chase here. You are quoting some sections of code later on that have NO position on the egregious act that the meglomaniac perpetrated. It has NOTHING to do with sharing or knowingly transferring classified info. THose are espionage charges. THey are not relevant. USC 18 1924 is the misdemeanor version of the APPLICABLE law. It does require "intent".

So bottom line is you either believe that Secretary of Dept State was so careless, sloppy, negligence and CLUELESS that her job title would REQUIRE APPROVED SECURE methods of communications and didn't know the difference between her husband's (former PRESIDENT who ALSO KNEW this was illegal) basement server --- OR --- she completely knew when she REJECTED having the PROPER equipment installed in her office and REFUSED to carry PROPER AUTHORIZED equipment for communications and chose for her selfish convenience to WILLFULLY bypass the methods and standard practice of protecting secure information.

She went about constructing a scheme to take a pissdump on the rules when HER JOB was to set the standards to guarantee that classified information was efficiently and securely handled at State. Thus not only setting a NEW LOW in adminstrative example to her employees, but then LYING to Congress and the public about almost every detail of what she actually did.

What she actually did was to put US agents and field folks at mortal risk. And set HERSELF UP for potential blackmail by nefarious organizations and state actors that might very well compromise her ability to SERVE as President.

INTENT is not the problem. The problem is --- that Comey is correct. RARELY are these cases referred for prosecution because the agency involved does not want an average Joe/Jane grand jury hearing the sordid CLASSIFIED details of what transpired. So as Comey says -- the TRADITIONAL route is to FIRE, doc the pay, suspend or REVOKE THE CLEARANCES of the criminal.. In this case, because the PERP was the HEAD of the agency -- that kind of internal security review and proceeding was NEVER an option. Which is the PRIMARY reason why this malicious act SHOULD have been raised to the level of prosecution.

OR _---- set a new gutter level bar for expectations about consequences for mishandling classified info. Which is what YOU seem to be applauding here.

For the record -- I put in 7 years in Intelligence areas. If I was carrying any documents, I could not take a pee in a public bathroom without a hand on my briefcase. If I had - I would be sanctioned and called on the carpet. Tho THAT was inconceivable to me at the time.

Times apparently change.. And the uninformed partisan noise just grows.

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

 

[Mindful]

Does this mean she is tainted?

Could anyone, male or female, with such a reputation, aspire to high office?

And take a sacred oath, standing on the Capitol steps?

With Bill holding the Bible?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Let's cut to the chase here. You are quoting some sections of code later on that have NO position on the egregious act that the meglomaniac perpetrated. It has NOTHING to do with sharing or knowingly transferring classified info. THose are espionage charges. THey are not relevant. USC 18 1924 is the misdemeanor version of the APPLICABLE law. It does require "intent".

So bottom line is you either believe that Secretary of Dept State was so careless, sloppy, negligence and CLUELESS that her job title would REQUIRE APPROVED SECURE methods of communications and didn't know the difference between her husband's (former PRESIDENT who ALSO KNEW this was illegal) basement server --- OR --- she completely knew when she REJECTED having the PROPER equipment installed in her office and REFUSED to carry PROPER AUTHORIZED equipment for communications and chose for her selfish convenience to WILLFULLY bypass the methods and standard practice of protecting secure information.

She went about constructing a scheme to take a pissdump on the rules when HER JOB was to set the standards to guarantee that classified information was efficiently and securely handled at State. Thus not only setting a NEW LOW in adminstrative example to her employees, but then LYING to Congress and the public about almost every detail of what she actually did.

What she actually did was to put US agents and field folks at mortal risk. And set HERSELF UP for potential blackmail by nefarious organizations and state actors that might very well compromise her ability to SERVE as President.

INTENT is not the problem. The problem is --- that Comey is correct. RARELY are these cases referred for prosecution because the agency involved does not want an average Joe/Jane grand jury hearing the sordid CLASSIFIED details of what transpired. So as Comey says -- the TRADITIONAL route is to FIRE, doc the pay, suspend or REVOKE THE CLEARANCES of the criminal.. In this case, because the PERP was the HEAD of the agency -- that kind of internal security review and proceeding was NEVER an option. Which is the PRIMARY reason why this malicious act SHOULD have been raised to the level of prosecution.

OR _---- set a new gutter level bar for expectations about consequences for mishandling classified info. Which is what YOU seem to be applauding here.

For the record -- I put in 7 years in Intelligence areas. If I was carrying any documents, I could not take a pee in a public bathroom without a hand on my briefcase. If I had - I would be sanctioned and called on the carpet. Tho THAT was inconceivable to me at the time.

Times apparently change.. And the uninformed partisan noise just grows.

