It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Andrew Napolitano: Mrs. Clinton’s folks are preparing for the worst.

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

So many mechanics to ask at a shop.....

Were you in a photo forum and a photographer with 25 years experiance gave you advice how would you respond?

Have you held a clearance?


Asking for advice on how to take better photos is not the same.

Another logical fallacy, false equivalence.




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It would be like a defendant asking a lawyer if he has ever defended a client who faces the death penalty. While the lawyer has an understanding of how the law works i would be looking for a lawyer with an understanding of more than just the basics who understands what it means to defend a client who faces the death penalty.

I'll take Perry Mason over a litigator from liability / small claims department. Since you can represent yourself even if you have no legal experience I would advise against it if you are facing a death penalty.

If you have never been in that position then how can people expect you to understand and grasp the complexities involved? As an example dismissing something without and adequate understanding of whats involved.
edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

ah, a man with no premise for grey area....or a common frame of reference....

How can you relate to hunting lions if you've never been hunting for lions?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



While the lawyer has an understanding of how the law works i would be looking for a lawyer with an understanding of more than just the basics who understands what it means to defend a client who faces the death penalty.


So you would want a lawyer with experience as a criminal?



If you have never been in that position then how can people expect you to understand and grasp the complexities involved?


Again, you want to hire someone that has been in the same position?

That makes no sense.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wall Street Journal into the fray.....


Roger Murtaugh: Pretty thin, huh?
Martin Riggs: Anorexic.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I would want a person who understands more than just what he read at law school.


originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wall Street Journal into the fray.....


Roger Murtaugh: Pretty thin, huh?
Martin Riggs: Anorexic.


see above

edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   


Julie Tauber McMahon, a close friend of former President Bill Clinton, owns a 29% stake in the company. Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias and Democratic operative Mark Wiener each own 5%, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Is Mark Weiner related to Carlos Danger?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



I would want a person who understands more than just what he read at law school.


True. That does not involve an education informed by being a criminal, which is exactly what a request for a prior security clearance equates to.


edit on 14-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

anyone can read about taking an oath. A person who has taken an oath similar / same as hillary will have a different view than the person who just reads about it is what is being said.

What some would address as a non issue would be anything but to the person who has taken an oath.
edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

anyone can read about taking an oath. A person who has taken an oath similar / same as hillary will have a different view than the person who just reads about it is what is being said.

What some would address as a non issue would be anything but to the person who has taken an oath.


I hate to say this, but what you speak of is a matter of honor.

The reality is that honor means jack # in the court of law.

We may not like that reality, but it is real just the same.

Give me facts and law over honor because our laws are dictated by logic, reason and that which is provable. There is no constitutional amendment that includes a caveat for honor.

Do you know why? honor is subjective.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But in this case the issue is your view that the email security breach is a non issue. To a person who holds a security clearance (and took the oath) that position makes no sense. In order to understand that they ask if you have ever held a security clearance. If you have your position becomes even more confusing. If you have not then the position becomes you don't completely understand the situation since you are missing the vital understanding through experience.

Of course you don't have to agree and can dismiss it but it doesn't change the situation.

What you consider a non issue is in fact a serious issue. If it wasn't then a 10 year prison sentence would never have been prescribed as a punishment.
edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

You should also read this, from earlier this year.


The FBI also is looking into Clinton's email setup, but has said nothing about the nature of its probe. Independent experts say it's unlikely Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on details that have surfaced so far and the lack of indications she intended to break laws.

"What I would hope comes out of all of this is a bit of humility" and Clinton's acknowledgement that "I made some serious mistakes," said Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer specializing in security clearance matters.


This is from a "Washington lawyer specializing in security clearance matters". His opinion alone casts doubt on your assertions.

Not some internet hack like me, but an expert in the field.

You may want to rethink your position Rick.

www.msn.com...


I have a degree in information sec that washington lawyer is full of shat. She broke the law, please dont detail what was in the emails it doesnt matter. Her lawyer is simply doing damage control but will most likely ofter a plea bargain deal when the evidence is presented. honestly i dont care if she sees jail i just want her out of the race now and in any future. The simple fact one haxor got classified info because she ignored protocols is enough. if this was anyone else they would be sent to a jail thats under a jail guarded by cops that shot first and ask questions later with trained dogs who eat dead convicts.

I know your used to hearing fox news drum up fake info on any dems then when the trial comes anyone who supported the story gets egg on their face. Let me be the first to tell you this isnt a benghazi type of story its a watergate type that ends her political career if she doesnt see jail time

the fbi gave them a chance by giving the guy who set up the server no charges if he talked which he didnt "moron" he will plead the fifth and the evidence will put him in chains for a long time. She cannot claim ignorance because its not a defense that gets you out of jail it confirms you should be in jail.

she cant out run this because it isnt fox news its the fbi and the rest of the population who need to see the government isnt a lie even if it is a lie her getting off this charge will bring to much unwanted attention to the others she will be sacrificed for the greater good right or wrong.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Just to back up what you are saying the lawyer in the article is once again using the false argument of intent. In order to violate the espionage act intent is not a factor. I already posted this back on page 6 but I will post it again to help the argument that the lawyer in the article does not know what she is talking about.

