PROVEN: Hillary Clinton DID COMPROMISE U.S. National Security

[ph3iron]

During the Hillary Clinton Server Investigation official classified documents were found on her server. When the media call for the release of those documents, even the redacted versions, President Obama himself declared the documents were SO classified that 'to release them in any format would cause grave damage to our national security'.

Understood - any foreign entity being able to gain access to these documents would cause 'grave damage' to our national security'.

SO, based on the news, Hillary Clinton DID 'cause grave damage to our national security':

Hillary Clinton's Email Accessed by Foreign Actors | National Review

“Foreign actors” accessed Hillary Clinton’s emails, including one that was classified “secret,” according to a memo produced by two Republican-led House committees"

...and snowflakes STILL be like:

In your made up mind.
Got any copies of her tyrannical emails?
National Review?
They don't believe we landed on the moon

 

[LaDexter]

we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians

The best way to remind Dems of how they behaved when Dems broke campaign laws by conspiring with enemy governments....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You've got it flipped around.

It's not that she broke the law unintentionally - she didn't break the law, because it was unintentional.

So, she broke the law by killing the guy (committing espionage / obstruction) unintentionally, she is not guilty of killing the guy (committing Obstruction / espionage) because it was unintentional?!

WTF? That's not how it works, dude.

It is how it works.

Every law on the books has, as part of it's statutory language, two components. In the legal world, they're known as "actus reas" and "mens rea" - which translate approximately to "bad act" and "culpable mental state".

If you were to kill someone accidentally and through no fault of your own, you have not committed a crime.

DUDE, STOP!

'Ignorance' is no excuse / valid defense for breaking the law. Not MEANING to break the law' is NOT a legitimate defense for breaking the law.

You're one of those 'touchy, feely' / 'It depends on different variables' kind of guys, especially when trying to defend liberals who commit crimes, aren't you?!

Hillary ran an un-approved server, conducted govt business on it, hid more than 15,000 documents on it in violation of the FOIA and Federal Records Act, stored classified on it, allowed hackers to raid her unencrypted illegal server, gave access to classified files to people who did not have a clearance, defied a subpoena and obstructed justice by attempting to destroy evidence......and you are trying to say Hillary did not MEAN to do any of this?

SERIOUSLY - WHAT THE F*?

Oh wait, I have the answer to why so many people believe and parrot this shit - thanks to Liberal / surrogate liberal media that have brainwashed snowflakes:

Great news: Americans can no longer tell fact from opinion


If nothing else, in defense of their felon candidate who could not even win her own party's nomination, the Democratic party, liberals, and snowflakes have had to concede that Hillary was TOO STUPID to be President - completely ignorant ot US law, that she was breaking laws, & that she compromised national security.

Since they themselves have gone out of their way to prove Hillary is just this stupid instead of being a criminal, why are they still so pissed she lost the election?

THEY SHOULD BE RELIEVED!

You're not understanding how this works. Ignorance of the law is not what I'm talking about, in regards to intent.

Hillary Clinton did not violate the law because she did not intentionally mishandle any classified material. She was not ignorant of the law - she simply didn't violate it.

 

[OKTexas]

Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI. Flynn was convicted and she walks free. Equal application of the law??????

No she didn't, yes he did. There in is the difference son.

Trump falsely claims Clinton lied to FBI

the difference is you won't admit it.

FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

this is why you get zero sympathy for your views. you're a 1 way street, son.

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

Well the ***** consciously and intentionally communicated with POTUS on her insecure system, knowing all presidential communications are classified. Isn't that like putting you foot on the accelerator and going peddle to the metal?


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No she didn't, yes he did. There in is the difference son.

Trump falsely claims Clinton lied to FBI

the difference is you won't admit it.

FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

this is why you get zero sympathy for your views. you're a 1 way street, son.

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

Well the ***** consciously and intentionally communicated with POTUS on her insecure system, knowing all presidential communications are classified. Isn't that like putting you foot on the accelerator and going peddle to the metal?