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

 

[boedicca]

What Comey proved is that no Reasonable DC Insider would dare cross the Clinton Crime Family.

 

[2aguy]

Let's cut to the chase here. You are quoting some sections of code later on that have NO position on the egregious act that the meglomaniac perpetrated. It has NOTHING to do with sharing or knowingly transferring classified info. THose are espionage charges. THey are not relevant. USC 18 1924 is the misdemeanor version of the APPLICABLE law. It does require "intent".

So bottom line is you either believe that Secretary of Dept State was so careless, sloppy, negligence and CLUELESS that her job title would REQUIRE APPROVED SECURE methods of communications and didn't know the difference between her husband's (former PRESIDENT who ALSO KNEW this was illegal) basement server --- OR --- she completely knew when she REJECTED having the PROPER equipment installed in her office and REFUSED to carry PROPER AUTHORIZED equipment for communications and chose for her selfish convenience to WILLFULLY bypass the methods and standard practice of protecting secure information.

She went about constructing a scheme to take a pissdump on the rules when HER JOB was to set the standards to guarantee that classified information was efficiently and securely handled at State. Thus not only setting a NEW LOW in adminstrative example to her employees, but then LYING to Congress and the public about almost every detail of what she actually did.

What she actually did was to put US agents and field folks at mortal risk. And set HERSELF UP for potential blackmail by nefarious organizations and state actors that might very well compromise her ability to SERVE as President.

INTENT is not the problem. The problem is --- that Comey is correct. RARELY are these cases referred for prosecution because the agency involved does not want an average Joe/Jane grand jury hearing the sordid CLASSIFIED details of what transpired. So as Comey says -- the TRADITIONAL route is to FIRE, doc the pay, suspend or REVOKE THE CLEARANCES of the criminal.. In this case, because the PERP was the HEAD of the agency -- that kind of internal security review and proceeding was NEVER an option. Which is the PRIMARY reason why this malicious act SHOULD have been raised to the level of prosecution.

OR _---- set a new gutter level bar for expectations about consequences for mishandling classified info. Which is what YOU seem to be applauding here.

For the record -- I put in 7 years in Intelligence areas. If I was carrying any documents, I could not take a pee in a public bathroom without a hand on my briefcase. If I had - I would be sanctioned and called on the carpet. Tho THAT was inconceivable to me at the time.

Times apparently change.. And the uninformed partisan noise just grows.

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

Ah...but there probably was actual activity on her State Dept. Email account.....she just used her private email for the stuff she didn't want people to know about......like the connection to the Foundation........

 

[JoeMoma]

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

Ah...but there probably was actual activity on her State Dept. Email account.....she just used her private email for the stuff she didn't want people to know about......like the connection to the Foundation........

I would find it hard to beleive that a government, state department email wasn't set up for her. I would think that would be practically automatic by the IT dept.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

Ah...but there probably was actual activity on her State Dept. Email account.....she just used her private email for the stuff she didn't want people to know about......like the connection to the Foundation........

I would find it hard to beleive that a government, state department email wasn't set up for her. I would think that would be practically automatic by the IT dept.

It's not automatic, you have to go in and manually create a new user. I fully believe they probably did create one for her. I'm saying someone should have noted that the account wasn't seeing near the activity that one would expect from a Cabinet level position and questions would be asked.

That's the entire point of an inspector general's office. to ask questions when things seem off internally.

 

[JoeMoma]

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

Ah...but there probably was actual activity on her State Dept. Email account.....she just used her private email for the stuff she didn't want people to know about......like the connection to the Foundation........

I would find it hard to beleive that a government, state department email wasn't set up for her. I would think that would be practically automatic by the IT dept.

It's not automatic, you have to go in and manually create a new user. I fully believe they probably did create one for her. I'm saying someone should have noted that the account wasn't seeing near the activity that one would expect from a Cabinet level position and questions would be asked.

That's the entire point of an inspector general's office. to ask questions when things seem off internally.

I mean automatic from "the new hire's" perspective. When HRC became Sec of state, I would expect someone was assigned to create the necessary goverment email for her to use. I should be automatic in that Hillary would not have to request such an email, it's standard operating procedure with people assigned to carry out the responsibilities. If anything, Hillary would probably have to go out of her way if she wanted to prevent the email user ID from being set up.

 

[320 Years of History]

On the applicable statutes --- I watched 3/4 of Comey getting questioned. NOBODY was invoking 793 because that's the FELONY version of 1924. So let's keep the margins clean..

Well, perhaps you then missed the part where they discussed gross negligence and expressly cited Subsection 793 of Title 18. I suggest you re-watch the hearing or read the transcript.

