Politics and Religion

Sorry, but whether the information is or was “classified” is not the issue
marikod 1 Reviews 176 reads
posted

The real question is whether the top secret information “related to national defense.” If so and if she acted with “gross negligence” in permitting the national defense information to be removed to her server, she committed a federal felony:

 
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…or information, relating to the national defense, (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—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

 
            Given the prevalence of hacking, a grand jury certainly could find she acted with gross negligence in permitting the info to reside on her server. The only real question is whether this clearly was national defense information –maybe an email telling Chris Stevens his request for extra security was denied- which we don’t really know yet.

          Whether the info was classified then or later is irrelevant to criminal liability here. Your article addresses a different statute and a misdemeanor at that

nuguy461283 reads

...what portends the future of the country with one of these 2 occupying the WH?

The Donald did not have the best of nights either and I think he is in some trouble as his " brand" is now a bit tainted.

Far to early to make any longer term prognostications with any accuracy but this is going to be much longer ride, in both parties, than most thought before

GaGambler153 reads

I find it interesting that Rubio is now the betting favorite to win the GOP nod.

Maybe The Donald should have shown up at that last debate after all.

Actually I think Bernie being so strong in Iowa and New Hampshire makes Hillary a much better candidate in the fall. Just imagine how weak a candidate Hillary would have been, if she had an automatic coronation. Bernie has ZERO chance of gaining traction in the big industrial states of the North, California or the South. This weekend, I watched brief excerpts of a speech she gave at a town hall gathering in Iowa, I was impressed. I have never heard Hillary speak like that ever. The primaries continue, it's all about who ends up with the most delegates,  I suspect Hillary has all the delegates she needs wrapped up already. The 2016 Democrat primaries, IMHO, are just a dog and pony show for the MSM to write and talk about.

If Trump loses New Hampshire, he's cooked, I think he will immediately drop out of the race. You can stick a knife in Jeb, he's effectively dead man walking at this point. The Bush brand is still toxic! Christie and Kaische still have a slight chance, if Rubio stumbles. At this point, I'm guessing, all the establishment money will now begin to flow to Rubio, he is now their guy.

The establishment has found their guy and he will appeal to a broad swath of the R electorate and in the GE if he makes it.

THIS is the candidate the Dems fear, not the Donald.

........hot and heavy. There is also no love lost between the former love birds Bush and Rubio. There is also Rubio's flip flop on immigration that I expect Cruz and Bush to fully exploit. Of course if Trump wins New Hampshire, it's likely he goes on to win the nomination.

-- Modified on 2/2/2016 12:09:30 PM

GaGambler130 reads

I do agree that there is no love lost between Rubio and Bush and it's definitely in Rubio's best interest to get rid of Bush as quickly as possible and he will likely pick up all of Jeb's support as the "establishment candidate"

I don't see Rubio going anywhere, I don't think it's fluke that he is now the oddsmakers choice to win the nomination. I am still not counting out either Trump or Cruz. It's almost definitely a three man race right now.

Rubio is definitely more feared than Trump.

TwoMints96 reads

To Rubio's credit, though he's far from original making this claim this cycle, he's making a believer out of people.

The truth is I've never voted D, I'd probably do so. He's the same thing. He's a D pretending to be a conservative. He's for open boarders. He'll get into office but up a fake fight and claim he just can't get it passed and we'll go another cycle while we get a million or more a year entering and not leaving. Using our system to their benefit, (takers) and shipping their money over seas..  We much all be idiots to allow it to happen.

Posted By: wolverine3647
Rubio is definitely more feared than Trump.

GaGambler104 reads

Which of course makes him an establishment Republican.

He would accomplish one thing however. He would make Obama look like a "tough guy" in comparison. I don't know who comes across as personally weaker, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio?

TwoMints122 reads

I guess you all will have to continue ignoring the email scandal.  It's like in liberal's minds that it doesn't matter. It's one of the biggest breaches in government security of modern times. She makes Snowden look like a kindergartner.  

Do that many people not care or just can't they not fathom what see did? If she, and people are say she did, had human intelligence on her server, that's Treason.  

I'll lay 4 to 1 that Biden is the nominee.  
 

Posted By: HONDA
Actually I think Bernie being so strong in Iowa and New Hampshire makes Hillary a much better candidate in the fall. Just imagine how weak a candidate Hillary would have been, if she had an automatic coronation. Bernie has ZERO chance of gaining traction in the big industrial states of the North, California or the South. This weekend, I watched brief excerpts of a speech she gave at a town hall gathering in Iowa, I was impressed. I have never heard Hillary speak like that ever. The primaries continue, it's all about who ends up with the most delegates,  I suspect Hillary has all the delegates she needs wrapped up already. The 2016 Democrat primaries, IMHO, are just a dog and pony show for the MSM to write and talk about.  
   
 If Trump loses New Hampshire, he's cooked, I think he will immediately drop out of the race. You can stick a knife in Jeb, he's effectively dead man walking at this point. The Bush brand is still toxic! Christie and Kaische still have a slight chance, if Rubio stumbles. At this point, I'm guessing, all the establishment money will now begin to flow to Rubio, he is now their guy.

