Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
Results 141 to 158 of 158
  1. #141
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Legally, the focus isn't on Trump, its on Trump's campaign and his staff in that campaign. Trump has not been indicted and the FBI has pretty well said they aren't planning to indict him.
    Not on Trump? Come on, open your eyes and ears. It is all about subverting the Trump agenda. The FBI and the DOJ have been obstructing justice, withholding and slow walking information. Let's see how deep their cover-up is. Wait 'til tomorrow.

    It's all building up to impreachment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Hillary has been investigated and they could not find enough evidence to prove she violated a law they could prosecute her for. She didn't destroy any evidence. She didn't smash anything, she didn't erase anything. The company that managed her email server erased archives, aka deleted emails. There is no evidecne she instructed them to do that at the time they did it. They were recovered anyway from bakups and there was nothing especially different on them than any of the other emails.
    They found plenty of evidence. The problem was the head of these bureaus stifled the evidence and failed to bring charges against her. Her emails were subpoenaed and then destroyed - 33,000 of them. Why? Why would she do that? What was she hiding?

    As Andy McCarthy explained it in the National Review:
    In fact, the espionage act—which regulates the handling of intelligence by government officials — does not refer to classified information; it refers to information relating to the national defense. Moreover, it does not prohibit solely the transmission of such information; it criminalizes the communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; causing communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; permitting the removal of that information from its proper place of custody through gross negligence; permitting that information to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed through gross negligence; or, failing to make a prompt report to superiors in the government when an official knows that the information has been removed from its proper place of custody, communicated to someone not authorized to have it, lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed. See also Title 18 United States Code Section 2071 (prohibiting destruction of records).
    https://observer.com/2015/08/the-cou...or-needed-now/

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    She broke state department rules, and she was irresponsible,
    No, she did more than break the rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    but they didn't have what they needed to show she broke the law, and that is what you need to take people to trial. Your opinion of it and the opinion of conservative pundits is not exactly sound legal reasoning or argument.

    You have been sold a bunch of ********.
    Come off it. No, she broke the law:

    18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material.

    18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] 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 one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

    18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

    18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/7177/...be-ben-shapiro

    Peter

  2. #142
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Honest question: Why should anyone trust an op-ed from Ben Shapiro (from 2016) over a formal report from the DOJ?

  3. #143
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Honest question: Why should anyone trust an op-ed from Ben Shapiro (from 2016) over a formal report from the DOJ?
    Others have pointed out the same laws have been broken:

    Attorney Gregg Jarrett says that Hillary Clinton could be charged with at least 13 different crimes for her involvement in the Uranium One scandal and the Trump ‘peegate’ dossier.
    http://www.upwardpost.com/politics/2...east-13-crimes

    Rudy Giuliani told Sean Hannity tonight that he's found two more statutes that Hillary Clinton may have violated in her private email server scandal, bringing the total to 15.
    Giuliani said that she committed serious criminal violations, including negligence with classified information, mail fraud, wire fraud and obstruction of justice.
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/0...ons-are-piling

    “It is a crime to use a public office to confer a benefit to a foreign government in exchange for money,” Jarrett wrote.
    “It is often referred to as ‘pay-to-play,’ but it can be prosecuted under a variety of anti-corruption laws passed by Congress, including the federal bribery statute (18 USC 201-b), the federal gratuity statute (18 USC 201-c), the mail fraud statute (18 USC 1341), the wire fraud statute (18 USC 1343), the program bribery statute (18 USC 666), and the Travel Act (18 USC 1952).”
    https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/hi...erent-charges/

    Peter


  4. #144
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not on Trump? Come on, open your eyes and ears. It is all about subverting the Trump agenda. The FBI and the DOJ have been obstructing justice, withholding and slow walking information. Let's see how deep their cover-up is. Wait 'til tomorrow.

    It's all building up to impreachment.
    Many would like to impeach him, but they have to control congress first, and they have to present a plausible and supported case for high crimes and misdemeanors. As for subverting Trump's agenda, didn't the GOP subvert Obama's agenda? isn't subverting the agenda of the opposing party what parties generally do? Do you expect the opposition to support his agenda?

    But honestly, agenda wise, the people actually in charge of investigating the Trump campaing and Russian meddling were put in place by Trump and the GOP. So... its pretty hard to finger anyone else in leading the charge.

    They found plenty of evidence. The problem was the head of these bureaus stifled the evidence and failed to bring charges against her. Her emails were subpoenaed and then destroyed - 33,000 of them. Why? Why would she do that? What was she hiding?
    No, they didn't find pelenty of evidence. They in fact failed to find enough to take her to trial. They recovered the destroyed emails, she wasn't hiding anything significant compared to what was already found before. As to why, the people that managed her email answered that. They had a prior order to periodically clean out deleted emails and they did exactly that. They didn't pick and choose emails, they just whited out old stuff that was already marked as deleted.

