Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com
This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...
Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...
Not choosing to investigate the Clinton emails would actually go along with his rhetoric of wanting to heal this country rather than try to encourage further division, which is more than the democrats and liberals of this nation has done through their actions. Of course standing up to such division and vocally denouncing the rioting would take some actual leadership ability.
Investigate the Clinton Emails... PLEASE.... As we said before and the FBI director agreed there is nothing there...
But lets have an investigation into Bush War Crimes, torture, RNC emails, outing CIA agents....
And for a laugh Obama Birth Cert...
Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com
This isn't a crackpot story, multiple sources and the basis is science...
Considering the numerous hacking going on before hand this should be investigated.. Considering Comey practically tried to gift wrap the Election to Trump for Emails which Trump now admits aren't even worth investigating any more...
Not choosing to investigate the Clinton emails would actually go along with his rhetoric of wanting to heal this country rather than try to encourage further division, which is more than the democrats and liberals of this nation has done through their actions. Of course standing up to such division and vocally denouncing the rioting would take some actual leadership ability.
Investigate the Clinton Emails... PLEASE.... As we said before and the FBI director agreed there is nothing there...
But lets have an investigation into Bush War Crimes, torture, RNC emails, outing CIA agents....
And for a laugh Obama Birth Cert...
I have. In the military there is this little code that goes into great detail when it comes to the handling of government entrusted information.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with ANY document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Source: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Breaking it down for those unfamiliar, the code opens to those responsible (lawfully having possession of, access to), and more importantly control over, or being entrusted with ANYdocument. Without question, there is no greater importance for the need to secure government information than a Secretary of State that travels to foreign governments representing the interests of the United States, especially through negotiations with particular "less friendly" nations where a need to secure government information is of national interest. Which compliments what the code states -
"which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation"
Then there is the behavior where such actions that result in "PERMITS" [meaning to allow for]
willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to ANY person NOTENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT,
or
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
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
So Mrs. Clinton would have to be found to not have allowed, "permitted" [there is that usage of that word again that's worded in the code], communicated, or had knowledge of as it pertains to each of those conditions pertaining to her emails, and the use of a program to BLEACH her server.
Wikileaks and Anthony Weiner also does not constitute an individual having been entrusted with receiving Hillary Clinton's emails.
Now comes down to the code where it utilizes the terms (1) Willfully or (2) through gross negligence. To which if neither one applies, would constitute following the authority of an individual having knowledge of, or allowed such action to take place. You and I both know there still exists AUTHORITY through the chain of command, and if Hillary did not utilize WILLLFUL KNOWLEDGE or GROSS NEGLIGENCE then someone of authority had knowledge of such actions who had oversight, and allowed it. Unless you can provide evidence or a case the constitutes otherwise, only THREE cases exists: through actions or knowledge (1) willfully allowed (2) through gross negligence of such information entrusted to her allowed or had knowledge of, or (3) submitted under the authority of an individual over her who had knowledge of or willfully allowed such actions to take place ... there isn't a fourth option here.
IN THE END
What it all comes down to, and what the code specifically states: There still exists that "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document". Obviously when it all comes down to responsibility and facing consequences over being entrusted with government information and having such information delivered to ANYONE in violation of his/her trust, the buck does not stop with Hillary Rodham Clinton.