As for Clinton"s JOB to set policy and standards for handling classified material at State -- AND her role to make sure violations are handled INTERNAL to the Dept appropriately -- You are flat wrong.....As I told you in my first post -- THESE are the folks that hand out Administrative sanctions that Comey repeatedly spoke of. And as the HEAD of the dept at State -- It was INDEED her responsibility to perform oversight on those operations.

No, I'm not flat wrong. It seems that just as the nuanced differences between being able to prove mens rea and actus rea seems lost on you, it appears you also have missed the subtle distinction between setting standards and "handling" the implementation of the standards that have been set. They simply are not the same things.

• Setting standards is the act of defining what standards must be followed.
• Handling standards entails the things you noted in the quoted passage above:
  • Identify violations of the standards defined
  • Levy sanctions for identified and confirmed violations
  • Monitor the execution of business processes

You claim my understanding that the SecState does not set the standards that pertain to how classified information is to be handled is mistaken. Fine. Give me a link to the document that indicates the State Department has defined its own standards governing the handling of classified information. I provided links to the documents that indicate other agency/department/task force heads set those standards. Show me I'm mistaken. I don't mind being mistaken, but I at least showed and provided links to clear evidence that the standards I know of and that have been promulgated throughout the federal government came from someplace other than the Department of State.

Your response to my experienced observation that having a Sec State conduct the MAJORITY of her biz on a home-brewed ad hoc UNAPPROVED comm channel puts LIVES and National reputation at risk boggles my mind.

I cannot speak to the nature or extent of how or why my remarks boggle your mind. I take you at your word that your mind is boggled.

What I can say is I don't really care about the majority or minimality of Mrs. Clinton's email communications happening over her personal email server/account. What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What boggles my mind is why you and others have so much trouble understanding what the FBI's director, a highly qualified attorney in his own right, has "told you:" Subsection 793(f) is a "specific intent" law. As I've made clear, using my own words as well as corroborating them with highly credible and cogent legal thought that was published long before "Email-gate" came to light, that means not just "any old intent" such as the intent to use a personal email account -- which would be "general intent" -- but the specific intent to violate 793(f)'s stipulations. Moreover, the documents to which I provided links -- both laymen-grade and "jurist-grade" -- have expressly noted the distinction between "general intent" and "specific intent."

I don't expect most folks to come to a discussion like this one knowing and fully comprehending those distinctions/nuances within our jurisprudential system and thought. Heck, I didn't fully "get" them prior to the other day when, upon being surprised that the FBI was not recommending charges be brought, I bothered to "Google" some information about this idea of intent, about mens rea, and its role in criminal cases and burdens of proof. However, I do expect is that folks who give a damn, bother, as I did to read the "jurist-grade" "thoughtware" on the matter and use it, not merely their "gut" feelings on the matter, as the basis for their own conclusions.

And to tell me you're following along here --- I'd really like your comments on the Blackmail issue I brought up.

Bring it up in a different thread, one focused on that topic. I'll post my thoughts.

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly said what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.

Yes. And??? What administrative sanctions are there to levy in connection with "Email-gate?" The woman does not currently work at State.

he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

Hardly. What he did is make clear that specific intent to violate the specific provisions of the Espionage Act are what must be shown in order for a prosecution to have any hope of resulting in a conviction.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

Clearly biased language of that sort makes questionable the credibility of any assertions you make about being objective in considering the facts, legal precedents and their applicability to this case. "Colored" language like that makes clear that you have an "axe to grind" re: Mrs. Clinton and makes your other remarks appear disingenuous and politically motivated, or at least motivated by something other than unfailing objectivity.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there "mens rea"?

You can ask that question, one that BTW sets up a false dichotomy/dilemma, but I won't answer it. I won't answer it because (in)competence and specific intent (mens rea) are not the same things, nor are they mutually exclusive opposites. Thus one can be incompetent and willful, competent and willful, incompetent and not willful, incompetent and willful.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

On the applicable statutes --- I watched 3/4 of Comey getting questioned. NOBODY was invoking 793 because that's the FELONY version of 1924. So let's keep the margins clean..

Well, perhaps you then missed the part where they discussed gross negligence and expressly cited Subsection 793 of Title 18. I suggest you re-watch the hearing or read the transcript.

As for Clinton"s JOB to set policy and standards for handling classified material at State -- AND her role to make sure violations are handled INTERNAL to the Dept appropriately -- You are flat wrong.....As I told you in my first post -- THESE are the folks that hand out Administrative sanctions that Comey repeatedly spoke of. And as the HEAD of the dept at State -- It was INDEED her responsibility to perform oversight on those operations.

No, I'm not flat wrong. It seems that just as the nuanced differences between being able to prove mens rea and actus rea seems lost on you, it appears you also have missed the subtle distinction between setting standards and "handling" the implementation of the standards that have been set. They simply are not the same things.