    The link you posted about the espianage act is specific to defense information. The State Deapartment doesn't routinely deal in defense information, the department of defense does that. The state department handles diplomacy and international relations. None of hillary's emails were specifically defense related so those statues don't apply.


    No, she did more than breaking the rules.
    Come off it. No, she broke the law:
    18 USC §793. : This only applies to defense secrets, she didn't handle defense secretes in her emails.

    18 USC §1924: You have to prove that she knowingly removed them and intended for them to get into the wrong hands. They specifically could not prove intent in court.

    18 USC §798: This law is specific th cryptogrophy and communication intelligence

    18 USC §2071: This one almost works, but again, Clinton nor her staff destroyed anything. The ISP that hosted her email deleted the emails based on a prior work order they had to clean up the server. So you can't show she Willingly did this.

    So in every case, if you look at the actual law, it either doesn't apply or you can't prove mens-rea for it. Her defense laywers would tear these cases to shreds. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the DOJ knows it, only the pundits on the right don't understand it because they don't want to. It interupts their fantacies of putting her in jail and would allow them too much time to consider the ****-storm president they put into office.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  6. #145
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    18 USC §793. : This only applies to defense secrets, she didn't handle defense secretes in her emails.
    Support please. I have never heard this.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    18 USC §1924: You have to prove that she knowingly removed them and intended for them to get into the wrong hands. They specifically could not prove intent in court.
    I am pretty sure the "knowingly removed" is the part where she had a private server for state buisnes. She knew, or ought to have known that she would have been handling classified info.
    That seems pretty self evident. Are you apply it differently? What do you suppose she didn't know was removed?
    To serve man.

  7. #146
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Support please. I have never heard this.
    The best thing is to read it yourself, here is the link

    18 USC §793
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

    But I'll quote a bit for you... The Hillary is a Crook folks site section F which is the one that talks about "gross negligence"
    "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, 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"

    I bolded the part that discusses what material is covered. So if its not one of those things and not related to national defense, this statute doesn't apply. The first section of the law has a much longer more specific list of the kind of defense secrets the law was meant to protect...

    The title of the statue is " Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"

    Now, the right-wing websites and pundits are generally not going to point this out to you. Its right there in the law for anyone to see. But it's not good for their argument so they don't mention it.

    I am pretty sure the "knowingly removed" is the part where she had a private server for state business. She knew, or ought to have known that she would have been handling classified info.
    That seems pretty self evident. Are you apply it differently? What do you suppose she didn't know was removed?
    "Ought to have known" doesn't cut it with mens-rea statues, you have to actually know that you are doing something you are not supposed to. Clinton claims she didn't know that she couldn't use a private server. She points to other officials telling her she could, and doing it themselves. She says no one told her she couldn't do it. And she claims she didn't think the contents of the emails were classified. All that argues against her "knowingly" breaking the rules. And in court you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did know and did it anyway. That is not easy, especially when you are dealing with a laweyr who knows exactly how to phrase her answers such that givers her the greatest protection from such claims.

    And technically, she didn't remove anything. She wrote emails on a private server. She is the one creating the classified information in most of these instances. There are a few where she transmits clasified documents she didn't originate, but they were not "removed" from anywhere. The statute also says she has to do it without authority. She's was the secretary of state. She actually had pretty broad powers to classify and declassify information in that office so long as it was created by the state department. Most of what's in her emails was state department material. So she could make a strong case that she does have authorization to store such material.

    Taking her to court and convicting her of a crime is a lot harder than "we all know she did something wrong" You have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the specific law was violated as written.

    I think it might be possible but it is very unlikely that they could get a conviction. She covered her ass too well, and the statues are too specific and have too many loopholes she can claim due to the possition she was in at the time.

    PS: I do think they should absolutely revoke her clearance if she still has it, and she clearly violated department rules. But it can't be proven conclusively that she broke any of these laws. That was the FBI conclusion as well. It chided her for bad behavior, but said they couldn't make it stick in court because they can't prove intent.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  9. #147
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The best thing is to read it yourself, here is the link

    18 USC §793
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

    But I'll quote a bit for you... The Hillary is a Crook folks site section F which is the one that talks about "gross negligence"
    "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, 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"

    I bolded the part that discusses what material is covered. So if its not one of those things and not related to national defense, this statute doesn't apply. The first section of the law has a much longer more specific list of the kind of defense secrets the law was meant to protect...

    The title of the statue is " Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"

    Now, the right-wing websites and pundits are generally not going to point this out to you. Its right there in the law for anyone to see. But it's not good for their argument so they don't mention it.
    That is very good.
    I wonder if the courts have made a distinction between "secrets of the state" and "military secrets of the state".
    I assume it is marked classified more a "military" reason to begin with.

