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

[iceberg]

this is just funny anymore.

why did she need her own server? if she must have it - fine. there were laws she needed to follow if she were to use this for official purposes.

did she ever use it for official purposes? if so, she is now liable for the information and retention laws that are in place.

did she follow those?

you keep trying to distance her from the body as if she had nothing to do with it but i'm pretty sure you'd not allow "the other side" to do the same.

I have no idea why she "needed" her own server. You'll have to ask her about that.

As for "information and retention laws", which laws are you referring to? Please, quote the statute.

it's above in this very message you seem to be choosing to ignore. i cited (4) relevant laws you were asking for and her failure on each one - you somehow missed my providing you exactly what you requested.

good job.

You cited one law, and I pointed out the required mens rea elements, which are clearly missing in this case. The rest were departmental regulations, not laws.

you must be a clinton the way you look for loopholes for bad behavior.

and you continue to fall back on "but she didn't mean it". of which you can't ever provide evidence for or prove in the same manner you're asking others to do.

now what?

I have not once stated "she didn't mean it" - that's you guys, twisting my words around.

you wanna wordsmith, i'll played. just doesn't seem to go as well coming back at you as it does going out does it?

 

[iceberg]

but she used it for that.

so it became relevant the first official e-mail she sent.

No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.

well now even she disagrees with you.

Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email

"I’m going to give the same answer I’ve given for many months," Clinton replied. "It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."

---
got anything else?

I think you're not following the conversation. In what way do you think Clinton has disagreed with me?

no - you just keep wordsmithing and giggling.

"No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server"

she conducted official business on this server. there is no denying it. there was classified info on there, there is no denying that. there is mail from obama on here of which he said he never knew about it, of which cannot be denied. why would obama deny knowledge of a perfectly legal server?

you're just walking in circles and playing word games so i'm out.

have fun.

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

 

[easyt65]

You obviously don't understand what you read - she is talking about using non-government email for not-classified communication.

Hillary broke laws and compromised national security by having classified on her computer, intentionally or not. That has been established.

It has also been established by the FBI itself that they recovered over 15,000 OFFICIAL documents Hillary never turned in as required by law - after warning her own employees not to do the same thing. It has also been, therefor, established that Hillary broke BOTH the FOIA and Federal Records Act over 15,000 times each.

Snowflakes would have an easier time convincing everyone on the planet that the world is flat than thy would that Hillary did not intentionally break laws / commit crimes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have no idea why she "needed" her own server. You'll have to ask her about that.

As for "information and retention laws", which laws are you referring to? Please, quote the statute.

it's above in this very message you seem to be choosing to ignore. i cited (4) relevant laws you were asking for and her failure on each one - you somehow missed my providing you exactly what you requested.

good job.

You cited one law, and I pointed out the required mens rea elements, which are clearly missing in this case. The rest were departmental regulations, not laws.

you must be a clinton the way you look for loopholes for bad behavior.

and you continue to fall back on "but she didn't mean it". of which you can't ever provide evidence for or prove in the same manner you're asking others to do.

now what?

I have not once stated "she didn't mean it" - that's you guys, twisting my words around.

you wanna wordsmith, i'll played. just doesn't seem to go as well coming back at you as it does going out does it?

Well, the difference is that I'm using the legal definition of terms - and you're making things up, and assigning them to me.

One is how our legal system works, and the other is how trolling on the internet works.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server.

well now even she disagrees with you.

Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email

"I’m going to give the same answer I’ve given for many months," Clinton replied. "It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."

---
got anything else?

I think you're not following the conversation. In what way do you think Clinton has disagreed with me?

no - you just keep wordsmithing and giggling.

"No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server"

she conducted official business on this server. there is no denying it. there was classified info on there, there is no denying that. there is mail from obama on here of which he said he never knew about it, of which cannot be denied. why would obama deny knowledge of a perfectly legal server?

you're just walking in circles and playing word games so i'm out.

have fun.