• Setting standards is the act of defining what standards must be followed.
• Handling standards entails the things you noted in the quoted passage above:
  • Identify violations of the standards defined
  • Levy sanctions for identified and confirmed violations
  • Monitor the execution of business processes

You claim my understanding that the SecState does not set the standards that pertain to how classified information is to be handled is mistaken. Fine. Give me a link to the document that indicates the State Department has defined its own standards governing the handling of classified information. I provided links to the documents that indicate other agency/department/task force heads set those standards. Show me I'm mistaken. I don't mind being mistaken, but I at least showed and provided links to clear evidence that the standards I know of and that have been promulgated throughout the federal government came from someplace other than the Department of State.

Your response to my experienced observation that having a Sec State conduct the MAJORITY of her biz on a home-brewed ad hoc UNAPPROVED comm channel puts LIVES and National reputation at risk boggles my mind.

I cannot speak to the nature or extent of how or why my remarks boggle your mind. I take you at your word that your mind is boggled.

What I can say is I don't really care about the majority or minimality of Mrs. Clinton's email communications happening over her personal email server/account. What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What boggles my mind is why you and others have so much trouble understanding what the FBI's director, a highly qualified attorney in his own right, has "told you:" Subsection 793(f) is a "specific intent" law. As I've made clear, using my own words as well as corroborating them with highly credible and cogent legal thought that was published long before "Email-gate" came to light, that means not just "any old intent" such as the intent to use a personal email account -- which would be "general intent" -- but the specific intent to violate 793(f)'s stipulations. Moreover, the documents to which I provided links -- both laymen-grade and "jurist-grade" -- have expressly noted the distinction between "general intent" and "specific intent."

I don't expect most folks to come to a discussion like this one knowing and fully comprehending those distinctions/nuances within our jurisprudential system and thought. Heck, I didn't fully "get" them prior to the other day when, upon being surprised that the FBI was not recommending charges be brought, I bothered to "Google" some information about this idea of intent, about mens rea, and its role in criminal cases and burdens of proof. However, I do expect is that folks who give a damn, bother, as I did to read the "jurist-grade" "thoughtware" on the matter and use it, not merely their "gut" feelings on the matter, as the basis for their own conclusions.

And to tell me you're following along here --- I'd really like your comments on the Blackmail issue I brought up.

Bring it up in a different thread, one focused on that topic. I'll post my thoughts.

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly said what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.

Yes. And??? What administrative sanctions are there to levy in connection with "Email-gate?" The woman does not currently work at State.

he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

Hardly. What he did is make clear that specific intent to violate the specific provisions of the Espionage Act are what must be shown in order for a prosecution to have any hope of resulting in a conviction.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

Clearly biased language of that sort makes questionable the credibility of any assertions you make about being objective in considering the facts, legal precedents and their applicability to this case. "Colored" language like that makes clear that you have an "axe to grind" re: Mrs. Clinton and makes your other remarks appear disingenuous and politically motivated, or at least motivated by something other than unfailing objectivity.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there "mens rea"?

You can ask that question, one that BTW sets up a false dichotomy/dilemma, but I won't answer it. I won't answer it because (in)competence and specific intent (mens rea) are not the same things, nor are they mutually exclusive opposites. Thus one can be incompetent and willful, competent and willful, incompetent and not willful, incompetent and willful.

Why in the world do you keep insisting that INTENT is required? It is NOT. You are wrong, as was Comey.

I want you to read this article and understand that it CLEARLY explains that though usually the suspect is not tried criminally that does NOT mean they didn't commit a law. it simply means a choice was made not to prosecute. Also understand that that is normally only the case when the department in question took administrative action and when no third party gained access to said material.

Is that what we saw here?

Certainly the State Department didn't take administrative action and Comey admitted right before Congress that it was VERY likely that a third party DID gain access to the material.

U.S. Inconsistent When Secrets Are Loose


I will admit to being SORELY disappointing if you read this article and can't admit that Flacalten and myself have been right all along

 

[320 Years of History]

On the applicable statutes --- I watched 3/4 of Comey getting questioned. NOBODY was invoking 793 because that's the FELONY version of 1924. So let's keep the margins clean..

Well, perhaps you then missed the part where they discussed gross negligence and expressly cited Subsection 793 of Title 18. I suggest you re-watch the hearing or read the transcript.

As for Clinton"s JOB to set policy and standards for handling classified material at State -- AND her role to make sure violations are handled INTERNAL to the Dept appropriately -- You are flat wrong.....As I told you in my first post -- THESE are the folks that hand out Administrative sanctions that Comey repeatedly spoke of. And as the HEAD of the dept at State -- It was INDEED her responsibility to perform oversight on those operations.