    Of course I don't have that answer, and rather then think all the legal minds of the right are dishonest, I think it is more reasonable to assume that there is no such distinction, or that the state has failed to make the distinction in the past.
    I mean, it's not like the state is known for sticking to the letter of the law and all, or even stated intent.

    For example, what law has been applied to top secret documents in the past?





    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    "Ought to have known" doesn't cut it with mens-rea statues, you have to actually know that you are doing something you are not supposed to.
    No "ought to have known" is a reference to you sworn duty. IE we have reason to believe that you are responsible for knowing.
    You can replace the phrase with whatever legal language covers that, but it certainly does exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That is not easy, especially when you are dealing with a laweyr who knows exactly how to phrase her answers such that givers her the greatest protection from such claims.
    In the way that you are defending this, you would exempt even stated phrases of knowledge in the past. Like "I didn't know I was supposed to defend the Untied states against enemies".
    Response, that was in your oath of office..

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    And technically, she didn't remove anything
    She "removed" the information as soon as it was transmitted outside of the state server. Be it her creation, or her receiving information from another. Her e-mail outside of the state, is her sitting outside the window and passing notes into and out of the gov.
    That is the most tecnical sense. E-mails are not contained in the either.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    She's was the secretary of state. She actually had pretty broad powers to classify and declassify information in that office so long as it was created by the state department.
    So your going to argue that she declassified something just long enough for her to receive it outside of the state, and then re-classified it when it whet back to the state? Or that only the copy she possessed outside of the state was declassified?

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Most of what's in her emails was state department material. So she could make a strong case that she does have authorization to store such material.
    That may be a fine case, however we can't miss state the manner in which she has a responsibility to store the material. Its not like she is allowed to take everything from work home with her, or copy whatever she likes.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I think it might be possible but it is very unlikely that they could get a conviction. She covered her ass too well, and the statues are too specific and have too many loopholes she can claim due to the possition she was in at the time.
    Look, the final opinion stated was that she was basically stupid with classified info. Considering how others have been treated and judged under the same law, I don't think any reasonable person thinks that what she did was any different then the illegal "Negligent" level.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    PS: I do think they should absolutely revoke her clearance if she still has it, and she clearly violated department rules. But it can't be proven conclusively that she broke any of these laws. That was the FBI conclusion as well. It chided her for bad behavior, but said they couldn't make it stick in court because they can't prove intent.
    The last thing I heard was the FBI saying "no prosecutor would reasonably take the case" That to me isn't even the same legally as "she didn't break any rules".
    Your arguing that she didn't know she broke rules at best, or didn't have any intent to break rules.
    To serve man.

  10. #148
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The last thing I heard was the FBI saying "no prosecutor would reasonably take the case" That to me isn't even the same legally as "she didn't break any rules".
    Your arguing that she didn't know she broke rules at best, or didn't have any intent to break rules.
    You are all over the map here.

    Look, there are two questions you are conflating...

    1. Did Hillary break any rules in her handling of classified information

    2. Could Hillary be successfully prosecuted for a crim in her handling of classified information

    They are two very different questions and the way you answer them is very different. A man could be a murderer but never be prosecuted because you can't prove to a jury that he killed anyone. You take someone to trial when you think you have the evidence to prove what they did, not just because you hold the opinion that they did it.

    Does that make sense?

    So... I'm arguing avout whether she could be prosecuted successfully, not whether I personally think she is shitty at handling classified material.

    You have to pick a specific law to prosecute someone under, you don't get to mix and match statutes.

    Does that make sense?

    OK, so, There is only one of these laws that doesn't require intent, that is "18 USC §793" it only requires you show gross negligence. All the others require you to show the person intended to do it, AKA they were a spy, leaker, sabotour etc... and were trying to expose govenrment secrets or were paid to do it or so on. Not accidents, mistakes, or missunderstandings of the rules.

    So why not Gross Negligence then? Because 18 USC §793 is only for Defense material, not for any classified document. 18 USC §793 doesn't even reference classified status, it just lists various types of information related to national defense. Hillary Clinton's office emails are not about national defense, they are about the work of the state department.

    So if you go with the other laws, you need to prove she intentionally gave classified data to other people or intentionally exposed it. If you go for 793 you need to show that she was working with information specific to national defense. You can't have it both wasy and use part of 793 and part of another law and mix them together.

    People like to compare Hillary to they guy who was prosecuted for taking pictures of his nuclear sub engine. He was prosecuted under 793. A nuclear Sub's engine is definately covered as Defense information. Add to that, he pled builty to it. Its a pretty clear cut case and different because of what information was at play.

    Of course I don't have that answer, and rather then think all the legal minds of the right are dishonest, I think it is more reasonable to assume that there is no such distinction, or that the state has failed to make the distinction in the past.
    What legal minds? All I see are pundits with no legal training or experience making laymen arguments and not even reading the laws they are discussing. If you aren't prepared to offer a legal argument as to why she clearly broke a given law, then you can't really defend that she should have been prosecuted.

