Emails and Benghazi...A GOP Strategic Death Sentence for 2016..

[paperview]

Could you show us a link to him saying that? ...

Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation of the law.

"As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability."

<snip>

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly."

So, if i read the following quote properly, he isn't saying she did nothing wrong, she just didn't know she was doing something wrong. Which I always thought that ignorance of the law was never an excuse. Especially in cases of national security.



As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

Ignorance of the Law has never been a proper excuse for Breaking the LAW.

Cite the US Code she violated.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

You will of course say unwillingly ....................Excuses are like what....................

First words: "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates..."

These emails as you know were not classified at the time. No knowingly and willfully.

I know you hate how the law is written, and you have to make an excuse for why she didn't violate it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation of the law.

"As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability."

<snip>

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, “I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. As Mukasey also highlighted, the key element is that Petraeus’ conduct was done “knowingly.” That is, when he stored his journals containing “highly classified” information at his home, he did so knowingly. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly."

So, if i read the following quote properly, he isn't saying she did nothing wrong, she just didn't know she was doing something wrong. Which I always thought that ignorance of the law was never an excuse. Especially in cases of national security.



As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

Ignorance of the Law has never been a proper excuse for Breaking the LAW.

Cite the US Code she violated.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

You will of course say unwillingly ....................Excuses are like what....................

First words: "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates..."

These emails as you know were not classified at the time. No knowingly and willfully.

I know you hate how the law is written, and you have to make an excuse for why she didn't violate it.

Thanks for proving me correct.

 

[paperview]

So, if i read the following quote properly, he isn't saying she did nothing wrong, she just didn't know she was doing something wrong. Which I always thought that ignorance of the law was never an excuse. Especially in cases of national security.



As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

Ignorance of the Law has never been a proper excuse for Breaking the LAW.

Cite the US Code she violated.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

You will of course say unwillingly ....................Excuses are like what....................

First words: "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates..."

These emails as you know were not classified at the time. No knowingly and willfully.

I know you hate how the law is written, and you have to make an excuse for why she didn't violate it.

Thanks for proving me correct.

That you'd make an excuse for why she didn't violate the law? Yup, that much is correct.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ignorance of the Law has never been a proper excuse for Breaking the LAW.

Cite the US Code she violated.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

You will of course say unwillingly ....................Excuses are like what....................

First words: "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates..."

These emails as you know were not classified at the time. No knowingly and willfully.

I know you hate how the law is written, and you have to make an excuse for why she didn't violate it.

Thanks for proving me correct.

That you'd make an excuse for why she didn't violate the law? Yup, that much is correct.

I repeat my earlier post........Ignorance is no excuse for the law.

 

[eagle1462010]

Rules Against Personal Email Cited, Reinforced During Hillary Clinton's Tenure at State Dept. - Breitbart

Thursday afternoon Politico ran a story highlighting the portion of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual that covers electronic communication over the internet. Section 544.3 states: “The Department is expected to provide, and employees are expected to use, approved secure methods to transmit SBU information when available and practical.” The purpose of this rule is spelled out a few subsections later. “SBU information resident on personally owned computers connected to the Internet is generally more susceptible to cyber attacks and/or compromise than information on government owned computers connected to the Internet,” the FAM states. According to Politico, these clear guidelines were in place at the State Department since 2005.

Even worse than the general guidelines, Fox News’s Catherine Herridge has uncovered a State Department cable dated 2011 which cites the same section of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM 544.3) and reminds employees to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts.” The cable is signed (electronically) by Secretary Clinton. Her signature does not mean that she personally saw the cable, but it does demonstrate that the policy was cited and reinforced during her tenure as Secretary of State.

 

[eagle1462010]

Running the State Dept. and not even following the rules she is in charge of......................

Well..................................................

 

[paperview]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf

12 FAM 544.4 SBU Transmission Between State Department Facilities (CTS-117; 11-04-2005) All SBU transmissions between Department facilities must be encrypted to current NIST, DS, and IT CCB standards.

 

[Freewill]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

 

[eagle1462010]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

She was in direct NON COMPLIANCE of RULES of the State DEPT.........................and she was in charge of it.

 

[paperview]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

Kee-rist. How many times does this need to be said?

NO> They were not classified. They were labeled upgraded to classified years after the fact.

 

[Freewill]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

She was in direct NON COMPLIANCE of RULES of the State DEPT.........................and she was in charge of it.

Breaking a rule is not a crime.

 

[Freewill]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

Kee-rist. How many times does this need to be said?

NO> They were not classified. They were labeled upgraded to classified years after the fact.

OK you win. Mrs. Clinton doesn't know a classified document from a hole in the ground. Agreed she is that ignorant.