No, I'm not flat wrong. It seems that just as the nuanced differences between being able to prove mens rea and actus rea seems lost on you, it appears you also have missed the subtle distinction between setting standards and "handling" the implementation of the standards that have been set. They simply are not the same things.

• Setting standards is the act of defining what standards must be followed.
• Handling standards entails the things you noted in the quoted passage above:
  • Identify violations of the standards defined
  • Levy sanctions for identified and confirmed violations
  • Monitor the execution of business processes

You claim my understanding that the SecState does not set the standards that pertain to how classified information is to be handled is mistaken. Fine. Give me a link to the document that indicates the State Department has defined its own standards governing the handling of classified information. I provided links to the documents that indicate other agency/department/task force heads set those standards. Show me I'm mistaken. I don't mind being mistaken, but I at least showed and provided links to clear evidence that the standards I know of and that have been promulgated throughout the federal government came from someplace other than the Department of State.

Your response to my experienced observation that having a Sec State conduct the MAJORITY of her biz on a home-brewed ad hoc UNAPPROVED comm channel puts LIVES and National reputation at risk boggles my mind.

I cannot speak to the nature or extent of how or why my remarks boggle your mind. I take you at your word that your mind is boggled.

What I can say is I don't really care about the majority or minimality of Mrs. Clinton's email communications happening over her personal email server/account. What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What boggles my mind is why you and others have so much trouble understanding what the FBI's director, a highly qualified attorney in his own right, has "told you:" Subsection 793(f) is a "specific intent" law. As I've made clear, using my own words as well as corroborating them with highly credible and cogent legal thought that was published long before "Email-gate" came to light, that means not just "any old intent" such as the intent to use a personal email account -- which would be "general intent" -- but the specific intent to violate 793(f)'s stipulations. Moreover, the documents to which I provided links -- both laymen-grade and "jurist-grade" -- have expressly noted the distinction between "general intent" and "specific intent."

I don't expect most folks to come to a discussion like this one knowing and fully comprehending those distinctions/nuances within our jurisprudential system and thought. Heck, I didn't fully "get" them prior to the other day when, upon being surprised that the FBI was not recommending charges be brought, I bothered to "Google" some information about this idea of intent, about mens rea, and its role in criminal cases and burdens of proof. However, I do expect is that folks who give a damn, bother, as I did to read the "jurist-grade" "thoughtware" on the matter and use it, not merely their "gut" feelings on the matter, as the basis for their own conclusions.

And to tell me you're following along here --- I'd really like your comments on the Blackmail issue I brought up.

Bring it up in a different thread, one focused on that topic. I'll post my thoughts.

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly said what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.

Yes. And??? What administrative sanctions are there to levy in connection with "Email-gate?" The woman does not currently work at State.

he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

Hardly. What he did is make clear that specific intent to violate the specific provisions of the Espionage Act are what must be shown in order for a prosecution to have any hope of resulting in a conviction.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

Clearly biased language of that sort makes questionable the credibility of any assertions you make about being objective in considering the facts, legal precedents and their applicability to this case. "Colored" language like that makes clear that you have an "axe to grind" re: Mrs. Clinton and makes your other remarks appear disingenuous and politically motivated, or at least motivated by something other than unfailing objectivity.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there "mens rea"?

You can ask that question, one that BTW sets up a false dichotomy/dilemma, but I won't answer it. I won't answer it because (in)competence and specific intent (mens rea) are not the same things, nor are they mutually exclusive opposites. Thus one can be incompetent and willful, competent and willful, incompetent and not willful, incompetent and willful.

Why in the world do you keep insisting that INTENT is required? It is NOT. You are wrong, as was Comey.

I want you to read this article and understand that it CLEARLY explains that though usually the suspect is not tried criminally that does NOT mean they didn't commit a law. it simply means a choice was made not to prosecute. Also understand that that is normally only the case when the department in question took administrative action and when no third party gained access to said material.

Is that what we saw here?

Certainly the State Department didn't take administrative action and Comey admitted right before Congress that it was VERY likely that a third party DID gain access to the material.

U.S. Inconsistent When Secrets Are Loose


I will admit to being SORELY disappointing if you read this article and can't admit that Flacalten and myself have been right all along

Insofar as you've asked me to read that Washington Post article, which I just did, I can tell you did not read, or read carefully, what I wrote in the post to which you replied.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's cut to the chase here. You are quoting some sections of code later on that have NO position on the egregious act that the meglomaniac perpetrated. It has NOTHING to do with sharing or knowingly transferring classified info. THose are espionage charges. THey are not relevant. USC 18 1924 is the misdemeanor version of the APPLICABLE law. It does require "intent".