    I've explained exactly why they cannot. In most cases they cannot prove intent, and in the other they can't prove the statute is applicable because it is specific to information related to national defense and the military.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #149
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Not on Trump? Come on, open your eyes and ears. It is all about subverting the Trump agenda. The FBI and the DOJ have been obstructing justice, withholding and slow walking information. Let's see how deep their cover-up is. Wait 'til tomorrow.

    It's all building up to impeachment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Many would like to impeach him, but they have to control congress first, and they have to present a plausible and supported case for high crimes and misdemeanors. As for subverting Trump's agenda, didn't the GOP subvert Obama's agenda? isn't subverting the agenda of the opposing party what parties generally do? Do you expect the opposition to support his agenda?
    Muller is manufacturing the case by his partisan panel of Democrats.

    I have never seen subversion like this.

    I expect the opposing party to look out for the well-being of the nation. There is no looking out for the nations good here. IMO, it is all a power game by the Democrats to regain power to continue the run of the country towards socialism and big government. Do American's want such a government? Is half the country that brainwashed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But honestly, agenda wise, the people actually in charge of investigating the Trump campaing and Russian meddling were put in place by Trump and the GOP. So... its pretty hard to finger anyone else in leading the charge.
    Agenda-wise? What evidence is there to back that statement? I think Rosenstein is protecting his own posterior.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    They found plenty of evidence. The problem was the head of these bureaus stifled the evidence and failed to bring charges against her. Her emails were subpoenaed and then destroyed - 33,000 of them. Why? Why would she do that? What was she hiding?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, they didn't find pelenty of evidence. They in fact failed to find enough to take her to trial.
    Of the emails they sifted through they found three classified and 113 containing classified information.

    Clinton had repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of the FBI investigation show that claim was incorrect.
    Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. FBI Director James Comey has said Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed.
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...il-controvers/

    Later that number was revised:

    In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.
    Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ons-email-def/

    However, he [Comey]called Clinton’s email setup "extremely careless."
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...il-controvers/

    They changed the document charge from "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" so as not to sway the election and not to make her guilty.

    The State Department’s policy as of 2005 is that all day-to-day operations are to be conducted on the official State Department information channel, which Clinton never used. She was also obligated to discuss her setup with several internal offices and demonstrate that it was properly secure, yet she did not. Some of those officers told the State Department Inspector General that they never would have allowed the private email setup had she asked.
    Clinton did not ensure that her work-related emails were preserved on the State Department system in real time, nor did she surrender them immediately when she left office. This made her virtually impervious to Freedom of Information Act requests for her emails while in office and beyond.
    Clinton’s email record remains incomplete. FBI investigators found thousands of work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 Clinton turned over to the State Department, and many more might still be out in the ether. Comey said there is no evidence these emails were deleted in an attempt to conceal information.
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...il-controvers/

    What is more, she compromised government information through her private server to possibly five different governments. How irresponsible is that? She is whom Democrats wanted for president?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They recovered the destroyed emails, she wasn't hiding anything significant compared to what was already found before. As to why, the people that managed her email answered that. They had a prior order to periodically clean out deleted emails and they did exactly that. They didn't pick and choose emails, they just whited out old stuff that was already marked as deleted.
    Two thousand of the 33,000?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The link you posted about the espianage act is specific to defense information. The State Deapartment doesn't routinely deal in defense information, the department of defense does that. The state department handles diplomacy and international relations. None of hillary's emails were specifically defense related so those statues don't apply.
    See U.S.A. 793(a, f).

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    No, she did more than breaking the rules.
    Come off it. No, she broke the law:
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    18 USC §793. : This only applies to defense secrets, she didn't handle defense secretes in her emails.
    How is top secret or classified information not a National Defense issue?

    §793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
    (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense 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, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense;
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...p37-sec793.pdf

    How do you know none of these highlighted areas do not apply to her? Did she transmit information that was classified over an unsecured server? Yes, she did.
    Since she was Secretary of State she would have been privileged to lots of correspondence that concerned national security.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    18 USC §1924: You have to prove that she knowingly removed them and intended for them to get into the wrong hands. They specifically could not prove intent in court.
    18 USC §1924
    (a)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.
    (c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

    Guilty as charged!

    information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...p37-sec793.pdf

    Clinton says that at the time, she thought her setup was allowed. But it’s hard not to be skeptical of that narrative because she was involved in multiple memos urging employees to minimize personal email use. And Bureau of Diplomatic Security employees tried unsuccessfully to get Clinton to use a department-issued BlackBerry smartphone as soon as she took office.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    18 USC §798: This law is specific th cryptogrophy and communication intelligence

    18 USC 798:
    (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.
    (b)As used in subsection (a) of this section—
    The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
    How does she not qualify?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    18 USC §2071: This one almost works, but again, Clinton nor her staff destroyed anything. The ISP that hosted her email deleted the emails based on a prior work order they had to clean up the server. So you can't show she Willingly did this.
    What do you mean? Over 33,000 subpoenaed emails were destroyed. 30,000 were handed over. 2,000 of those 33,000 were recovered, to my knowledge.