First - Intent is not at factor for an espionage charge. So the talking heads who keep saying their was no intent need to stop as its a non factor.

Secondly - Its not relevant if the emails / info they contained were marked confidential, secret or top secret. Clinton trying to play the word game by saying classified is not going to work nor will it save her.

Finally whether or not they were classified at a later date is also not a valid defense to violation of the Espionage Act.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
I underlined the relevant information and you will notice intent is not mentioned.


(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.


For those not familiar with legal language you will see the words "and" and "or" used. When a law lists the elements that need to be violated, you will see those 2 words used. If the word "and" is used it means all elements must be met in order to be in violation of the law. When the word "or" is used it means the elements stand individually and only the individual sections need to be violated instead of all elements listed.

Information being marked as confidential, secret or top secret is not required to be in vio0lation of the espionage act.

Also:
Hillary Clinton NDA **PDF LINK**

As you can see below its not relevant if it was marked and its not relevant if she didn't know it was confidential, secret or top secret. If she was not sure she was legally required to find out before doing anything with the info.

She broke the law and no amount of lies, "I didn't know", "was not marked at the time", other excuses are a defense that can be used. That holds especially true for the SCI information.

* - click for larger image



This is what needs to be proven for Hillary to face charges under the espionage act.
Key word - "Negligent handling"
edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Just to back up what you are saying the lawyer in the article is once again using the false argument of intent. In order to violate the espionage act intent is not a factor. I already posted this back on page 6 but I will post it again to help the argument that the lawyer in the article does not know what she is talking about.

First - Intent is not at factor for an espionage charge. So the talking heads who keep saying their was no intent need to stop as its a non factor.

Secondly - Its not relevant if the emails / info they contained were marked confidential, secret or top secret. Clinton trying to play the word game by saying classified is not going to work nor will it save her.

Finally whether or not they were classified at a later date is also not a valid defense to violation of the Espionage Act.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
I underlined the relevant information and you will notice intent is not mentioned.


(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.


For those not familiar with legal language you will see the words "and" and "or" used. When a law lists the elements that need to be violated, you will see those 2 words used. If the word "and" is used it means all elements must be met in order to be in violation of the law. When the word "or" is used it means the elements stand individually and only the individual sections need to be violated instead of all elements listed.

Information being marked as confidential, secret or top secret is not required to be in vio0lation of the espionage act.

Also:
Hillary Clinton NDA **PDF LINK**

As you can see below its not relevant if it was marked and its not relevant if she didn't know it was confidential, secret or top secret. If she was not sure she was legally required to find out before doing anything with the info.

She broke the law and no amount of lies, "I didn't know", "was not marked at the time", other excuses are a defense that can be used. That holds especially true for the SCI information.

* - click for larger image



This is what needs to be proven for Hillary to face charges under the espionage act.
Key word - "Negligent handling"


amazing that even when you present facts and back them up with links and documents people will still try and say you are wrong. I could not agree more with you on this topic and it needs to be posted again so everyone can understand



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Very well put together posts gentlemen.

She is in really bad shape.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
she cant out run this because it isnt fox news its the fbi and the rest of the population who need to see the government isnt a lie even if it is a lie her getting off this charge will bring to much unwanted attention to the others she will be sacrificed for the greater good right or wrong.


Her ONLY possibility is how she will be prosecuted. If she can hold on and get elected she will be safe unless Congress moves to impeach and that is a very real possibility. The requirement to impeach is "high crimes or misdemeanors". A term that is defined by Congress and not the law.

Her political career is done.

If she tries to continue to outrun it and Trump is elected then she will face a DOJ that will go for the throat.

Her political career is done.

If she loses the nomination to Sanders the FBI investigation will have to continue to avoid an appearance of political interference. Given Sanders view on big money I still think she is screwed.

Her political career is done.

Given that this will be her last Hurrah given her age she is going to do everything within her power to claim the title Madame President. The fact she doesn't care about the shame she would bring to the office says everything we need to know about her - this is all about her and America is not a factor in her equation.

So our 1st Black President brings shame by acting like a King and hiding his corruption.
I guess its only fitting Hillary would want to one up him by doing exactly what he did.

Who would have thought what was suppose to be a looong overdue action, a black man as president and a woman as president, would set those groups back by their actions.

If she is not prosecuted and the FBI does what it said it would do the Democratic party is done for a long while.


Prosecution
Whats required to charge / prosecute Clinton -

Did Clinton act in a manner that qualifies as "gross negligence" with regards to her private server and the items found on that server?

