Simple question about Hillary's e-mail issues.

a reply to: MrSpad

can you explain why Patreaus was punished?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
this is simple political assassination, just like the benghazi hearings, as confirmed by republican senators hanna and mccarthy

nobody cares that george bush used private e-mail servers, and that a lot of them were "lost"

link

that is how I know this is purley political

I wasn't aware that George Bush was running for president of the United States again?

Aside from that, should there still be a law on the books about classified data? I mean, if you can't get in trouble for it, the law seems a bit pointless. (kind of like the immigration laws)

there is a law. I was just checking to see if people were as outraged when someone on their team did it

a reply to: network dude

The Bush administration did something similar during his presidency. To date I don't believe any charges were ever filed and no massive investigation took place.

It appears that Hillary is being focused on for political purposes, when previous acts similar in nature have been dismissed.

H I L L A R Y! YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA! WAHOO!

a reply to: MrSpad
so, it`s a case of "no harm,no foul"? That makes it`s even worse since us commoners are tried,convicted and sent to jail for victimless crimes.The laws were written for all of us and were meant to be enforced against all of us.This system of different rules for the elite needs to stop and it will stop, the millenials will see to that.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

The Bush administration did something similar during his presidency. To date I don't believe any charges were ever filed and no massive investigation took place.

It appears that Hillary is being focused on for political purposes, when previous acts similar in nature have been dismissed.

I wonder why that is? I doubt it has anything at all to do with the fact that she is running for president and Bush isn't, but facts like that shouldn't matter to the smart folks, right?

I suppose it's OK to do anything previous president did and no punishment should be given, is that about right?

Yea, laws only seem important when those nasty republicans break them.

a reply to: MrSpad

Looking back on another thread about this, you mentioned that should anyone get caught in this sense, they would loose their clearance, and if nothing was harmed in national security, then nothing more would be done. You likely know much better than the rest of us. I just know when I was in, I had a secret clearance, and was told what not to discuss.

But if that's true, then Hillary should loose her clearance right away, and if that happens, how in the world can she be qualified to be president? With no clearance?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MrSpad

can you explain why Patreaus was punished?

He admitted giving classified materials to his mistress who was not authorized to the see them. A deliberate act. That could be called espionage. However as no real damage was done to national security he revived only a misdemeanor charge. The case with Clinton is more of an administrative one and a what if.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MrSpad

can you explain why Patreaus was punished?

He admitted giving classified materials to his mistress who was not authorized to the see them. A deliberate act. That could be called espionage. However as no real damage was done to national security he revived only a misdemeanor charge. The case with Clinton is more of an administrative one and a what if.

not sure i understand the difference. She had an unsecure server that housed classified documents, and in this investigation, it was already proven that she distributed classified material to at least one person in her employ that did not have any clearance. Again, perhaps I just don't understand but to me, that sounds very similar and based on the little I know about reality, this should at the very least carry the same punishment you mentioned any other person might get, or in the case you mentioned, just bringing classified material out of the contained area, could have revoked your clearance. So why does her involvement not warrant at least the removal of her clearance until this is all settled?

a reply to: network dude


There are guys in prison that are former CIA, FBI, State Department, and other government officials who are in prison with 10 to 20 + years for far less than what we know for sure she did just by what they have already released to the public.

Also if I'm not mistaken all Patras did was share info about his calendar book for appointments to his mistress so they could plan meet ups not full access to his secure email and everything. Right??

a reply to: windword

"Clinton isn't being accused of sharing information, just being negligent in its handling. I don't see the comparison."

How about the 17 Classified emails between Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal, a civilian with no security clearance....

Sounds like sharing classified information to me.

foia.state.gov...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

The Bush administration did something similar during his presidency. To date I don't believe any charges were ever filed and no massive investigation took place.

It appears that Hillary is being focused on for political purposes, when previous acts similar in nature have been dismissed.

Really... do you have a link that shows where Bush was caught with 2200+ classified emails on an unclassified server?

Post that link.

That is too hard.... how about a link to any government official who was caught with 20 classified emails on their private email server..... got any of those... that is only 20...not 2200+..... got a link for that?

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MrSpad

can you explain why Patreaus was punished?

He admitted giving classified materials to his mistress who was not authorized to the see them. A deliberate act. That could be called espionage. However as no real damage was done to national security he revived only a misdemeanor charge. The case with Clinton is more of an administrative one and a what if.

Hillary deliberately sent a classified email to Sidney Blumenthal who has no clearance.... a deliberate act... that would be called espionage by your example.

here ya go:

foia.state.gov...



Don't forget... the Executive order clearly states the following:

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Hmmm lets see.... what information is considered originally classified?


Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or

(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.


Oopsy... looks just like Hillary emailed classified information presumed to have caused damage to national security to a Clinton Foundation employee with no security clearance......