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

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's nice and all, but the talking points memo was sent as is, not stripped of markings, and through proper channels.

So now you have to prove that Hillary's request in an of itself was a violation of US code, even though it was not carried-out.

Would you agree that to strip classification headers from a document in order to send it over non-secure lines would be unauthorized?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's nice and all, but the talking points memo was sent as is, not stripped of markings, and through proper channels.

So now you have to prove that Hillary's request in an of itself was a violation of US code, even though it was not carried-out.

Would you agree that to strip classification headers from a document in order to send it over non-secure lines would be unauthorized?

Yes.

That never occurred.

a reply to: butcherguy

No, this poster is being purposefully obtuse.

When the chargeS are filled they will still deny, deflect, and, derail.

a reply to: introvert

Not knowing something is a classification is not a defense. This means her tired repetition of nothing was "classified" is not a valid legal defense.

The sections listed have been proven which is why the FBI was briefing the DOJ and is the reason certain people are being given limited immunity for testimony. Your attempt to ignore the crimes by offering excuses holds no weight.

originally posted by: introvert

Yes.

That never occurred.

Except for the email Clinton sent directing her aide to remove the markings and send it by unsecured email.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: butcherguy

No, this poster is being purposefully obtuse.

When the chargeS are filled they will still deny, deflect, and, derail.

I'm in a great position no matter what happens. If she is charged, I can say that I waited for due process to take place before I condemned someone to guilt.

If she is found innocent of any wrongdoing, I go about my business.

But what if she is found innocent? How does that affect all of those that already believe, with all their little heart and soul, that she is guilty?

What will they say then? It's a conspiracy?

I seem to be the only one being logical here and asking for specific proof. The rest of em seem to be off in LaLa Land hoping things turn out the way they desire.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Clinton... the Bilderburg. Friend of Koch Brothers (special friend likely).

And you know what ROCKS!!!!!!???????????????
Bernie won it by a yuuuge margin in WICHITA!!!!!! That, in case you didn't know, is Koch HQ.

Ha!!

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not knowing something is a classification is not a defense. This means her tired repetition of nothing was "classified" is not a valid legal defense.

You cannot convict someone of a crime for receiving emails that contained information that was classified after the fact. It would not have been a crime at the time of transmission.

The sections listed have been proven

I have not seen that proof. Can you provide that information for me?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

Yes.

That never occurred.

Except for the email Clinton sent directing her aide to remove the markings and send it by unsecured email.

Which they never did do. So what crime was committed?

a reply to: introvert

"In plain view" is part of due process too.

You've been given numerous reputable links supporting the stances of those of us who believe that several laws have been violated without remorse, all of which are objectively verifiable for yourself to ensure our quotes aren't opinion or subject to the whim of interpretation, and you have yet to provide one link to support your stance.

Not one.

a reply to: introvert

Yeah you are being intentionally obtuse. The information has been provided..

You can lead a horse to water...

Ignorance and education is a choice.

Education starts here.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You've been given numerous reputable links supporting the stances of those of us who believe that several laws have been violated without remorse

There are two parts to this statement:

First, you use a very important word. "Believe". Beliefs do not convict people. Yes, you have provided links to support those beliefs, but not to proof that clearly shows she committed a crime.

Second, to say laws were broken without remorse indicates you wish to project your "beliefs" on to someone else's intent. You don't know her intent. To say such a thing is absurd.

and you have yet to provide one link to support your stance.

I have not made any specific claims, have I? I've only asked people to prove their assertions. So far all I have received is copy and paste of US Code, but not specifics in to what she did to violate those codes with specific evidence. What do I have to prove, which would require links?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Can you show what Hillary did that violated those codes?

I'm all open to the possibilities, but considering that you have absolutely no solid information in to this case, and the FBI/DOJ would be the only people that do, your assertions are highly illogical.

Obtuse indeed.

originally posted by: introvert

You cannot convict someone of a crime for receiving emails that contained information that was classified after the fact. It would not have been a crime at the time of transmission.

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 of the classified emails on her private server

a reply to: introvert

A belief has in fact convicted people and it usually stems from the persons "belief" they did not violate the law when in fact they did.

You have made specific claims, like Hillary never directing her staff to strip markings and send the info via unsecured email, which she did and the email is public knowledge, except for some strange reason to you. You specifically asked what laws were broken and then ignored the answer.

If you believe in Hillary thats your choice however intentionally ignoring factual information is a problem.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ahh yes, a link to an article that once again begs the question: Was the information in the email classified at the time, or retroactively?

You guys need to get on the ball. Regurgitating the same # over and over does not make any of it a violation of law.

a reply to: Whatsreal

As we all love conspiracies, how does this go over?

Hillary got caught in the wringer and knows she is going to be a non-player, simply because she can't run or win with servergate over her head. Sanders is coming on strong but the Dems/Illuminati/Etc don't want him because he is too far from center. DOJ agrees to delay any indictments until after the convention. If Hillary quits early, Bernie wins and runs. If she holds off, the convention will be brokered and the Dems can get a more moderate ticket. The GOP will play the same game, working to keep Cruz and Trump from getting winning numbers. They broker and dump Trump and maybe Cruz, too, if his polls don't show strength. They also want centrists that people can vote for; the philosophical mismatches of McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan are examples of astonishing political stupidity that the GOP may have now figured out.

Biden-Warren will run against Romney-Kasich, or similar, after the GOP brokers their convention and gets Donald out of the race.

a reply to: introvert

Yes you are being obtuse and you are parroting Clinton's excuses.

Education starts here.

You need to do your own research as I truly don't think you would accept my argument as you seem to ignore anything and everything illegal that Hillary and her aides have done.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You have made specific claims, like Hillary never directing her staff to strip markings and send the info via unsecured email

I did not make that claim. I know for a fact she did. What I did claim was that the member of her staff did not do what she requested and the Talking Points were transmitted as required.

You specifically asked what laws were broken and then ignored the answer

You did not provide proof that she violated any of the laws you copied and pasted.

If you believe in Hillary thats your choice however intentionally ignoring factual information is a problem.

I don't believe anyone. I will wait for real evidence from real investigators and not take the half-assed information from Right Wing nutters as gospel.

That's the logical thing to do.

You guys are putting all of your eggs in basket. Not very wise.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Whatsreal

As we all love conspiracies, how does this go over?

Hillary got caught in the wringer and knows she is going to be a non-player, simply because she can't run or win with servergate over her head. Sanders is coming on strong but the Dems/Illuminati/Etc don't want him because he is too far from center. DOJ agrees to delay any indictments until after the convention. If Hillary quits early, Bernie wins and runs. If she holds off, the convention will be brokered and the Dems can get a more moderate ticket. The GOP will play the same game, working to keep Cruz and Trump from getting winning numbers. They broker and dump Trump and maybe Cruz, too, if his polls don't show strength. They also want centrists that people can vote for; the philosophical mismatches of McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan are examples of astonishing political stupidity that the GOP may have now figured out.

Biden-Warren will run against Romney-Kasich, or similar, after the GOP brokers their convention and gets Donald out of the race.

Sounds like it could be possible.