IMMIGRATION NEGOTIATION!!! THE ART OF THE DEAL WITH IT.

[Coydog]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails, only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

[madhatter]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails,not preserved per federal records act.... only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

CRIME...PERIOD...stop being so oblivious...

[Coydog]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails,not preserved per federal records act.... only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

CRIME...PERIOD...stop being so oblivious...

We've gone from espionage down to "she didn't backup her emails".

There are no penalties for former federal employees who have been found to have violated the records act. None. Any email received from or sent to a .gov account was automatically backed up at the time and her 30,000+ emails are already part of the federal record.

Case closed.

[madhatter]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails,not preserved per federal records act.... only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

CRIME...PERIOD...stop being so oblivious...

We've gone from espionage down to "she didn't backup her emails". she violated BOTH laws and should have been charged and had her day in court...but no grand jury was ever convened...instead bill clinton met with lynch and then suddenly comey was in charge of a branch of gov he has no business being part of to decide the fate of blockbuster revelations...but of course you see nothing wrong w that...

There are no penalties for former federal employees who have been found to have violated the records act. None. Any email received from or sent to a .gov account was automatically backed up at the time and her 30,000+ emails are already part of the federal record.she INTENTIONALLY SKIRTED THE LAW by using a private server....why do you feign ignorance?

Case closed.

charges should have been brought and she should have had her day in court to defend them...but the FBI who has no authority to do so dismissed the charges saying no prosecutor would prosecute them...it wasn't is call to make, yet NO ONE in the obama administration questioned that..

you just keep making excuses for her...

[Coydog]

charges should have been brought and she should have had her day in court to defend them...but the FBI who has no authority to do so dismissed the charges saying no prosecutor would prosecute them...it wasn't is call to make, yet NO ONE in the obama administration questioned that..

The FBI did not "dismiss" any charges, the FBI recommend against prosecution because only 1 person in 107 years had ever been prosecuted under the gross negligence theory and no one has ever been convicted. SCOTUS ruled "knowingly with intent" is the standard of the statute, not gross negligence. No rational prosecutor would prosecute given the clear lack of intent, thus leading to the recommendation.

Out of curiosity, what should the FBI have done?

[madhatter]

charges should have been brought and she should have had her day in court to defend them...but the FBI who has no authority to do so dismissed the charges saying no prosecutor would prosecute them...it wasn't is call to make, yet NO ONE in the obama administration questioned that..

The FBI did not "dismiss" any charges, the FBI recommend against prosecution because only 1 person in 107 years had ever been prosecuted under the gross negligence theory and no one has ever been convicted. SCOTUS ruled "knowingly with intent" is the standard of the statute, not gross negligence. No rational prosecutor would prosecute given the clear lack of intent, thus leading to the recommendation.

Out of curiosity, what should the FBI have done?

the FBI does NOT have that authority...the FBI should have convened a grand jury to decide if the evidence warranted a hearing...stop being a clown...

[Highway Star]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails, only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

If you actually research it, the evidence that she broke the law is public and very clear.

[madhatter]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails, only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

If you actually research it, the evidence that she broke the law is public and very clear.

he doesn't care to know and expects everyone else to follow suit...

to any thinking person the evidence is OVERWHELMING...in a court of law she would be convicted, which is why the FBI who has no authority to do so exonerated her nearly 2 mos before she was interviewed, an interview that was neither under oath nor recorded...but we're all supposed to ignore that...

[Coydog]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails, only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

If you actually research it, the evidence that she broke the law is public and very clear.

What law did she break and how did she break it?

[madhatter]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails, only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

If you actually research it, the evidence that she broke the law is public and very clear.

What law did she break and how did she break it?

the one you keep ignoring and saying hasn't been prosecuted, as if that's a reason not to...and you know that...failure to secure classified info in your possession is a crime...it's up to a court to decide the sentence if any, not the cops ( FBI)...but again you don;t care about that...meanhwile trump must have done something and you are hellbent on investigating that til a crime is found...no thanks...

[Highway Star]

so hillary accidentally put that stuff on her server? and allowed non secure personnel access to it unintentionally? you don;t get to use ignorance as a defense, hillary either...

Private server allowed. Over 30,000 emails, only 110 contained classified information, none marked classified.

If you actually research it, the evidence that she broke the law is public and very clear.

What law did she break and how did she break it?

Damn it. It's a Federal felony to mishandle classified information, punishable by 10 years in prison. You don't have to intentionally disclose it to anyone. She CLEARLY broke the law and should be prosecuted for it, just like any of the other 5 million people who hold security clearances would be if they did the same thing. Start reading, in particular page 2:

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The LAW:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

(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; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or 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; or

(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.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.

