And if they find it, what will that tell you?
Second Republican Resigns From House Freedom Caucus
- Thread starter Synthaholic
- Start date
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #102
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
if they were found to be accesed by hackers y ou complete idiot. should somebody that illegally set up this situation be made to pay for it???
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #104
I cant believe I have to tease this out of you.
And why did she get hacked? Was it because she conducted her official business on her own unsecure server, despite gov't regulations and laws to the contrary? SOmething that would be a felony?
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #106
So you agree that there is no criminal Investigation of Hillary Clinton
Yes_____
NO_____
If you say No can you provide a link to a source...thanks
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using ...
www.ijreview.com/.../264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret...
'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be ... “'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal ... believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move
www.ijreview.com/.../264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret...
'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be ... “'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal ... believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #109
None of that is accurate and is more changing the subject...at this time and date Hillary Clinton is not the subject of an FBI Criminal Investigation looking to find evidence she committed crimes ...that happens to be a hard fact not an opinion...Hillary is not the Target of a Criminal probe into her behavior....
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
The fact that the email was not marked classified at the time does not excuse Mrs. Clinton. This is because information gathered from foreign government sources, a great deal of her email was so sourced, is presumed classified. Mrs Clinton received Departmental training on recognizing and handling classified materials. Presumed classified information is defined by Executive Order as "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." (see full text of that section of Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d), below)
THIS IS FROM THE DAILY KOS left-wing nutcase
hope that isnt "CORPORATE MEDIA" just pulling our chains again!!
lmao
THIS IS FROM THE DAILY KOS left-wing nutcase
hope that isnt "CORPORATE MEDIA" just pulling our chains again!!
lmao
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the ...
www.dailykos.com/.../-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-la...
Daily Kos
Loading...
Aug 28, 2015 - The federal laws violated by the private server ... WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email server are ... It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't ...
www.dailykos.com/.../-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-la...
Daily Kos
Loading...
Aug 28, 2015 - The federal laws violated by the private server ... WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email server are ... It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't ...
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #112
She "may have violated " LOl but she is not being investigated by the FBI is she ...
She is not being criminally investigated .Period.
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
more Daily Kos:
On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned former CIA Director John Deutch who had committed similar violations. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.
All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work on his unsecured personal laptops that were connected to his home commercial internet. In other words, pretty much what Hillary did on a much larger scale.
Other, lesser, federal officials have been recently prosecuted for downloading classified materials onto private servers or media and taking them home, and they were charged even though the materials was never publicly released and they had no intention to do so or to harm the United States. Links in thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned former CIA Director John Deutch who had committed similar violations. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.
All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work on his unsecured personal laptops that were connected to his home commercial internet. In other words, pretty much what Hillary did on a much larger scale.
Other, lesser, federal officials have been recently prosecuted for downloading classified materials onto private servers or media and taking them home, and they were charged even though the materials was never publicly released and they had no intention to do so or to harm the United States. Links in thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
Applicable statutes and Executive Order:
1) 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Full copy of this Section of the 1917 Espionage Act is below. It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't intend to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power. However, that purpose is not required to convict under this Subsections (e) and (f) of this statute.
Subsections (a)-(d) and (g)(conspiracy) reference and require intent to injure the United States. The plain-language of Subsection (e) and particularly (f) are different:
The difference is this phrase that references purpose in the first three subsections; "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, Note: "is to be used"
The language in (e) is close but omits reference to purpose to injure: "he possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". The word intent is not there. Note: "could be used"
Finally, the offense specified at (f) requires not willful action, simply a negligent action:
1) 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Full copy of this Section of the 1917 Espionage Act is below. It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't intend to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power. However, that purpose is not required to convict under this Subsections (e) and (f) of this statute.
Subsections (a)-(d) and (g)(conspiracy) reference and require intent to injure the United States. The plain-language of Subsection (e) and particularly (f) are different:
The difference is this phrase that references purpose in the first three subsections; "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, Note: "is to be used"
The language in (e) is close but omits reference to purpose to injure: "he possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". The word intent is not there. Note: "could be used"
Finally, the offense specified at (f) requires not willful action, simply a negligent action:
TyroneSlothrop
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #115
I now know you cannot come up with anyone claiming Clinton is the subject of an FBI criminal investigation ....you lose
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
Finally, the offense specified at (f) requires not willful action, simply a negligent action:
(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—
(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—
Siete
Platinum Member
- May 19, 2014
- 34,325
- 3,993
- 1,130
a 7 month old twitter link ... BBBBAAAAAWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
WELL ! I'm convinced,
LMAO
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
no YOU lose idiot
when they are done she is the one who will be charged with crimes.
SHE DOESNT HAVE TO HAVE KNOWN IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW
SHE DOENST HAVE TO HAVE PERSONALLY SET UP THE SERVER
keep trying....................................
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
bedowin62
Gold Member
- Feb 6, 2014
- 17,997
- 2,027
- 280
The differences between Sections (e) and (f) and the various other offenses covered in Section 793 comes down to the element of intent to injure the US or act to the advantage of a foreign power. These are not requisite elements of the offenses covered under these sections of the Espionage Act.
2) 1950 Federal Records Act
44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/...
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
2) 1950 Federal Records Act
44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/...
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Zone1 Islam, Jihad, A "Worldwide Caliphate", or just in the "Christian West"? Has this been Prophesied of in The Bible?
- Started by TruthSeeker112125
- Replies: 0
-