.

That highlighted statement is factually incorrect. I don't know if it's a lie or a mistake, but it's not the slightest bit true.

 

[LaDexter]

Hillary Clinton did not violate the law because she did not intentionally mishandle any classified material. She was not ignorant of the law - she simply didn't violate it

When is the next Hillary CULT meeting???

 

[iceberg]

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

 

[easyt65]

You've got it flipped around.

It's not that she broke the law unintentionally - she didn't break the law, because it was unintentional.

So, she broke the law by killing the guy (committing espionage / obstruction) unintentionally, she is not guilty of killing the guy (committing Obstruction / espionage) because it was unintentional?!

WTF? That's not how it works, dude.

It is how it works.

Every law on the books has, as part of it's statutory language, two components. In the legal world, they're known as "actus reas" and "mens rea" - which translate approximately to "bad act" and "culpable mental state".

If you were to kill someone accidentally and through no fault of your own, you have not committed a crime.

....and you keep intentionally ignoring several critical details that prove the IG and Comey, in defense of Hillary Clinton, are FULL OF SHIT:

'TOO STUPID TO KNOW SHE WAS BREAKING LAWS' / 'NO INTENT TO BREAK LAWS'?:

1. Hillary Clinton had hours of training on the handling of classified information. She also had mandated re-occurring training on classified and the handling of it. Additionally, prior to getting a TS-SC 'Read-In' clearance to certain classified programs, she had to receive special specific training on the handling of classified for those specific programs. EVERY TIME SHE RECEIED THIS TRAINING SHE WAS REQUIRED BY LAW - AND DID SO - TO SIGN DOCUMENTATION STATING SHE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT SHE HAD JUST BEEN TAUGHT.

'Too Stupid', 'Didn't know she was breaking the law', 'Did so without intent'? BULLSHIT! DEBUNKED!

2. As Secretary of State she personally sent out an e-mail to her State Department employees reminding them NOT to use personal e-mails / servers to prevent from violating the FOIA and Federal Records ACT...LIKE SHE ENDED UP DOING! Sending out that e-mail / those e-mails is evidence Hillary damn-well knew the law and knew the risk of using a personal e-mail / server.

'Too Stupid', 'Didn't know she was breaking the law', 'Did so without intent'? BULLSHIT! DEBUNKED!

3. Hillary deliberately criminally defied a subpoena mandating she turn over EVERYTHING - her server, her files, her devices, her sim cards,...EVERYTHING. She openly defied the subpoena by declaring to the FBI she was NOT going to turn over everything - she LIED by claiming she was going to delete 'personal' files.

Ummm, when the FBI wanted Manafort's and Cohen's PCs/files/etc... they stormed their homes and businesses, snatched, and grabbed everything they wanted. The FBI gave Hillary all the time in the world to delete official files, ILLEGALLY destroy devices, remove sim cards, and use Bleach Bit on her servers in a proven attempt to destroy evidence....which the FBI ended up recovering, proving she had tried to destroy evidence of her criminal activity.

'Too Stupid', 'Didn't know she was breaking the law', 'Did so without intent'? BULLSHIT! DEBUNKED!


There is more than enough evidence to prove Hillary is still being protected from indictment and prosecution....snowflakes just have to be willing to pull their heads out of Hillary's arse to see it.

 

[OKTexas]

the difference is you won't admit it.

FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ows-hillary-clinton-lied-and-got-away-with-it

this is why you get zero sympathy for your views. you're a 1 way street, son.

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

bullshit, you are responsible for keeping your car under the speed limit, equipment failure is not an excuse.

You are incorrect.

This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.

Not in matters of criminal negligence.


.

 

[easyt65]

Well the ***** consciously and intentionally communicated with POTUS on her insecure system, knowing all presidential communications are classified. Isn't that like putting you foot on the accelerator and going peddle to the metal?.

BINGO - NO INTENT?