GaGambler127 reads

those are the current betting odds on Biden.

Personally, I am thinking about putting a couple of bucks on Biden at that price. I think it's a distinct possibility and I have been saying so since the beginning that I have serious doubts that Hillary will even be on the ballot come November. I offered 1-3 odds months ago, but got no takers.

....... Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said as much, about the main purpose for setting up a select committee to investigate emails and Benghazzi.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable,” McCarthy said to Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”
-- Modified on 2/2/2016 1:47:03 PM

It can reveal a scandal. It has failed to do so, yet. It may yet. But, like the whole Beghazzi, Fast and Furious, Planned Parent Hood, etc., etc., etc., the public is largely seeing the Republican's call of 'scandal' as the little boy who called wolf once too often!  ;)

Look, I KNOW the Hugh Hewitt's, Judge Napitalino's (or whatever that guys name on FOX is), Andrea Tantaros's, Charles Krathammer's of this world have convicted HRC of treason and have sent her to ADX in Colorado for life without parole....I get it..Would be alot easier for Trumo or Cruz to win in Nov without Hillary....Because in GOP world, life and death revolves around the electoral college & whatever it takes to get the GOP candiate to 270 electoral votes...

She did not share secrets with someone not authorized to see them (which is what David Pateraus did) and of course, she didn't sell secrets to enemies, which is what Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen did...This is without a doubt, the biggest partsian hit job in American political history...Republicans failed to take her down after the 11 hour Benghazi marathon, so this is the next step...

From a nuetral site:

"Hillary Clinton's email travails seem to go on and on. The State Dept. announced yesterday that 22 of her emails were top secret and cannot be released to the public. However—and this is very important—none of those emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received, so Clinton could not have known they shouldn't have gone through her private server. The classification as top secret came later. It is not known if she wrote the emails herself, received them from others, or was cc'ed by subordinates". (V)

I can't see anyone, in any administration, communicating 'Top Secret' info in emails. They have other systems in place for such communications.

The real question is whether the top secret information “related to national defense.” If so and if she acted with “gross negligence” in permitting the national defense information to be removed to her server, she committed a federal felony:

 
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…or information, relating to the national defense, (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—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

 
            Given the prevalence of hacking, a grand jury certainly could find she acted with gross negligence in permitting the info to reside on her server. The only real question is whether this clearly was national defense information –maybe an email telling Chris Stevens his request for extra security was denied- which we don’t really know yet.

          Whether the info was classified then or later is irrelevant to criminal liability here. Your article addresses a different statute and a misdemeanor at that

Clinton has maintained that she didn't send or receive email that was classified at the time, and that was the case with these emails. The "top secret" status came later. But their existence underscores the colossal irresponsibility for a secretary of State to use such a system. Inevitably material will show up that has no business being on an insecure server.

In the USA Today of all places

To echo the sentiments of 2 previous posts, Clinton's excuse or defense that material was not previously marked as classified is irrelevant. Or maybe we could talk about how we had a Secretary of State that can't recognize a piece of information that should have been marked? The initial offense is that she intentionally allowed/demanded the unsecured server to be used in the first place.

TwoMints115 reads

So what.  

He used personal email, he didn't have a server. And it's against the law. We should care.

What we are seeing is that all of these asshats did it. Obama, Kerry etc.. Probably Bush etc... And all of it is illegal and they all fucking knew it. So they'll try to cover for each other and may get away with it, but it doesn't make it right. What she did, just having the server is a Felony. Having classified, signed/marked doesn't matter at all that's a flat out lie she keeps telling, off of the government's system is against the law. She doesn't own that information, she doesn't own her personal emails on the government system. The government does, that means we own. She has no right to any of it.

She operated it to hide from oversight. Shady shit.

Not to mention, the foundation, her brother getting a mining contract no one else could for 50 years or some nonsense. Donation from foreign governments and people with business in front of the state depart. You can't deny it's all shady as fuck.

So feel free voting for her, I'd vote for a cactus first. When I see her or think of her and the first thing that comes to mind is SCUMBAG.  

Posted By: The Moose
email account during his service, I don't recall any flack being made...

And he used it for what? Keep in touch with his kids? Get a grocery list from his wife? Watch Porn? He had and used his secure State Department email. He said he used that for business.

HRC has admitted she should have had two accounts, that she did not use the State Department system and she had her own server. The only reason to do that is for physical security and privacy. So are you now going to claim her planned security and privacy was to guard State secrets? There was already a system for that which she intentionally avoided. Her fear was that her political foes would get a hold of her communications. She probably thought it was secure enough for State secrets. Her mistake, except now there are communications where she told her deputies to strip off the security heading before sending stuff.

Vote for Bernie. At least he seems to be quite honest.

Hillary set up a private server in her home to avoid congressional oversight.

Powell did no such thing.

A needed change I'd say.

  A Disappointment for Trump last night. :(

Register Now!