Thinker101
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2017
- 25,004
- 15,331
- 1,415
This is simple, Doc. The SERVER WAS ILLEGAL, any republican with all the clearance in the world would have exposed the fact.First of all, yes, there was classified information on the server. The private club did not include all the people with national security clearance. Just those who SHE wanted to see the emails. I don't think there was any republicans privy to her server. Come on, Doc, I know and respect you on this board and know that you're smarter than this.The "people in the loop" was never supposed to be a private club. You still need an electronic trail....even HILLARY needs a electronic trail
She after all is a public servant of the people. I kinda think after the Sandy Berglar debacle with her husbands administration she tried to be decpetive.
Try and be somewhat bipartisan, Doc
Of course it's a "private club" - it's people with national security clearance.
There was no classified information on Hillary's server that was in any way kept secret from others with the clearance and need to see it.
At one time you were more open and not so biased.
What makes you think that the classified information on her server wasn't available to anyone else with the need to know?
You seem to be assuming that the information in Clinton's emails was not available by normal security clearance channels. What evidence do you have to support that claim?
You are the only person I've ever heard make this particular argument.
This wasn't some obscure technicality, it was blatant and willful what she had done......and she knew it. Like I said earlier, she wasn't stupid. If she had
been stupid, she would never of had it scrubbed, and you know that.
No, the server was not "illegal". There was no law against using private email at the time Clinton was SoS.
The theoretical charges of "mishandling classified information" have nothing to do with her private server - those same laws would apply had she sent classified information over her official state.gov email address.
I understand that these issues have often been conflated by the press.
Before
Yeah, I'm not seeing "didn't intend" in there. I see "improperly", but that whole thing looks like political BS, similar to Hillary.
Well, for that reference, you'd have to look at the IG report of last week, p. vi-vii
The Midyear team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents.
Yup, sounding like political BS in both cases.
It's not "political BS", it's the way things work.
As I said before, feel free to give an example of someone who was charged under the Espionage Act through unintentional conduct.
You won't be able to, because it's never happened.
Slow that camel down. First it started with "intentional", now we're moving to "intentional under the Espionage Act",...maybe you ought to find someone else to play your game.
The Espionage Act is the law that makes mishandling classified information a crime. That's the law we're talking about, isn't it?
Nope, like I said: First it started with "intentional", now we're moving to "intentional under the Espionage Act".
There was no mention of Espionage Act, there was no mention of classified information....you only referred to "intent", as did I. Now piss off.