Obama himself communicated with Hillary using a private e0-mail and a pseudonym, proving even HE knew it was illegal as hell! he should have known - it was proven that a large number of his Cabinet members and 'loyalists' were using private e-mails and fake names to conduct business / crimes. Holder used the names 'Lew Alcindor' and 'Kareem Abdul Jabar'.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You uncritically post bullshit from rw bullshit websites and then you complain that I supposedly don't have credibility.

FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey testified before congress, under the threat of purjury, that FBI had no evidence to think Clinton was lying to them.

Trump: Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting subpoena

Now WTF do you think you know that a Director of FBI did not about this case?

its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.

lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"

The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".

Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.

Does that help you understand how it works?

bullshit, you are responsible for keeping your car under the speed limit, equipment failure is not an excuse.

You are incorrect.

This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.

Not in matters of criminal negligence.


.

Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.

 

[iceberg]

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

you setup that server - you take on the responsibilities to make sure those laws are upheld and met.

were they? were they even a consideration to her? when you narrow this all down to "knowingly" and "intent" you know you don't have much to stand on "legally".

 

[OKTexas]

but what is i was building a private accelerator and it stuck? am i responsible for my actions when i go around common practice?

What?

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

you setup that server - you take on the responsibilities to make sure those laws are upheld and met.

were they? were they even a consideration to her? when you narrow this all down to "knowingly" and "intent" you know you don't have much to stand on "legally".

You keep coming back to the server - but it's entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about.

I'm literally highlighting the words in the law - and you're trying to argue that I don't have much to stand on, legally?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What?

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.


.

Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.

That's why the server part is irrelevant.

 

[OKTexas]

if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?

we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

Using it to communicate with the president and foreign officials was illegal, those communications are automatically classified.


.

 

[easyt65]

so - if trump sets up his own server, you're cool with it? hides / deletes mail from it when asked for it. hires 3rd party companies to scrub the drives - all this would be cool with you if trump did it.

You're having an issue with how you're phrasing your question. I'm not talking about my feelings, I'm talking about the law.

As far as I understand it, the Presidential Records Act would likely be violated, if Trump were to do what you suggest. But that's an entirely different conversation.

not really.

the bottom line is when you don't care about 1 side acting up / suspicious you have a hard time getting an agreement when the other side is doing the same thing.

we've come to the point where we defend what we have for no other reason that we're being attacked by the other side for doing what we're all guilty of doing.

we're past legal. we're full on emo-bat-shit-crazy. we defend hillary to the wall for actions that are AT BEST highly suspicious and jump all over trump for a closed door meeting with russians.

when we treat like actions on like terms, we can end the bullshit. til then, here we are full of hate.

Speak for yourself. You may be emotionally reacting to your side being attacked, but I'm not. Hillary Clinton is not on "my side". I'm here to discuss the law.

well given i'm not responding to all the insults along the way, i believe i'm doing a pretty good job of *not* being emotional but trying to hit it from an objective standpoint.

if you wish to get back to the law - great. lets go.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — not just a rank-and-file House member — alleged Tuesday that Hillary Clinton likely broke the law with her use of private emails as secretary of state.
----------

• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

did she hold onto all the e-mail or did it get deleted? saying "oh those 33k mails were on yoga" won't work.
were her e-mails allowed public access as required by law?
were they maintained or was "bleach bit" used to destroy potential evidence?
and i do believe she's guilty on the 4th bullet also.

When you're discussing what "should" be, rather than what is - that's about emotion.

Ok, let's talk law. You've provided one statute - that's a start. Let's take a look at it:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


Do you see the words I've highlighted? Those terms are the required mens rea elements for that crime.

You cling to that paragraph like a baby clings to a pacifier while intentionally avoiding the evidence Hillary knew damn-well what she was doing.......

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.

Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.

then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.

the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.

she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.

anything else is pure chicken shit.

Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.

why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?

if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?

To hide what?

It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.

Using it to communicate with the president and foreign officials was illegal, those communications are automatically classified.


.

This is now the second time you've repeated this. It's still not true.