    Plus, do you think she has to be willing?

    Comey may not have remembered writing the words that should have indicted Clinton, but he had complete recall of his inability to read the law. He told the IG he thought “Congress intended for there to be some level of willfulness present even to prove a ‘gross negligence’ violation.” If Comey had ever read the legislative history, he would have known that in 1948, Congress amended the original Espionage Act of 1917 to add a “gross negligence” provision that did not require intent or willfulness.
    Amnesia must be contagious at the FBI. Testifying before Congress, Strzok feigned no recollection of using his computer to make the critical alteration that cleared Clinton. He did, however, directly implicate the FBI director.
    She knew she should have used the government server. She was irresponsible, per Comey. There is no doubt she was irresponsible and very possibly compromised sensitive government information.

    We know that on or about May 2, 2016, Comey composed a statement summarizing Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents, concluding that she was “grossly negligent.” Those pivotal words have a distinct legal meaning, and are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which makes it a felony to handle classified documents in a “grossly negligent” manner.
    Comey used the exact phrase not once, but twice.
    Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...ame-trump.html

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:
    (a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    (b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
    U.S.C. 793(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, 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.
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...p37-sec793.pdf

    "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains.
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ons-email-def/

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So in every case, if you look at the actual law, it either doesn't apply or you can't prove mens-rea for it. Her defense laywers would tear these cases to shreds.
    See above, per Comey and others. She should have known better. She compromised sensitive/classified government information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    She knows it, the FBI knows it, the DOJ knows it, only the pundits on the right don't understand it because they don't want to. It interupts their fantasies of putting her in jail and would allow them too much time to consider the ****-storm president they put into office.
    Rubbish.

    IMO, thank goodness for Trump! Someone to negotiate through this mess left by Obama and a socialist agenda with corruption in the highest positions in government, the Deep-State.


    Peter

  12. #150
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So... I'm arguing avout whether she could be prosecuted successfully, not whether I personally think she is shitty at handling classified material.

    You have to pick a specific law to prosecute someone under, you don't get to mix and match statutes.

    Does that make sense?
    I do. I think it is a powerful argument to say that the sighted law simply doesn't apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So why not Gross Negligence then? Because 18 USC §793 is only for Defense material, not for any classified document. 18 USC §793 doesn't even reference classified status, it just lists various types of information related to national defense. Hillary Clinton's office emails are not about national defense, they are about the work of the state department.
    This is my only reservation with that.
    You are the only person I have ever heard make this point. Not even the Legal mind pundits for hillary have argued that the law doesn't apply to her in this way.
    That tells me something. That MAYBE, you are incorrect, and the law doesn't apply like you think it does.

    Also, that legal minds on the right, have made the point that it DOES apply that way, tells me that MAYBE.. it actually does.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What legal minds? All I see are pundits with no legal training or experience making laymen arguments and not even reading the laws they are discussing. If you aren't prepared to offer a legal argument as to why she clearly broke a given law, then you can't really defend that she should have been prosecuted.
    Ben shapiro is lawyer, and is the source for the quoted laws she violated.
    I like ben because he generally does call out Republicans when they are ignorant of the law and trying to apply it in ways that are silly.
    I think he would do the same for hillary in this case if your point were valid.


    SO, basically, I think you are mistaken.
    1) Because legal minds (IE lawyers) have come out and claimed that the law was miss applied because the statue she violated did not require intent and that Commey changed the law's application/definition by pretending it required intent.
    2) Because no legal minds on the left that I am aware of have even claimed them to be wrong on this point and in this way.
    3) Because while your point is interesting, and could very well be true, you are not a lawyer (that I'm aware of) and thus are likely to make a legal error of making a distinction where there is no legal distinction.
    Such as a distinction between national defense, and top secret national documents.
    4) I strongly suspect that top secret documents fall under "national defense", because I don't see any relevant distinction to them.

    To that end, if you can quote some other lawyer as making your point that would be helpful.
    To serve man.

  13. Thanks PGA2 thanked for this post
  14. #151
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I do. I think it is a powerful argument to say that the sighted law simply doesn't apply.


    This is my only reservation with that.
    You are the only person I have ever heard make this point. Not even the Legal mind pundits for hillary have argued that the law doesn't apply to her in this way.
    That tells me something. That MAYBE, you are incorrect, and the law doesn't apply like you think it does.

