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.

 

Under fire after secret meeting, Lynch to step back from Clinton probe

page: 10
60
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Apparently anyone who doesn't think hillary will get indicted lacks understanding. That's what they're all saying.




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TSefu

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't believe the term 'evil' is applicable unless you believe in the supernatural.


Well this makes zero sense. It's a word, not the Count Chocula


Count Chocula?

Now THAT makes zero sense.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: introvert

Apparently anyone who doesn't think hillary will get indicted lacks understanding. That's what they're all saying.


Exactly. Forget what legal experts have to say.

Apparently, they are legal experts on their own.

Man, sometimes the internet sucks. Every one is an expert.
edit on 1-7-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
"Pray" for James Comey. I just hope he hasn't received that special visit, too....you know the one where they talk about kids, grandkids, or yoga.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: introvert

Apparently anyone who doesn't think hillary will get indicted lacks understanding. That's what they're all saying.


no I am saying the evidence is in the public realm and certain people are ignoring that as well as trying to latch onto words that dont apply for espionage violations, like intent. Given that its safe to say people dont understand what they are looking at in terms of evidence in the public domain and how the laws in question apply.

any questions?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your "legal expert" does not know what he / she is talking about if they think intent is needed to violate the espionage act. I linked you to that statute, please point out where intent is used and gross negligence is not.

It should be easy enough for you to do.
edit on 1-7-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: introvert

Apparently anyone who doesn't think hillary will get indicted lacks understanding. That's what they're all saying.


If she doesn't get indicted, it won't be because she is innocent. Everybody but those that are drunk on the Clinton Brand of Kool-aid knows that.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Your "legal expert" does not know what he / she is talking about if they think intent is needed to violate the espionage act. I linked you to that statute, please point out where intent is used and gross negligence is not.

It should be easy enough for you to do.


That's a trick question. Gross negligence is key to that statute, but you are not understanding the definition of gross negligence.

Here is the definition:


Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.


Conscious and voluntary.

Knowing and willingly.

Those are terms designed to indicate awareness and intent.

Also, in 18 USC 793, part A shows us that intent is very much an issue:


(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States


Specifically mentions intent.

18 U.S.C. § 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information - See more at: codes.lp.findlaw.com...

You're right...It was easy.
edit on 1-7-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Hm:


The mens rea requirement contained in § 793(e) is clear: it does not include an element of bad faith or ill intent. The mens rea prescription in § 793(e) pertains to “[w]hoever having . . . information relating to 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 . . . communicated, delivered, or transmitted . . . the same to any person not entitled to receive it.” The critical language is, of course, that the accused “has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation” (emphasis added). This contrasts with § 793(a), which requires an “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States” (emphasis added). “Willfulness,” in the context of § 793(e), arises not in the context of bad intent, but in the conscious choice to communicate covered information. In short, the military judge and Court of Criminal Appeals got it right in this case.

...

In United States v. McGuinness, the appellant argued that the term “willfulness” in § 793(e) “includes an element of bad faith, evidenced by a sinister purpose to injure the interests of the United States.” 35 M.J. 149, 153 (C.M.A. 1992). This Court disagreed. It held that the military judge was correct to instruct that § 793(e) does not require proof of a defendant’s bad faith.


UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Matthew M. DIAZ, Lieutenant Commander,
Judge Advocate General Corps
U.S. Navy, Appellant
No. 09-0535
(direct .pdf link0

This from a case in which an officer was charged with



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Again your wrong. Because you are wrong, and your source is wrong, your attempting to change the argument using the generic definition of gross negligence.

As for intent ts not required. Section F requires gross negligence. When reading statutes you will see the word "or" as well as "and". When the word and is used all elements are required ti violate the section. When the word "or" is used each element sands on its own.

In case you missed it we are dealing with section F and not section A.

Apparently its not as easy as you thought and using the wrong section again smacks of desperation and shows again of your willingness to try and use info that has no bearing while hoping people dont notice you used the wrong info.

Now point out where it says what you claimed in section F.
edit on 1-7-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It looks like section E could also be applicable.

See my previous post.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
This is a very stupid lady.


She btw said the conversation was mostly about trivia.

Mostly?


What else did she talk about with Clinton?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
the fix is in,was there ever any doubt?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

It looks like section E could also be applicable.

See my previous post.


at the end of section E's elements you will see the word "or" meaning each section stands alone. Section E would apply to any aids who gained access to the restricted material via Clinton herself or her passwords. Clinton telling an aide to strip the security headers from a classified document and fax it would meet that segment.

Since Clinton had authorized access it would not apply to her.
edit on 1-7-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

A court martial is not applicable to civilian law.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
And now Lynch says she "wouldn't do it again" regarding meeting with Clinton, that it was 'bad optics'.

REALLY??? That's it??? Now it's all just supposed to go away as a simple oversight???? NO F'in WAY!!

The Attorney General of the United States of America meets with the husband of one of the highest profile political candidates possible who is involved in what has every potential to be a CRIMINAL investigation, thereby creating a massive conflict of interest and has to recuse herself as a result....and it's a simple 'mistake'??????

UNBELIEVABLE!!



edit...anyone who buys into this incomprehensible CHARADE needs to have their head examined!!!


edit on 7/1/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you saying she's innocent then?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Not to mention the fact Bill and the Clinton foundation are also under criminal investigation for corruption / fraud.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
3 phrases....
1...the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame
2...yellow cake uranium
3...mushroom cloud, weapons of mass destruction.

and not one special prosecutor



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

But that's not even on the table so what exactly is your point.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join