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

a reply to: HolydarknessVA

Welcome to the discussion, "Rick's son".

For the record, Rick's intelligence pedigree is NOT in doubt...He validates his expertise with each post...and his contributions are valued here by all but a select few.

Many of us here really enjoy hearing from specifically knowledgeable people who have in-depth understanding and life experience on topics that are of interests to us.

Your father is one of those individuals who are very much appreciated.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Good.

Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Thank you for being so honest....

At least you admitted your BIAS in this area and now we see why you refuse to accept any evidence put forth and I, for one, no longer will waste my time messing with you...

As a matter of fact, my every reply to you from know on will start with:

"this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense"

This should be your epitaph on your "defending Hillary against classified information tombstone".... you are done.


By the way,,, next time you talk about people shooting themselves in the foot, read what you just posted and then look in the mirror.

So what have we learned:

1. The declassification dates on the Hillary emails released by the State Department indicate that they were considered classified when originated, or born classified. FACT

www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. Individual pieces of unclassified information maybe be compiled into a single classified source if they meet the criteria under EO 1.7.. this can be applied to the intelligence updates received by Sidney Blumenthal since they were a compilation of independent unclassified sources. FACT.. stated in the EO 13526 below

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

(e) Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information.




Those are two things that you tried claim victory over but lost.... and then you decide it's just nonsense.

Happy Pre-indictment recommendation day!!!!


And yes, HolyDarknessVA is my son.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extra Bonus from EO 13526:

Sec. 1.6. Identification and Markings. (a) At the time of original classification, the following shall be indicated in a manner that is immediately apparent:

(f) Information assigned a level of classification under this or predecessor orders shall be considered as classified at that level of classification despite the omission of other required markings. Whenever such information is used in the derivative classification process or is reviewed for possible declassification, holders of such information shall coordinate with an appropriate classification authority for the application of omitted markings.

a reply to: RickinVa

At least you admitted your BIAS in this area and now we see why you refuse to accept any evidence put forth and I, for one, no longer will waste my time messing with you...

You have no evidence. The FBI has that. What you have is opinion and speculation that you have flip-flopped on. You're not being consistent and have changed your assertions without a shred of integrity to admit that you have done so.

It's a good thing I posted links proving your inconsistencies on your own career claims and classified at birth claims.

By the way,,, next time you talk about people shooting themselves in the foot, read what you just posted and then look in the mirror.

A DC lawyer with years of experience in the field of government classification issues pretty much said the same thing. I provided a link.

Those are two things that you tried claim victory over but lost.... and then you decide it's just nonsense.

Oh, this was a game? OK, whatever.

I still got you to flip-flop on your assertions and change your story. And you had to call for backup, your son, if it's your son. You could have just setup another account. Considering your dishonest conduct, I wouldn't be surprised.

Tick Tock, Ricky. Only a matter of time till your next flip-flop.

edit: By the way, it's very disingenuous and dishonest that you make all those edits and then remove all the edit tags.

a reply to: introvert

"Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense."--- Introrvert 05/14/16

"You have no evidence. The FBI has that."

Thats funny....foia.state.gov... I see tons of evidence.

"A DC lawyer with years of experience in the field of government classification issues pretty much said the same thing. I provided a link."

I can link to a judge and a former officials who say she is guilty... at this point, what does it matter anyways... it's all nonsense correct?


so why you replying?

Yes sir you got me to flip flop...

Hillary Clinton will be recommended for indictment by the FBI for mishandling of classified information... I did flip flop...I thought Hillary was innocent until I saw the evidence with my own eyeballs. That's my only flip flop.


Bye bye.. you have been thoroughly discredited,,by yourself...that's sweet.

a reply to: Profusion

Andrew Napolitano is a 9/11 truther, a man who thinks that Lincoln was wrong and should have let slavery quietly die and also a man who thinks that the Supreme Court was wrong to say that the right to vote is a fundamental right.
He is, in short, an idiot.

a reply to: RickinVa

Yes sir you got me to flip flop...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Liberal playbook... if you can not discredit the information, attempt to discredit the person providing the information.

Probably right on the first page.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: IAMTAT

Liberal playbook... if you can not discredit the information, attempt to discredit the person providing the information.

Probably right on the first page.

Yes sir you got me to flip flop...

Good luck, Ricky. I will leave you to bask in all your stars and confirmation bias.

Say hi to your boy for me.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Yes sir you got me to flip flop...

"Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense."--- Introrvert 05/14/16


intellectual dishonesty in action...

What I said:

"Yes sir you got me to flip flop...

Hillary Clinton will be recommended for indictment by the FBI for mishandling of classified information... I did flip flop...I thought Hillary was innocent until I saw the evidence with my own eyeballs. That's my only flip flop."

What you used out of context:

"Yes sir you got me to flip flop..."

Everybody knows you can change the meaning of a person words when you take them out of context.

John Oliver said it best "It is ok to start screaming "I am coming" if you are trying to catch the bus. If you start screaming "I am coming" after you are already on the bus.... it takes on an entirely different concept of meaning.


Bye bye..it's nonsense to you...

Incredible that you would do more to destroy your credibility on anything to do with Hillarys classified emails in one single post. And you did it all by your little ole self. Congratulations.

See you on indictment recommendation day.

a reply to: introvert


"Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense."--- Introrvert 05/14/16


Is it his son?

Yes... do you require a DNA test so that you can arrive at a conclusion?

Question for anyone that knows the answer:

If someone has committed acts of espionage and the current POTUS issues a pardon for that individual, and the DOJ refuses to prosecute, is there any recourse for The American People?

originally posted by: queenofswords
Question for anyone that knows the answer:

If someone has committed acts of espionage and the current POTUS issues a pardon for that individual, and the DOJ refuses to prosecute, is there any recourse for The American People?

Good question... I do not know that answer.

It would have to be based on what the pardon is actually for and when it is given, convicted or prior to conviction would be my guess. Nixon would probably be the best example... he was pardoned without a conviction.

a reply to: RickinVa

If it was a pardon for espionage or treason....

a reply to: queenofswords

I could be wrong, but I think there would first have to be a conviction for espionage before a Presidential pardon could be proclaimed.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: queenofswords

I could be wrong, but I think there would first have to be a conviction for espionage before a Presidential pardon could be proclaimed.

IAMTAT....I looked the answer up to that. YES...pre-emptive pardons can be made. (If my source is accurate.)

Presidential pardons can be granted anytime after an offense has been committed including before, during, or after a conviction for the offense. If granted before a conviction is given, it prevents any penalties from attaching to the person.[/exwww.legalflip.com...

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

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

If it was a pardon for espionage or treason....

Then I would assume that if she was managed to be elected after that, she would be impeached immediately by the Senate for all the other stuff.... FOIA laws, corruption of government, etc.

Wouldn't surprise me if they started impeachment proceedings on Inauguration Day.

The Fed's don't like to pursue cases involving classified information unless they can squeeze a plea bargain out of the suspect.

The vast vast majority of the times... people plea bargain out on the recommendation of their lawyer because the lawyer knows that their client is guilty and they could be facing a long long long time under a max sentence.

She got caught with 2200+ classified emails on her unclassified server.. out of those 2200+, Approximately 100 or so have been classified at the levels of Secret and above... A conviction of gross negligence of mishandling classified information is good for up to 10 years PER EMAIL. Odds are they will offer a plea bargain of less time served than if they are force to take it trial and I think she will take it...her political career would have totally trashed by that point.

People don't understand that when you have been accused of mishandling classified information.... you are guilty because they found it under your control...under a lot of cases, it is a indefensible felony.

793(f) is one of the very few federal laws that you can be convicted of mishandling of classified information that does not require any intent what so ever of the person committing the act.

Based on the readily available evidence, the FBI already has more than enough to go forward with at least a charge of gross negligence in the handling of classified information under 793(f).

Logic tells me that since the obvious evidence for a charge under 793(f) hasn't been brought up for indictment by now with the mountain of evidence already available only means one thing. They are investigating a lot more than just classified information which has been reported numerous times in the media in the last few months.

You have to remember there is a two tier justice system.... us and those that can afford unlimited money on legal defense. The Government is like any other entity... throw enough lawyers and legal headaches their way and they will back off to a great degree.

All I want to see is the FBI recommend her for indictment.... That's all I need to know that the legal system at least is still partially functional.

a reply to: RickinVa

Then I would assume that if she was managed to be elected after that, she would be impeached immediately by the Senate

Would a Democrat Senate have the guts to do it? If not, do The American People have any recourse? It makes me shudder to think this woman could get away with murder and take possession of the highest position in the land.

Enough!!

Final notice.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

You are responsible for your own posts....and if members cannot post civilly and on topic, and not go after each other....further post removals will follow.
Posting Bans are also possible.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!