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You obviously don't understand what you read - she is talking about using non-government email for not-classified communication.

Hillary broke laws and compromised national security by having classified on her computer, intentionally or not. That has been established.

No, it hasn't. Repeating the same lie, over and over, won't magically make it come true.

It has also been established by the FBI itself that they recovered over 15,000 OFFICIAL documents Hillary never turned in as required by law - after warning her own employees not to do the same thing. It has also been, therefor, established that Hillary broke BOTH the FOIA and Federal Records Act over 15,000 times each.

Snowflakes would have an easier time convincing everyone on the planet that the world is flat than thy would that Hillary did not intentionally break laws / commit crimes.

What are the criminal statutes associated with violating the Federal Records Act?

 

[iceberg]

well now even she disagrees with you.

Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email

"I’m going to give the same answer I’ve given for many months," Clinton replied. "It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed, and as I’ve said and now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing, and many other people in the government."

---
got anything else?

I think you're not following the conversation. In what way do you think Clinton has disagreed with me?

no - you just keep wordsmithing and giggling.

"No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server"

she conducted official business on this server. there is no denying it. there was classified info on there, there is no denying that. there is mail from obama on here of which he said he never knew about it, of which cannot be denied. why would obama deny knowledge of a perfectly legal server?

you're just walking in circles and playing word games so i'm out.

have fun.

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.

i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.

i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.

you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.

tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?

 

[AntonToo]

You obviously don't understand what you read - she is talking about using non-government email for not-classified communication.

Hillary broke laws and compromised national security by having classified on her computer, intentionally or not. That has been established.

No it HAS NOT

Again, you operate on FANTASY, not reality.

In reality there was investigation that found that it could not be reasonably established that Hillary intentionally put classified information at a risk of exposure. Review of that investigation came to the same conclusion.

So you can muse and daydream about Hillary all day long but in reality this matter is concluded as far our justice system goes.

 

[easyt65]

I have no idea why she "needed" her own server. You'll have to ask her about that.

As for "information and retention laws", which laws are you referring to? Please, quote the statute.

I posted the exact laws Hillary violated numerous times a while back and have no intention of doing so again - look them up.

Hillary violated rules/Regs/Laws covering:

Handling of Classified Information
- Safe/container type

- Location of storage container

- Encryption

- Giving access to people who have no clearance or need to know

- Classification of the information
*** Her staff stated she often ordered them to remove the classified markings so they could send classified via UNCLASS methods

DESTRUCTUION OF CLASSIFIED
- Personally destroying cell phones and devices with ROCKS, removing the sim cards (which are also classified products) and not properly disposing of them / storing them, etc is HIGHLY ILLEGAL. There are specific laws regarding the destruction of classif8ed:
--- Paper versus Devices
---Specific requirements for govt-approved shredders ONLY
--- Required specific locations, methods etc

...none of which Hillary and her staff reportedly followed.

 

[iceberg]

it's above in this very message you seem to be choosing to ignore. i cited (4) relevant laws you were asking for and her failure on each one - you somehow missed my providing you exactly what you requested.

good job.

You cited one law, and I pointed out the required mens rea elements, which are clearly missing in this case. The rest were departmental regulations, not laws.

you must be a clinton the way you look for loopholes for bad behavior.

and you continue to fall back on "but she didn't mean it". of which you can't ever provide evidence for or prove in the same manner you're asking others to do.

now what?

I have not once stated "she didn't mean it" - that's you guys, twisting my words around.

you wanna wordsmith, i'll played. just doesn't seem to go as well coming back at you as it does going out does it?

Well, the difference is that I'm using the legal definition of terms - and you're making things up, and assigning them to me.

One is how our legal system works, and the other is how trolling on the internet works.

ooooo - now i'm a troll because we don't agree.

typical left bullshit. extremify the other person so you can feel better about yourself.

 

[easyt65]

No it is not relevant, because from the law perspective it does not matter if Hillary used .gov or personal server.