OK you win. Everyone in the chain with Mrs. Clinton has access to unmarked classified information which they just pass around on any server they should so decide, as long as their intent is not to.

OK you win. Mrs. Clinton did come under sniper fire in Bosnia. The videos of her not were doctored by the VRWC.

OK you win. Mrs. Clinton was not responsible for the state department when Stephens was murdered.

OK you win. You have protected the queen very well, good toady.

 

[eagle1462010]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

She was in direct NON COMPLIANCE of RULES of the State DEPT.........................and she was in charge of it.

Breaking a rule is not a crime.

Improper handling of Classified information is...........but she'll get a pass..............the DOJ is D now.

 

[Wildman]

100,000 in Flint poisoned by the GOP.

ooooh really? please read the following.., OK?

A word that is curiously scarce in coverage of this disaster: Democrat.
Flint, like big brother Detroit down the way, has a long history of political dominance by the Democratic party. Its current mayor is a Democrat; so was her predecessor; the mayor before him, Don Williamson, was a career criminal (he did time for various scams some years back) and a Democrat who resigned under threat of recall; his immediate predecessor, Democrat James W. Rutherford, is a longtime politico and was elected to finish out the term of Woodrow Stanley, who was recalled because of the financial state in which he left the city.Read more at:

Political Poison, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review

now tell me and others with common sense, how is the GOP responsible for a demorat fuck up??????

 

[paperview]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

Kee-rist. How many times does this need to be said?

NO> They were not classified. They were labeled upgraded to classified years after the fact.

OK you win. Mrs. Clinton doesn't know a classified document from a hole in the ground. Agreed she is that ignorant.
...

You started out so well too. Then jumped into stoopidland.

Nonetheless,It might behoove you to read this article. I can only post a portion due to copyright rules, but it would help you understand a good deal more so you don't look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post

1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.

"Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.

When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.

Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.
....

2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.

There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked.

3. Anything classified is sensitive.

<snip>...The result is massive overclassification.

4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.

5. Our classification system protects us from harm.

 

[Freewill]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

She was in direct NON COMPLIANCE of RULES of the State DEPT.........................and she was in charge of it.

Breaking a rule is not a crime.

Improper handling of Classified information is...........but she'll get a pass..............the DOJ is D now.

Her getting a pass is what I have said from the beginning. She is one of the one percent and part of the Washington establishment. Voting for her is voting to the status quo. There was less evidence to convict the Rosenbergs then there is against Mrs. Bosnia Clinton.

 

[Wildman]

Find the lie? Oh right, there isn't one.

... ... ... ... demorat speak: lies = truth!!

 

[Freewill]

Must really kill you to know no jury would ever convict beyond a reasonable doubt she "knowingly and willfully..." blah blah classified info.

Especially when the info was labeled classified years after the fact.

Were the emails marked classified? If so then she definitely was KNOWING and willful.

Kee-rist. How many times does this need to be said?

NO> They were not classified. They were labeled upgraded to classified years after the fact.

OK you win. Mrs. Clinton doesn't know a classified document from a hole in the ground. Agreed she is that ignorant.
...

You started out so well too. Then jumped into stoopidland.

Nonetheless,It might behoove you to read this article. I can only post a portion due to copyright rules, but it would help you understand a good deal more so you don't look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post

1. Information can be “classified,” even if no one has classified it.

"Many news reports and commentators have suggested that “information is classified by (its) nature” (as Sean Davis writes in The Federalist), even if no agency or official has classified it yet. These accounts treat “classified” as a quality rather than an action — one that is inherent, immutable and self-evident. If information is sensitive enough, it’s classified, no matter what.

When it comes to “original classification” — the initial decision to classify information — that portrayal is simply wrong. Under the executive order that governs classification, the 2,000-plus officials who have this authority “may” classify information if its disclosure reasonably could be expected to damage national security. The determination of harm is often highly subjective, and even if an official decides that disclosure would be harmful, he or she is not required to classify.

Information provided by foreign governments in confidence is different. The executive order cautions that the release of such information is “presumed” to harm national security; agency rules provide that such information “must be classified.” There is a difference, however, between “must be classified” and “is classified.” After all, when an official receives information, its source and the circumstances of its disclosure may not be apparent. This category of information is not self-identifying, let alone self-classifying.
....

2. It’s easy to figure out whether information has been classified.

There is a common refrain that Clinton “should have known” there was classified information in emails she got, even if it wasn't marked.

3. Anything classified is sensitive.

<snip>...The result is massive overclassification.

4. Any mishandling of classified information is illegal.

5. Our classification system protects us from harm.

1. the Myth is that all documents used in government are not classified. They are all classified at some level.

 

[Wildman]

A partisan hack is not a normal person.

allow me to rephrase that.., OK?

A partisan libertard/demorat hack is not a normal person.