What's "Gross Negligence" -

Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial "reasonable person." By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross." Prosser and Keeton describe gross negligence as being "the want of even slight or scant care", and note it as having been described as a lack of care that even a careless person would use. They further note that while some jurisdictions equate the culpability of gross negligence with that of recklessness, most simply differentiate it from simple negligence in its degree.


* - Was her private server authorized?
* - Did her private server meet all required security criteria / laws?
* - Who had access to her private server?
* - Did those people have access to information that can be labeled as confidential, secret or top secret.
* - Did those individuals have clearance to access the restricted material?
* - Did Clinton bypass required security protocols / requirements / laws governing the handling of restricted material.
* - Did Clinton try to obtain a similar setup within the required guidelines / protocols / laws.
* - If yes why did Clinton ignore them and move ahead with a private server?
* - Did her private server contain information covered under FOIA laws?
* - Were FOIA requests denied even though the requested info existed on her server?
* - Could her private server be compromised by other entites / nation states?

I can keep going however the list could have been stopped at the very first question.'

She acted in a grossly negligent manner and in doing so violated the law. For those trying to stick to the irrelevant "intent" defense I have to ask.
* - Was it Hillary's intent, even after being warned a private server did not meet requirements / laws, to bypass the law / protocols in order to set up and use a private server?

By the way the answer would be "Yes" her intent was to ignore the warnings and set one up anyways. In this case, even though "intent" is not a requirement, it can be established and used against her.

My question that I need to clarify is how the federal law defines "criminal count". Is her server and items contained a single count or does each individual email / email response that violated the law considered separate counts?

This has nothing to do, right now, with the corruption charges regarding her foundation.
edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Skeletonized

I am sure it doesn't make any sense to our world neighbors, it makes no sense to us Americans. LOL.

Here is a link to a blog that actually covers pretty much everything in a very simple easy to follow order of progression.

It has a couple of small errors, but for the most part it is spot on.

informedvote2016.wordpress.com...

Would be nice for you to read through that and come back and tell us what you think.

This is the condensed version:

georgiapoliticalreview.com...


(1) Hillary Clinton’s e-mails with Clinton Foundation employee Sidney Blumenthal contain proof that she knowingly retained “classified information” on her private server and also communicated information of “the national defense” with someone “not entitled to receive it.”



Many have suspected that Clinton’s entire rationale for having the private server was not “convenience” as she has said, but rather to keep under wraps what looks like an, unofficial, unvetted intelligence network run by Blumenthal, Tyler Drumheller, an ex-CIA intelligence officer, and Cody Shearer, a long time Clinton family friend


Thanks for the link. I'll have to read it when i have enough time since it's rather lengthy



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


This is a debate.

Maybe it is for you.
This is an Internet conspiracy website with numerous forums, including those relating to pets, religion and aliens.
This is social media.
It might help things if you understand that.

Also, you are trying to bait me in to providing an answer to a question that is loaded, regardless of the answer.

Prove the intent.
It is only supposition on your part.

Since this is social media, I'll ask you a social media question.

How is Hillary holding up?
Tell her that we asked about her.

Now you will tell me that I am debating you.
I'm not.
I am telling you what is real.
And I am done doing that now.


edit on b000000312016-05-14T06:11:22-05:0006America/ChicagoSat, 14 May 2016 06:11:22 -0500600000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

"Looks to me like you should claim to have 25.5 years in the intelligence community, not just 18.5."

Okay with me if that floats your boat...has nothing to do what we are discussing, but yes...

I spent 7.5 years in the Military as a 31P... Telecommunications Specialist with a TS/SCI attached to a Military Intelligence Brigade. Upon leaving the military, I was hired by the Department of Defense to to the exact same thing I did in the military, except for a whole lot more money. I bought back my military time and stayed with the DoD for a total of 18.5 years...I switched over to the FBI the last 7 years in the government.

I use 18.5 years in the intelligence community because that is exactly what we were and did... day in and day out 24/7/365. Looking at classified crap all day long. Surfing NSA net on a boring mid shift. Good times.

My time with the FBI was not like the 18 years with the IC... two totally different animals... law enforcement as opposed to military intelligence.

I had a great career... mostly great times... retired as a GS 0391 at GS-13/8

None of this has anything to do with this thread.







as ricks son i can verify his truthfullness when it comes career



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
My question that I need to clarify is how the federal law defines "criminal count". Is her server and items contained a single count or does each individual email / email response that violated the law considered separate counts?

It's up to the DA (or the AG if it goes that high). Typically, counts would be separated by event. Maybe an e-mail string by subject line, maybe a count for each classified topic, maybe a count for each server penetration by an unauthorized entity.

Anyway, it's my bet Eric Holder took care of Hillary before he left office. It's just not a good time for Hillary to admit that in front of the public.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join