THAT IS A LIE!

Laws, Rules, Regs governing systems, encryption, storage, etc are very specific!

Again, you are asking people to believe that Hillary could conduct official government business that involved classified on a home Commodore 64 ... or more realistically be placed on an aides' laptop sitting atop the naked junk of a pedophile sexting an under-aged girl back at home.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you're not following the conversation. In what way do you think Clinton has disagreed with me?

no - you just keep wordsmithing and giggling.

"No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server"

she conducted official business on this server. there is no denying it. there was classified info on there, there is no denying that. there is mail from obama on here of which he said he never knew about it, of which cannot be denied. why would obama deny knowledge of a perfectly legal server?

you're just walking in circles and playing word games so i'm out.

have fun.

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.

i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.

i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.

you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.

tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?

This is all nonsense.

You have provided one (1) statute that you claim Hillary has broken. I showed you, very explicitly, that the statute you provided requires intent for a violation. It's in plain English.

You are arguing that intent doesn't matter. That is factually incorrect. Period. Whether or not you have a different opinion, the law is clear, and your feelings don't matter.

We are discussing the law. Not how you feel, not how you're trying to meet me half way, not what you think should be true.

 

[iceberg]

no - you just keep wordsmithing and giggling.

"No, she didn't "use" her server to hold classified information. There was some spillage of classified information in a small fraction of the emails on her server"

she conducted official business on this server. there is no denying it. there was classified info on there, there is no denying that. there is mail from obama on here of which he said he never knew about it, of which cannot be denied. why would obama deny knowledge of a perfectly legal server?

you're just walking in circles and playing word games so i'm out.

have fun.

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.

i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.

i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.

you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.

tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?

This is all nonsense.

You have provided one (1) statute that you claim Hillary has broken. I showed you, very explicitly, that the statute you provided requires intent for a violation. It's in plain English.

You are arguing that intent doesn't matter. That is factually incorrect. Period. Whether or not you have a different opinion, the law is clear, and your feelings don't matter.

We are discussing the law. Not how you feel, not how you're trying to meet me half way, not what you think should be true.

no.

i am arguing intent isn't the only factor in all this. you are saying it is. i provide that needs to be done if you're to setup your own server and ask if hillary did this. you say "dunno ask her".

you simply refuse to hold her accountable for her actions and what happened from those.

got it. all i need to know about you. i suppose you now know all you need to about me and i'm some super-troll only here to bother you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You cited one law, and I pointed out the required mens rea elements, which are clearly missing in this case. The rest were departmental regulations, not laws.

you must be a clinton the way you look for loopholes for bad behavior.

and you continue to fall back on "but she didn't mean it". of which you can't ever provide evidence for or prove in the same manner you're asking others to do.

now what?

I have not once stated "she didn't mean it" - that's you guys, twisting my words around.

you wanna wordsmith, i'll played. just doesn't seem to go as well coming back at you as it does going out does it?

Well, the difference is that I'm using the legal definition of terms - and you're making things up, and assigning them to me.

One is how our legal system works, and the other is how trolling on the internet works.

ooooo - now i'm a troll because we don't agree.

typical left bullshit. extremify the other person so you can feel better about yourself.

When you make up statements, and then try to tell me that I said them, that's trolling. It's failing to debate in good faith.

Do you disagree?

 

[easyt65]

What are the criminal statutes associated with violating the Federal Records Act?

So you are now trying to challenge the FBI who openly declared they found over 15,000 OFFICIAL documents Hillary never turned in 'as required by the FOIA and Federal Records At'?

Take that up with them, skippy.

Telling your lies over and over again in defense of a felon who could not even win her party's nomination does not make it fact, either.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm sorry I've upset you. I accept your concession.

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.

i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.

i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.

you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.

tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?

This is all nonsense.

You have provided one (1) statute that you claim Hillary has broken. I showed you, very explicitly, that the statute you provided requires intent for a violation. It's in plain English.