So bottom line is you either believe that Secretary of Dept State was so careless, sloppy, negligence and CLUELESS that her job title would REQUIRE APPROVED SECURE methods of communications and didn't know the difference between her husband's (former PRESIDENT who ALSO KNEW this was illegal) basement server --- OR --- she completely knew when she REJECTED having the PROPER equipment installed in her office and REFUSED to carry PROPER AUTHORIZED equipment for communications and chose for her selfish convenience to WILLFULLY bypass the methods and standard practice of protecting secure information.

She went about constructing a scheme to take a pissdump on the rules when HER JOB was to set the standards to guarantee that classified information was efficiently and securely handled at State. Thus not only setting a NEW LOW in adminstrative example to her employees, but then LYING to Congress and the public about almost every detail of what she actually did.

What she actually did was to put US agents and field folks at mortal risk. And set HERSELF UP for potential blackmail by nefarious organizations and state actors that might very well compromise her ability to SERVE as President.

INTENT is not the problem. The problem is --- that Comey is correct. RARELY are these cases referred for prosecution because the agency involved does not want an average Joe/Jane grand jury hearing the sordid CLASSIFIED details of what transpired. So as Comey says -- the TRADITIONAL route is to FIRE, doc the pay, suspend or REVOKE THE CLEARANCES of the criminal.. In this case, because the PERP was the HEAD of the agency -- that kind of internal security review and proceeding was NEVER an option. Which is the PRIMARY reason why this malicious act SHOULD have been raised to the level of prosecution.

OR _---- set a new gutter level bar for expectations about consequences for mishandling classified info. Which is what YOU seem to be applauding here.

For the record -- I put in 7 years in Intelligence areas. If I was carrying any documents, I could not take a pee in a public bathroom without a hand on my briefcase. If I had - I would be sanctioned and called on the carpet. Tho THAT was inconceivable to me at the time.

Times apparently change.. And the uninformed partisan noise just grows.

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

That's the NUT at the center. The normal method of INTERNAL monitoring and sanctions (as you well know ) would NEVER have had a chance to work. Because ANY of those employees you mentioned would NEVER report a Sec of State unless they could INVESTIGATE and VERIFY the crime.

And why Comey PULLED that punch -- but you and I can TELL what kind of justice he relying on to be effected if it ever was you or me.. So he's essentially giving immunity to any of the upper mgt of these agencies.

 

[flacaltenn]

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

Ah...but there probably was actual activity on her State Dept. Email account.....she just used her private email for the stuff she didn't want people to know about......like the connection to the Foundation........

State Dept doesn't seem to HAVE any communications from the Secretary. Nothing that I know of -- was ever turned over to FBI DIRECT from State or thru FOIA. That's not to say that she never USED secure comm. I'm sure during important operations she probably went to an appropriate place to handle the immediate issue.

 

[Mindful]

What Comey proved is that no Reasonable DC Insider would dare cross the Clinton Crime Family.

Don't want to find any more mysterious cadavers in Rock Creek Park.

I'm surprised Monica didn't end up there.

 

[Mindful]

Let's cut to the chase here. You are quoting some sections of code later on that have NO position on the egregious act that the meglomaniac perpetrated. It has NOTHING to do with sharing or knowingly transferring classified info. THose are espionage charges. THey are not relevant. USC 18 1924 is the misdemeanor version of the APPLICABLE law. It does require "intent".

So bottom line is you either believe that Secretary of Dept State was so careless, sloppy, negligence and CLUELESS that her job title would REQUIRE APPROVED SECURE methods of communications and didn't know the difference between her husband's (former PRESIDENT who ALSO KNEW this was illegal) basement server --- OR --- she completely knew when she REJECTED having the PROPER equipment installed in her office and REFUSED to carry PROPER AUTHORIZED equipment for communications and chose for her selfish convenience to WILLFULLY bypass the methods and standard practice of protecting secure information.

She went about constructing a scheme to take a pissdump on the rules when HER JOB was to set the standards to guarantee that classified information was efficiently and securely handled at State. Thus not only setting a NEW LOW in adminstrative example to her employees, but then LYING to Congress and the public about almost every detail of what she actually did.

What she actually did was to put US agents and field folks at mortal risk. And set HERSELF UP for potential blackmail by nefarious organizations and state actors that might very well compromise her ability to SERVE as President.

INTENT is not the problem. The problem is --- that Comey is correct. RARELY are these cases referred for prosecution because the agency involved does not want an average Joe/Jane grand jury hearing the sordid CLASSIFIED details of what transpired. So as Comey says -- the TRADITIONAL route is to FIRE, doc the pay, suspend or REVOKE THE CLEARANCES of the criminal.. In this case, because the PERP was the HEAD of the agency -- that kind of internal security review and proceeding was NEVER an option. Which is the PRIMARY reason why this malicious act SHOULD have been raised to the level of prosecution.