    Also, that legal minds on the right, have made the point that it DOES apply that way, tells me that MAYBE.. it actually does.


    Ben shapiro is lawyer, and is the source for the quoted laws she violated.
    I like ben because he generally does call out Republicans when they are ignorant of the law and trying to apply it in ways that are silly.
    I think he would do the same for hillary in this case if your point were valid.


    SO, basically, I think you are mistaken.
    1) Because legal minds (IE lawyers) have come out and claimed that the law was miss applied because the statue she violated did not require intent and that Commey changed the law's application/definition by pretending it required intent.
    2) Because no legal minds on the left that I am aware of have even claimed them to be wrong on this point and in this way.
    3) Because while your point is interesting, and could very well be true, you are not a lawyer (that I'm aware of) and thus are likely to make a legal error of making a distinction where there is no legal distinction.
    Such as a distinction between national defense, and top secret national documents.
    4) I strongly suspect that top secret documents fall under "national defense", because I don't see any relevant distinction to them.

    To that end, if you can quote some other lawyer as making your point that would be helpful.
    I agree with your points!
    1) Many legal minds have made the point that the language revised by Comey was used to change the nature of the case.
    3, 4) It puzzles me how Sigfried could made such a statement. USC 793 gives various scenarios that are clear cut distinctions with the use of the word "or" and concern national security, IMO.

    I.e.,
    Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense....or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss
    ...respecting the national defense 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... concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,...under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States
    Those "or's" cover a lot of ground.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------

    It is funny how many of the connections with Russia have to do with Hillary Clinton and her op-research on Trump, yet exclude her ties with Russia in the Uranium One deal, the money funneled into the Clinton Foundation, her cover up on destroying emails, her carelessness, and how Obama knew the Russians were trying to influence the election and did nothing about it, then downplayed this until after the election because he thought the outcome of the election would be different. He thought Hillary was going to win. When it all went wrong and Trump won the Deep-State switched the focus of the Russian influence of the election all onto Trump. They appointed a special councel to investigate Trump, but not Clinton. That was all pushed under the rug by the Deep-State. How crooked is this???

  15. #152
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;561334]I do. I think it is a powerful argument to say that the sighted law simply doesn't apply.
    This is my only reservation with that.
    You are the only person I have ever heard make this point. Not even the Legal mind pundits for hillary have argued that the law doesn't apply to her in this way.
    That tells me something. That MAYBE, you are incorrect, and the law doesn't apply like you think it does.

    Also, that legal minds on the right, have made the point that it DOES apply that way, tells me that MAYBE.. it actually does.
    Well, I can't blame you for being skeptical, its what we do here after all.

    The statute was written in WWI and it was meant to fight spies. It doesn't talk about "classified" data at all. It was written before classifications existed as they do today. It gives a lot of specific examples of clearly military related information. It's intent is pretty clear in that respect. Now, national defense can be defined pretty broadly. I'm offering a narrow deffinition of it here. PGA think sit can be any classified data, that's a rediculously broad deffinition.

    Here's the rub with that. The supreme court ruled in Gorin vs US that the only way that "related to national defense" could be considered constitutional was if it could be shown the perpitrator had good reason to beleive that what they were doing would be harmful to the united states. In cases where it is clearly military secrets, that's easy to demonstrate. But we are talking about the secretary of state, sending emails about her normal daily business in that role, on a server she controlls herself to other collegues in the state department. To show that Hillary Clinton would reasonably think that was a danger to the United States security is going to be a real upbill struggle in court. I certainly would be incredibly skeptical of such a claim.

    If you want to read about this subject...
    An article written by a former military prosecutor on the subject.
    https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/wh...-clinton-case/

    Here is one that doesn't take a side, but argues about how vague and difficult to consistently apply the laws in question are
    http://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/culr/...d-information/

    This is an older one that discusees the cases that are often compared to Clinton and why they are different
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...t-cases-221744

    All good reading I'd suggest diving into. Yes some of them you could find passages that might support the case agaisnt clinton, but the nitty gritty is far from the "THE FIX IS IN!" arguments coming from right wing pundits. Those turkeys don't care about the actual law, thy just hate Clinton and wan to see her in hot watter and they want to get their base fired up about it the same. So they won't give you the nuance or the legal anaylasis. They won't actually read the law and think critically about whether they, in court, could convict her.

    And even if we don't make a legal eagle argument here, consider the intent of these laws. The were written in war time to protect America from spies and sabotours. Hillary Clinton was not a spy or sabotour. Using a private email server is not the same as handing documents over to the enemy. She was doing the same thing she'd normally do, only in a somewhat less secure way. We know many other government officials have done the same before her. Its true, they changed the rules a bit when she was in office, but the basic act that she did, many others did before, and no one is saying they were knowingly harming the united states. Getting a jury to effectively convict her as a spy is pretty far fetched.