You are arguing that intent doesn't matter. That is factually incorrect. Period. Whether or not you have a different opinion, the law is clear, and your feelings don't matter.

We are discussing the law. Not how you feel, not how you're trying to meet me half way, not what you think should be true.

no.

i am arguing intent isn't the only factor in all this. you are saying it is. i provide that needs to be done if you're to setup your own server and ask if hillary did this. you say "dunno ask her".

you simply refuse to hold her accountable for her actions and what happened from those.

got it. all i need to know about you. i suppose you now know all you need to about me and i'm some super-troll only here to bother you.

I'm not saying that intent the "only" factor. But it's a necessary factor. It is an element of the crime.

To convict someone of a crime, all of the elements of the crime must have occured. That's how the law works.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What are the criminal statutes associated with violating the Federal Records Act?

So you are now trying to challenge the FBI who openly declared they found over 15,000 OFFICIAL documents Hillary never turned in 'as required by the FOIA and Federal Records At'?

Take that up with them, skippy.

Telling your lies over and over again in defense of a felon who could not even win her party's nomination does not make it fact, either.

I'm challenging you. You are the one making the claims here - and since the FBI has not charged Clinton with a crime (and the IG has agreed with that decision), trying to fall back on statements from last year isn't going to help much.

If Clinton broke the law, show me the law. Provide the statute, and we can discuss it.

 

[iceberg]

you must be a clinton the way you look for loopholes for bad behavior.

and you continue to fall back on "but she didn't mean it". of which you can't ever provide evidence for or prove in the same manner you're asking others to do.

now what?

I have not once stated "she didn't mean it" - that's you guys, twisting my words around.

you wanna wordsmith, i'll played. just doesn't seem to go as well coming back at you as it does going out does it?

Well, the difference is that I'm using the legal definition of terms - and you're making things up, and assigning them to me.

One is how our legal system works, and the other is how trolling on the internet works.

ooooo - now i'm a troll because we don't agree.

typical left bullshit. extremify the other person so you can feel better about yourself.

When you make up statements, and then try to tell me that I said them, that's trolling. It's failing to debate in good faith.

Do you disagree?

i wasn't making anything up - that was what i understood you to say. it would appear i was wrong in that but instead of circling back to the core discussion, you tagged me a troll and moved on crying something about intent.

 

[easyt65]

No it HAS NOT Again, you operate on FANTASY, not reality.

Thank you for the lovely post that simply states, 'UH-UH!'

I posted links showing Obama himself calling documents on Hillary's server 'so classified' that their release would cause grave damage to national security' as well as links to the stories that confirm Hillary's server was hacked by 'foreign entities'.

In response, you and other snowflakes keep repeating, 'Nuh-Uh!'

Brilliant. Thank you for that overwhelming retort.

 

[iceberg]

you do that.

If you're going to flounce out of the thread because the conversation isn't going the way you want it to, I'm going to mock you for it. That's the way it goes.

except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.

i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.

i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.

you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.

tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?

This is all nonsense.

You have provided one (1) statute that you claim Hillary has broken. I showed you, very explicitly, that the statute you provided requires intent for a violation. It's in plain English.

You are arguing that intent doesn't matter. That is factually incorrect. Period. Whether or not you have a different opinion, the law is clear, and your feelings don't matter.

We are discussing the law. Not how you feel, not how you're trying to meet me half way, not what you think should be true.

no.

i am arguing intent isn't the only factor in all this. you are saying it is. i provide that needs to be done if you're to setup your own server and ask if hillary did this. you say "dunno ask her".

you simply refuse to hold her accountable for her actions and what happened from those.

got it. all i need to know about you. i suppose you now know all you need to about me and i'm some super-troll only here to bother you.

I'm not saying that intent the "only" factor. But it's a necessary factor. It is an element of the crime.

To convict someone of a crime, all of the elements of the crime must have occured. That's how the law works.

then you should change your name to theLAWYERisin since you're the forum legal expert.