OR _---- set a new gutter level bar for expectations about consequences for mishandling classified info. Which is what YOU seem to be applauding here.

For the record -- I put in 7 years in Intelligence areas. If I was carrying any documents, I could not take a pee in a public bathroom without a hand on my briefcase. If I had - I would be sanctioned and called on the carpet. Tho THAT was inconceivable to me at the time.

Times apparently change.. And the uninformed partisan noise just grows.

You dont seem to get it.

Laws are for the Little People, not the Oligarchs.

OF course Hillary supporters do have actual brains, that is just artistic hyperbole, lol.

No seriously, they do have brains.

Essentially -- Comey hinted at that. And anyone who has worked in sensitive areas knows EXACTLY what he was inferring -- but did elaborate on..

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.. Problem IS -- even if others at State KNEW of this compromise -- there was virtually NO CHANCE -- that they would take THEIR BOSS into a Dept Review for sanctions.

Which is WHY -- I'm mad at Comey for not making that point clearer and MORE transparent. And why he was WRONG to suggest no investigation at DOJ. Because never has a Dept BOSS been found to pull such a dangerous and stupid act. And he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

He was very wrong to do that.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there there "mens rea"?

Like I've said, the most disgusting part is there are still people out there who believe she is qualified to be President. I'm sorry , but if you are STILL of the opinion that she is qualified to be POTUS, then you are just stupid beyond hope.

And speaking of that, I in noway believe Obama truly believes she's the most qualified candidate to EVER run for POTUS, so I must ask myself what it is that she has on him that would lead him to say that? It must be HUGE and no doubt led to the predetermined decision to not prosecute.

Is it bigger than the fact he KNEW about the server and in fact sent classified materials to it himself?

I agree completely. And the Blackmail issue has yet to be raised as a dis-qualifier for her to be CIC. That's the freakin media's fault for being stone stupid about the classified world. However, I have not heard of actual evidence showing Classified comm between her and the Prez. But I also realize that by "wiping the servers with a clothe" About 30% of her work product evaporated.

And I'm certain that was her cookie recipes and grandchild pictures.

I haven't seen any evidence either, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that in 4 years the POTUS never sent an email containing classified material to the Sec State. That's just common sense.

Another part I don't get is that when I was with the NSA our email accounts were closely monitored by the IG , as I assume it is with all departments, and shouldn't someone in that department have said either "hey why doesn't the Sec State have an official email account" or "hey why is there NO activity on the Sec State's official email account?" and looked into it?

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

I don't get any of it, to be honest. Speaking as a foreigner.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

If 'lose lips sink ships' after Hillarys email server ran for a few years, no wonder our navy is so under strength.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't get any of it, to be honest. Speaking as a foreigner.

The American Republic is evolving its own Dynastic Royalty.

 

[boedicca]

What Comey proved is that no Reasonable DC Insider would dare cross the Clinton Crime Family.

Don't want to find any more mysterious cadavers in Rock Creek Park.

I'm surprised Monica didn't end up there.

Monica was turned into a Zombie by the Clintons.

 

[flacaltenn]

On the applicable statutes --- I watched 3/4 of Comey getting questioned. NOBODY was invoking 793 because that's the FELONY version of 1924. So let's keep the margins clean..

Well, perhaps you then missed the part where they discussed gross negligence and expressly cited Subsection 793 of Title 18. I suggest you re-watch the hearing or read the transcript.

As for Clinton"s JOB to set policy and standards for handling classified material at State -- AND her role to make sure violations are handled INTERNAL to the Dept appropriately -- You are flat wrong.....As I told you in my first post -- THESE are the folks that hand out Administrative sanctions that Comey repeatedly spoke of. And as the HEAD of the dept at State -- It was INDEED her responsibility to perform oversight on those operations.

No, I'm not flat wrong. It seems that just as the nuanced differences between being able to prove mens rea and actus rea seems lost on you, it appears you also have missed the subtle distinction between setting standards and "handling" the implementation of the standards that have been set. They simply are not the same things.

• Setting standards is the act of defining what standards must be followed.
• Handling standards entails the things you noted in the quoted passage above:
  • Identify violations of the standards defined
  • Levy sanctions for identified and confirmed violations
  • Monitor the execution of business processes

You claim my understanding that the SecState does not set the standards that pertain to how classified information is to be handled is mistaken. Fine. Give me a link to the document that indicates the State Department has defined its own standards governing the handling of classified information. I provided links to the documents that indicate other agency/department/task force heads set those standards. Show me I'm mistaken. I don't mind being mistaken, but I at least showed and provided links to clear evidence that the standards I know of and that have been promulgated throughout the federal government came from someplace other than the Department of State.