    So if you want to get legal on it, then it's a very hard sell due to the requirements of the law. If you want to talk about it generally, then it's hard to say she is the kind of person the law was meant to prosecute.

    The only way you can get to see Hillary as builty is if you take a little from A and a little from B. Blind yourself to the intent of the law and take the legal language as broadly as you can. But is that the way we want the government prosecuting people? Ignoring the intent of the law and using the broadest possible interpertation of the words, and only in ways that benefit prosecution? That's the stuff orwelian nightmares are made of my friend.

    ---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Muller is manufacturing the case by his partisan panel of Democrats.

    I have never seen subversion like this.
    I take it you are young then and don't study American history very much at all. This is small potatoes.

    Two thousand of the 33,000?
    No one at this point is disputing that the content of Hillary's emails are considered classified at this point in time.

    How is top secret or classified information not a National Defense issue?
    Because not all classified information is related to national defense. If a diplomat discusses hot dog tarrifs or negotiation about a teenager caught in another country buying that would be classified material. It is not however related to national defense. One item that turned up recently was the justice department classifying how much they paid for a confrence table. The whole system of classified information is wildly out of control in the US.

    So no, not all classified data relates to national defense, not even by a long shot. See U.S.A. 793 was written during WWI to stop military spies and sabotours, not to fight beaurocrats.

    How do you know none of these highlighted areas do not apply to her? Did she transmit information that was classified over an unsecured server? Yes, she did.
    Since she was Secretary of State she would have been privileged to lots of correspondence that concerned national security.
    How do you know she did? In a court of law, which is the standard I am discussing, you have to prove the case that she is guilty, not simply assume she is and forcer her to show otherwise. So it is on those who claim that she endangered the national defense to prove that she did, and that she did so knowingly.

    18 USC §1924
    This law requires that you prove intent. Can yuou prove that Clinton intended to transmit this data to someone who shouldn't have it? She very clearly stated on multiple occasions that she understood that she was permitted to use a private server for work emails. Ad she testified that she didn't think the content of those emails would be considered secret. They were only marked that way after the investigation began in all but a few circumstances. You would have to prove, beyond doubt that she knew the were classified and intentionally put them somewhere she considered unsafe.

    So, what evidence do you have of that?

    How does she not qualify?
    Because what she did was not obviously injurious to the united states security. Unless it is patently obvious, then you can't claim she did it with the intent to harm the US. And if you can't claim that, you can't satisfy the mens-rea of the statute. If you don't know what mens-rea is, go look it up.

    What do you mean? Over 33,000 subpoenaed emails were destroyed. 30,000 were handed over. 2,000 of those 33,000 were recovered, to my knowledge.
    Plus, do you think she has to be willing?
    Yes the statute says "willingly" so you have to be willing for it to be willingly.

    She knew she should have used the government server. She was irresponsible, per Comey. There is no doubt she was irresponsible and very possibly compromised sensitive government information.
    That does not get her convicted of a crime however. Again the act you site is about defense information. The supreme court ruled on the act stating that the only way it is constitutional, is if the party prosecuted can be shown to have the intent of harming the united states by their actions. Go read about Gorin vs United States if you want to understand the legal issues here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorin_v._United_States
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #153
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    @ sig.. most relevant text from the first link (I didn't read it all yet)

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

    The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.
    (bold mine for emphasis)

    on the other hand it says this
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.
    Basically, very recently they tried to prosecute specifically on gross negligence in regards to that specific statue.


    ----
    So this is where the confusion comes in. Your point makes sense, until they decided to nail someone to the wall, and recently used the law in the exact same sense as Hillary is accused of doing it. The idea that it is or is not "far worse" than what Hillary did could be debated. So they chose not to do it with Hillary, and now both points are equally right.
    Was the "fix" in? Well, if they had so desired to "make an example" of hillary, they could have prosecuted her under the "gross negligence". The "Fix" appeared to be in by the FBI writing letters of exhortations before speaking to her, or completing the investigation.

    Look, I agreed with Comie finding that Hillary lacked intent, but he most certainly, and clearly changed the verbiage of "gross negligence" to something that wouldn't violate that law, (evidenced by his editing his conclusion) and that didn't follow from the evidence. Had he not, she could have rationally been charged under it. (because that was already done.. and recently). That isn't to say that the courts would not have rejected that reasoning.. but that is their job, not the FBI's IMO.


    So, I think you did a good job of bringing a new point on this and new information that I have never heard before. Which is a credit to you (sorry couldn't give rep), and a point of shame to the media who failed to make clear this point when all the hoopla was going on.
    Even with the new info, the whole thing still stinks, for reasons above. It seems clear to me that she got preferential treatment, not that it would have changed the outcome persey, but the processes you and I would have been subjected to simply were not applied, and that is where the big problem is.
    To serve man.