(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

But by all means, please feel free to believe whatever you want, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[Highway Star]

Furthermore, it's coming out that there was a FBI conspiracy to give Hillary a pass on this.

All those people are going to jail.

[Coydog]

Damn it. It's a Federal felony to mishandle classified information, "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States" punishable by 10 years in prison. You don't have to intentionally disclose it to anyone but you must have intent. She CLEARLY broke the law and should be prosecuted for it, just like any of the other 5 million people who hold security clearances would be if they did the same thing with intent. Start reading, in particular page 2:

Under application of USC 793, intent must be established. 30,000+ emails, only 110 were determined to contain classified information and none marked classified. If a document lacks the required classified headings, why would someone believe it was classified, particularly since all properly marked classified documents were transmitted via a separate classified system.

Pretty hard to establish intent given those facts. And if you're gonna bring up the Federal Records Act, better go after Colin Powell too - he admitted he never backed up or made hard copies of emails from his private server.

You must look further than the statute to understand how it is applied. The legal standard for USC 793 was determined in Gorin v United States. This is the primary reason Comey recommended that Justice not prosecute.

I have other issues with Clinton's use of a private email server, but this right wingnut idea the FBI tried to help Hillary win the election is beyond absurd. Does anyone, anyone at all, really think Comey's last minute theatrics regarding the Abedin emails was designed to help Clinton?

C'mon.

But by all means, please feel free to believe whatever you want, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Likewise.

[Highway Star]

Damn it. It's a Federal felony to mishandle classified information, "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States" punishable by 10 years in prison. You don't have to intentionally disclose it to anyone but you must have intent. She CLEARLY broke the law and should be prosecuted for it, just like any of the other 5 million people who hold security clearances would be if they did the same thing with intent. Start reading, in particular page 2:

Under application of USC 793, intent must be established. 30,000+ emails, only 110 were determined to contain classified information and none marked classified. If a document lacks the required classified headings, why would someone believe it was classified, particularly since all properly marked classified documents were transmitted via a separate classified system.

Pretty hard to establish intent given those facts. And if you're gonna bring up the Federal Records Act, better go after Colin Powell too - he admitted he never backed up or made hard copies of emails from his private server.

You must look further than the statute to understand how it is applied. The legal standard for USC 793 was determined in Gorin v United States. This is the primary reason Comey recommended that Justice not prosecute.

I have other issues with Clinton's use of a private email server, but this right wingnut idea the FBI tried to help Hillary win the election is beyond absurd. Does anyone, anyone at all, really think Comey's last minute theatrics regarding the Abedin emails was designed to help Clinton?

C'mon.

But by all means, please feel free to believe whatever you want, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Likewise.

Clearly you didn't read the whole thing.

(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.

It's VERY clear.

[madhatter]

Damn it. It's a Federal felony to mishandle classified information, "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States" punishable by 10 years in prison. You don't have to intentionally disclose it to anyone but you must have intent. She CLEARLY broke the law and should be prosecuted for it, just like any of the other 5 million people who hold security clearances would be if they did the same thing with intent. Start reading, in particular page 2:

Under application of USC 793, intent must be established. 30,000+ emails, only 110 were determined to contain classified information and none marked classified. If a document lacks the required classified headings, why would someone believe it was classified, particularly since all properly marked classified documents were transmitted via a separate classified system.

Pretty hard to establish intent given those facts. And if you're gonna bring up the Federal Records Act, better go after Colin Powell too - he admitted he never backed up or made hard copies of emails from his private server.

You must look further than the statute to understand how it is applied. The legal standard for USC 793 was determined in Gorin v United States. This is the primary reason Comey recommended that Justice not prosecute.

I have other issues with Clinton's use of a private email server, but this right wingnut idea the FBI tried to help Hillary win the election is beyond absurd. Does anyone, anyone at all, really think Comey's last minute theatrics regarding the Abedin emails was designed to help Clinton?

C'mon.

But by all means, please feel free to believe whatever you want, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Likewise.

Clearly you didn't read the whole thing.

(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.

It's VERY clear.

regardless it's for a COURT to decide...first via a grand jury, then via court trial if applicable...and yes it is VERY clear, that's why the FBI made sure to change the language, subvert the legal process and make sure it never went any further...

hmmm

Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.

of course she denies this but enough evidence suggests otherwise that perhaps she needs to see a day in court as well...