Your response to my experienced observation that having a Sec State conduct the MAJORITY of her biz on a home-brewed ad hoc UNAPPROVED comm channel puts LIVES and National reputation at risk boggles my mind.

I cannot speak to the nature or extent of how or why my remarks boggle your mind. I take you at your word that your mind is boggled.

What I can say is I don't really care about the majority or minimality of Mrs. Clinton's email communications happening over her personal email server/account. What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What boggles my mind is why you and others have so much trouble understanding what the FBI's director, a highly qualified attorney in his own right, has "told you:" Subsection 793(f) is a "specific intent" law. As I've made clear, using my own words as well as corroborating them with highly credible and cogent legal thought that was published long before "Email-gate" came to light, that means not just "any old intent" such as the intent to use a personal email account -- which would be "general intent" -- but the specific intent to violate 793(f)'s stipulations. Moreover, the documents to which I provided links -- both laymen-grade and "jurist-grade" -- have expressly noted the distinction between "general intent" and "specific intent."

I don't expect most folks to come to a discussion like this one knowing and fully comprehending those distinctions/nuances within our jurisprudential system and thought. Heck, I didn't fully "get" them prior to the other day when, upon being surprised that the FBI was not recommending charges be brought, I bothered to "Google" some information about this idea of intent, about mens rea, and its role in criminal cases and burdens of proof. However, I do expect is that folks who give a damn, bother, as I did to read the "jurist-grade" "thoughtware" on the matter and use it, not merely their "gut" feelings on the matter, as the basis for their own conclusions.

And to tell me you're following along here --- I'd really like your comments on the Blackmail issue I brought up.

Bring it up in a different thread, one focused on that topic. I'll post my thoughts.

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly said what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.

Yes. And??? What administrative sanctions are there to levy in connection with "Email-gate?" The woman does not currently work at State.

he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

Hardly. What he did is make clear that specific intent to violate the specific provisions of the Espionage Act are what must be shown in order for a prosecution to have any hope of resulting in a conviction.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

Clearly biased language of that sort makes questionable the credibility of any assertions you make about being objective in considering the facts, legal precedents and their applicability to this case. "Colored" language like that makes clear that you have an "axe to grind" re: Mrs. Clinton and makes your other remarks appear disingenuous and politically motivated, or at least motivated by something other than unfailing objectivity.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there "mens rea"?

You can ask that question, one that BTW sets up a false dichotomy/dilemma, but I won't answer it. I won't answer it because (in)competence and specific intent (mens rea) are not the same things, nor are they mutually exclusive opposites. Thus one can be incompetent and willful, competent and willful, incompetent and not willful, incompetent and willful.

What you DON'T know is that what appears in Statute about mishandling classified info is NOT a definitive set of rules for any SPECIFIC dept. Some depts have special sources and methods. NOTHING in there to proscribe a UNIVERSAL set of rules for all the variables. Won't go into more detail on that. But folks moving satellites and drones around to trouble spots -- have totally DIFFERENT "security documentation and security issues".. There are GUIDELINES and then there is the 100 times LARGER book of approved practice -- which is INTERNALLY at Agency level..

She WAS responsible for the practices for handling all material that was classified at State. Her LEAST concern was complying with some unclassified "guideline" that you can read on the Internet... Anderson Cooper is NOT gonna tell you that. MAYBE a congress critter would explain that -- but it would never make air.

You're not following along if at this point -- these are your questions.,

What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) Absolutely in evidence.

2) NO requirement for that mishandled information to actually BE stolen or compromised. No "espionage" required... And INTENT is your choice to believe she's a mere incompetent idiot or she knew EXACTLY she was circumventing the APPROVED methods and channels. Which as the head of her of department -- it was HER JOB to know them. The "defense" against intent rests solely on being incompetent and naive about her responsibilities.

3) I've never once argued here that this SHOULD have gone to court if it was a NORMAL joe. I've argued that it should have gone to criminal investigation BECAUSE she was ABOVE the normal system used internal to various Depts for SANCTIONING this egregious violation..

If you don't understand that exposure to blackmail is a LIKELY and serious consequence of her actions -- you'd be in no position to judge the SERIOUSNESS of her offenses. Just because the "public discussion" is void of this consideration doesn't mean that it ain't ACTUALLY one of the most important "security implications" of what she did. So it IS part of determining how SERIOUSLY she violated the law and/or the rules..

I look forward to you recognizing that a Prez subject to blackmail should never be a candidate for further handling of National secrets.. Her current "courtesy clearances" should have been revoked YESTERDAY. And you don't need statutes or courts or the DOJ to accomplish that.




.