Indifference and ignorance: Delving deep into the Clinton e-mail saga

Clinton wasn't alone in mishandling communications, classified data.

Read the whole story

 

[soulsabr]

jwo7777777[/url]":4kwhy7a7]The 2016 Presidential Campaign season, brought to you by the adjective: "Haughty".

And the number: "joint".

 

[soulsabr]

NickBII[/url]":157bgpli]

Questors[/url]":157bgpli]
Comey also pretenses that no prosecutor would, etc., etc. Simply because he said that, does not make it a true or accurate statement. There is a young man (Navy) who is facing 5 years in federal prison over a picture he forgot to erase from his phone when he bought a new one. A single photo he did not share, there was no intent to distribute or share, no charge of intent to commit a crime of any sort was levied against him (with regard to intent), other than being careless with classified information. Yet his conviction is all but etched in stone. Clinton gets a pass? This is not applying the law equitably, let alone fairly.
If your grasp of right and wrong with handling sensitive information is based solely on a quote from a man who's final conclusion is at least questionable, you should take some time and do research, rather than be spoon fed.

Which he tried to cover up by destroying multiple electronic devices. Hillary, OTOH, sent her entire server to the FBI to be analyzed and they got everything they wanted from it. Congress didn't get everything they wanted from her emails, but I think if we lived in a country where the FBI director recommended charges for disobeying Congress I'd already have an asylum application in north of the border.

Hate-reading the law because you're in the midst of Clinton Derangement Syndrome makes for poor reading comprehension.

An example:

This is just one set of statues: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As a U.S. Navy recruit, years ago, recruits were told from the time we reached bootcamp to treat all information as classified to avoid a mistake and to cover your butt. Reminders of this ideal were frequently made. A U.S. citizen should expect the Secretary of State to be fully aware of this pitifully simple principle and act on it.

To quote the statute "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person."

See that bold bit? It means you have to prove in Court, in front of a defense lawyer, to the beyond a Reasonable Doubt level; that the accused not only sent the damn email to someone without proper clearance they "willfully and knowingly" did so. "Willful" means 'deliberate,' "knowing" is self-explanatory; so for her to have done either you'd have to prove, (again, to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, in open court, in front of a highly paid defense attorney whose entire job is to disprove you) that she knew the info she sent was classified. OTOH that Navy recruit knew that cell pic was of his engine room.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of why Hillary violated a statute that could result in criminal charges from anyone who has actually read the statutes with enough objectivity to go "goddamnit 'knowing' again. this one won't work." Most of them actually seem to be written by true morons who can't figure out that the level of deliberateness in "gross negligence" is pretty much the same as 'knowing' or 'willful.'

Forgive my English but I do believe the second "or" does not pertain to the "knowingly and willfully" part of the law. Thus we also have:

or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

I believe what she's done more than qualified as publishing when she sent said emails.

 

[soulsabr]

DarthSlack[/url]":1c34ypl4]

vertical2010[/url]":1c34ypl4]
God help us if this lying, paranoid, unethical, self-serving fraud becomes president.

Which lying, paranoid, unethical, self-serving fraud? Trump or Clinton?

Yes?

 

[soulsabr]

NickBII[/url]":2a7x2txu]

soulsabr[/url]":2a7x2txu]

NickBII[/url]":2a7x2txu]

Questors[/url]":2a7x2txu]
Comey also pretenses that no prosecutor would, etc., etc. Simply because he said that, does not make it a true or accurate statement. There is a young man (Navy) who is facing 5 years in federal prison over a picture he forgot to erase from his phone when he bought a new one. A single photo he did not share, there was no intent to distribute or share, no charge of intent to commit a crime of any sort was levied against him (with regard to intent), other than being careless with classified information. Yet his conviction is all but etched in stone. Clinton gets a pass? This is not applying the law equitably, let alone fairly.
If your grasp of right and wrong with handling sensitive information is based solely on a quote from a man who's final conclusion is at least questionable, you should take some time and do research, rather than be spoon fed.

Which he tried to cover up by destroying multiple electronic devices. Hillary, OTOH, sent her entire server to the FBI to be analyzed and they got everything they wanted from it. Congress didn't get everything they wanted from her emails, but I think if we lived in a country where the FBI director recommended charges for disobeying Congress I'd already have an asylum application in north of the border.

Hate-reading the law because you're in the midst of Clinton Derangement Syndrome makes for poor reading comprehension.

An example:

This is just one set of statues: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As a U.S. Navy recruit, years ago, recruits were told from the time we reached bootcamp to treat all information as classified to avoid a mistake and to cover your butt. Reminders of this ideal were frequently made. A U.S. citizen should expect the Secretary of State to be fully aware of this pitifully simple principle and act on it.

To quote the statute "knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person."

See that bold bit? It means you have to prove in Court, in front of a defense lawyer, to the beyond a Reasonable Doubt level; that the accused not only sent the damn email to someone without proper clearance they "willfully and knowingly" did so. "Willful" means 'deliberate,' "knowing" is self-explanatory; so for her to have done either you'd have to prove, (again, to the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard, in open court, in front of a highly paid defense attorney whose entire job is to disprove you) that she knew the info she sent was classified. OTOH that Navy recruit knew that cell pic was of his engine room.

I have never heard a coherent explanation of why Hillary violated a statute that could result in criminal charges from anyone who has actually read the statutes with enough objectivity to go "goddamnit 'knowing' again. this one won't work." Most of them actually seem to be written by true morons who can't figure out that the level of deliberateness in "gross negligence" is pretty much the same as 'knowing' or 'willful.'

Forgive my English but I do believe the second "or" does not pertain to the "knowingly and willfully" part of the law. Thus we also have:

or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

I believe what she's done more than qualified as publishing when she sent said emails.

Problem is Courts are Constitutionally required to interpret statutes in the way most favorable to the Defendant. In 1916 "publish" would have meant something involving dead tree books or newspapers in their thousands, not one electronic communication sent to one person. Moreover the first clause clearly applies to email because it talks about "communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person," which describes email perfectly. Then you get into an interesting Constitutional issue because if you can commit a 10-year-felony just by publishing a book on the drone war in Pakistan (which is entirely Top Secret-Classified so the Pakistanis can pretend it does not happen) there's some pretty hardcore freedom of speech issues brought up.

Thus, it would thus be virtually impossible to get a Judge to go along with this.

I did not know that. Given lawyer speak how the hell do we ever convict anybody on anything? It is pretty insane that through a change in the vernacular, either through region or via time, a law could completely change meaning. Hell, wouldn't that mean that a federal law could mean something different from one side of the country to the next?

 

[soulsabr]

BioTurboNick[/url]":awusnili]

Rigby[/url]":awusnili]The conclusion that the only potential crime was the negligent handling of classified information is incorrect. We have FOIA laws for a reason -- intentionally evading them is also a criminal offense. While it may be impossible to prove her intention, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Comey exposed every lie that she told the public regarding her reasons for maintaining a private server. He did this to ensure that every sentient voter would understand that her clear purpose was to protect her correspondence from any FOIA queries. In my opinion, this should disqualify her from any public office or appointment... nevermind the highest office in the land.

To protect her personal correspondence, yes. Which isn't supposed to be subject to FOIA.

Except the FBI already acknowledged that they recovered deleted work emails.

 

[soulsabr]

Devin[/url]":3e8q0akt]

soulsabr[/url]":3e8q0akt]

jwo7777777[/url]":3e8q0akt]The 2016 Presidential Campaign season, brought to you by the adjective: "Haughty".

And the number: "joint".

Hah. Been a while since I last heard that.

Glad to see at least somebody caught the line.