Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

To be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime you must have at least two people agree to commit an unlawful act.

That is not the case here.

Correct.
She should be charged with solicitation.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

What it shows is criminal intent... it may be the one email that hangs her....it will be used as evidence that not only was she aware of security regulations, she was also aware of exactly out to try and circumvent them.

Criminal intent is only an applicable aspect if an actual crime has taken place. No security regulation was circumvented.

So you are saying that can not be used as evidence in a court of law to show a defendants frame of mind prior to committing a crime.

I live in the US.. what country do you live in?

PS: You are banking that they never stripped the classification headers off of emails....never,,,not once....zero...nada....zilch... out of 1500 plus classified emails, it never ever happened once although you have an email where she instructs someone to do exactly that.

I would argue that every single instance they can find where an employee sent her email with classification headers removed after the date of the email in question would be committed with undeniable criminal intent.


I would love to see your face when the press conference goes live.

a reply to: NewzNose

Since when is what kind of person I am a question of substance in this issue?

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.



Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.


The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info

a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary's server was perfectly legal. That point has already been established by all parties.
mediamatters.org...

www.nationallawjournal.com...=1202719885284/Clinton-Legal-Liability-Small-In-Email-Mess?mcode=1202615549854&curindex=1

a reply to: Schmoe1223

Thanks for joining just to let us know people are stupid.

Hillary's email server became illegal the very second the first classified information was placed upon it.


Not only that, it also became property of the US Government the same way at the same time.


"Hillary's server was perfectly legal. That point has already been established by all parties.
mediamatters.org...

www.nationallawjournal.com...=1202719885284/Clinton-Legal-Liability-Small-In-Email-Mess?mcode=1202615549854&curindex=1 "


Nice try.... 1/2 out of 10 stars for a lame effort.

a reply to: Whatsreal

Sorry I can't seem to get passed the pop ups to see the article.
Ok got in.
SSDD

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

To be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime you must have at least two people agree to commit an unlawful act.

That is not the case here.

Correct.
She should be charged with solicitation.

That is a possibility, but would be a tough one to make stick.

a reply to: RickinVa

So you are saying that can not be used as evidence in a court of law to show a defendants frame of mind prior to committing a crime.

No crime was committed. It would be irrelevant in any legal process unless it was directly tied to a crime that has been committed.

I live in the US.. what country do you live in?

Is that somehow relevant, or just another arrogant teenage tactic to make yourself feel better?

You are banking that they never stripped the classification headers off of emails....never,,,not once....zero...nada....zilch... out of 1500 plus classified emails, it never ever happened once although you have an email where she instructs someone to do exactly that.

I'm banking on nothing whatsoever. I'm having fun watching you guys flop around without any sort of evidence to go off of. It's fun keeping a neutral position until evidence is presented.

I would argue that every single instance they can find where an employee sent her email with classification headers removed after the date of the email in question would be committed with undeniable criminal intent.

Based on what real evidence? Seems to me that you are the one "banking" on this.

I would love to see your face when the press conference goes live.

No matter what, I'm in a good position. I have not said she was guilty or not guilty. So I do not have to change my position based on the FBI findings.

You on the other hand have shoved your chips all-in on her guilt.

It's your face you should be worried about when the press conference goes live.

a reply to: Aliensun

Aready been determined that no hacks ever occurred. Server was always completely safe. Come on it was set up by a professional IT from the state department. No compromise ever happened.

But if you have anything the DOJ would sure love to hear from you.

a reply to: xuenchen

Or you might.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Fact :There is no criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton currently going on. .

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Fact :There is no criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton currently going on. .

If you say so.

But 100+ FBI investigators are doing something connected to her and her family foundation and her foreign investors and her pay for favors modus operandi. But, according to you, she isn't in this picture??!!

a reply to: butcherguy

Really? Because when he finally did get around to posting his source nine pages later it's just more regurgitated crap from republicans not even involved in the investigation.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

What's the delay?

a reply to: introvert

"I'm banking on nothing whatsoever. I'm having fun watching you guys flop around without any sort of evidence to go off of. It's funny keeping a neutral position until evidence is presented."


I have seen a lot... and I mean a lot of your posts on numerous Hillary threads. I think your going a little bit too far to call yourself having a "neutral position"

I don't have time to waste..... tick tock goes the clock...... soon all will be revealed.


I have my popcorn stocked already.

We got 5-10 or so people very very close to being busted for some serious felony charges. 1 was granted immunity. The rest are very very nervous.

I sure would hate to be the boss of a very nervous bunch of people (5-10) of whom I had direct control over who also just happen to be caught up in an FBI investigation for some serious classified information felonies.

It all boils down to did she know or didn't she know?

She knew and she is screwed. Plain and simple.

a reply to: xuenchen

You know for sure it was?

Fox claims and reality are strangers.
mediamatters.org...

a reply to: RickinVa

I have seen a lot... and I mean a lot of your posts on numerous Hillary threads. I think your going a little bit too far to call yourself having a "neutral position"

Yes you have, and not once have you seen me post that she is either innocent or guilty. All I have asked for is evidence while you and others claim she is guilty.

You have no evidence, so why would you say she is guilty? Isn't that illogical?

I don't have time to waste..... tick tock goes the clock...... soon all will be revealed.

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Are you trying to convince yourself that you are correct, even though the possibility looms over your head that you are completely wrong?

She knew and she is screwed. Plain and simple.

Possibly, but the fact remains that you know nothing and have no evidence. Therefore we can conclude that all you are talking about is wishful thinking out of your ass.

Again, you have invested quite a bit in this. You better hope you are right and she is charged, because you put your reputation on the line over this.

a reply to: introvert


I have not one single doubt that Hillary will be recommended for an Indictment, under which will be numerous charges.

I have no problem whatsoever for saying that because I know it is true. What happens after that is anybodies guess.

It is not my reputation on the line here.....Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice are the players in this game.

once again:

I have not one single doubt that Hillary will be recommended for an Indictment, under which will be numerous charges.


Good times are ahead. Tick Tock

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Miss the part where it says the government has SINCE determined contained SENSITIVE information.
Not classified then . Classified recently.

What is the role of the OCA?

What are the obligations of those with security clearance when faced with information that has not yet been classified but there is reason to believe that it should be classified?

The following is from the pen of King Obama himself and might prove interesting for this discussion:

EO - Classified National Security Information

Particularly (because this is ATS and nobody ever actually reads links on ATS) consider Section 1.3 (d) and (e) - my emphasis added:

(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable.

(e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the information shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information.

Clinton was OCA for "Top Secret" at State Department. If information passed through her hands that should have been classified but wasn't, it was her duty to properly classify it. Even if she wasn't OCA and she received information that she believed might be classified, she should have treated it as such until a determination was made.

The only excuse for Clinton breaking the law, is to claim that she actually broke a different law than the one alleged. Whichever way you look at it, laws were being broken.