  18. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  19. #154
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Totally fair MT. I'd never say that Clinton doesn't have privilege in a situation like this. She's powerful and if you want to take her on, you need an ironclad case. She's a lawer so she knows all the right moves to make, and has all the resources needed to fight a legal battle to the very end. The average person has none of that and is way more likely to get taken to the matt by the feds.

    I think that's a marked difference from the idea they let her go because they are her political cronies and simply corrupt which is what the right wing punditry are pushing. And it does stink. The way I see it, she used her power and privilage to break rules and felt she was above having to follow the normal procedures. I certainly don't think she was trying to put intelighence into unauthorized hands, but she none the less was acting like the normal rules didn't apply to her.

    And truth is, they don't, because when you have enough power, you can bend the rules a fair bit. That's a fact of life to some degree. Now... they shouldn't bend too far, and I'm not convinced she should be in jail for this, but I would say she should have her clearance stripped because of it. That seems totally approrpiate to me. I've wondered why Trump hasn't done that, he could, pretty much any time he'd like to. I read there was a formal inquiry in the DOJ that could lead to that, but that was from about a year back.

    Anyhow, proud to have gotten someone to actually listen to my argument on this and see things a little differntly. I've argued the topic a bunch and most folks just end up in a round robin jumping from statute to statute saying, "ya but..." and I give up and move on. Thanks for thinking about it and reading the links.

    The irony is, I don't like Hillary Clinton much at all. I have some respect for her political accumen, and being smart and capable. But she's not my kind of person and not my kind of politics at all. I like earnest people, a bit hard to find in poitics though.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  21. #155
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    how Obama knew the Russians were trying to influence the election and did nothing about it
    This point has already been refuted in this thread with no reply from anyone. Please don't make it again without additional information.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #156
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,580
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Totally fair MT. I'd never say that Clinton doesn't have privilege in a situation like this. She's powerful and if you want to take her on, you need an ironclad case. She's a lawer so she knows all the right moves to make, and has all the resources needed to fight a legal battle to the very end. The average person has none of that and is way more likely to get taken to the matt by the feds.

    I think that's a marked difference from the idea they let her go because they are her political cronies and simply corrupt which is what the right wing punditry are pushing. And it does stink. The way I see it, she used her power and privilage to break rules and felt she was above having to follow the normal procedures. I certainly don't think she was trying to put intelighence into unauthorized hands, but she none the less was acting like the normal rules didn't apply to her.

    And truth is, they don't, because when you have enough power, you can bend the rules a fair bit. That's a fact of life to some degree. Now... they shouldn't bend too far, and I'm not convinced she should be in jail for this, but I would say she should have her clearance stripped because of it. That seems totally approrpiate to me. I've wondered why Trump hasn't done that, he could, pretty much any time he'd like to. I read there was a formal inquiry in the DOJ that could lead to that, but that was from about a year back.

    Anyhow, proud to have gotten someone to actually listen to my argument on this and see things a little differntly. I've argued the topic a bunch and most folks just end up in a round robin jumping from statute to statute saying, "ya but..." and I give up and move on. Thanks for thinking about it and reading the links.

    The irony is, I don't like Hillary Clinton much at all. I have some respect for her political accumen, and being smart and capable. But she's not my kind of person and not my kind of politics at all. I like earnest people, a bit hard to find in poitics though.
    So, yea there is a bit of the confusion because our laws and the application of them in general suck. Which is why things in that situation stink so much. Now we can move on to the second sin.
    Which is, did they fix the problem. Like suppose another Hillary comes along and does the exact same thing. We are in the technology age, and this stuff matters. A big deal is made of "personal/vs private". (and I know this is moving off topic so no response necessary.)
    Just seems like it is better to have private email leave a state server, then for a private server to get accidentally used for state secret stuff. I know the stinky politicians would hate it.. but it just seems to me that The clinton example is pretty much exhibit A as to why we need it.
    What I mean is that, if the systemic problem hasn't been addressed, then all the fuss over hillary is pretty moot.
    To serve man.

  23. #157
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What I mean is that, if the systemic problem hasn't been addressed, then all the fuss over hillary is pretty moot.
    They'd already changed the rules so that you are supposed to use a secure server for all government email when Hillary was SOS. It was a new rule at that point, but they had it, which was why what she did was a no-no when it wasn't for previous tenants of the office. I'd think its a safe bet that Pompeo isn't using a private email server.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  24. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
  25. #158
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They'd already changed the rules so that you are supposed to use a secure server for all government email when Hillary was SOS. It was a new rule at that point, but they had it, which was why what she did was a no-no when it wasn't for previous tenants of the office. I'd think its a safe bet that Pompeo isn't using a private email server.
    Well good, I think we can move on from the "deep state" conspiracy theories meant to deflect from Trump now.

    Anything further on the Steele Dossier?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •