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

a reply to: Bedlam

Come on man, you know she forgot all about signing that SF 312 and the briefing that came along with it. And since she forgot signing it, she is not liable to it's terms don'tcha know?

It was a careless mistake, everybody makes those. It's not like she intended to violate any laws, she just didn't know how to operate a computer. She thought it was allowed to have an undisclosed, unapproved, non-secure, privately-owned, internet-connected server with which to route all personal and official business through.

Give her a break.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Does that mean something?
Are we all going to be subject to personal disclosure to satisfy you?
You are completely Out of line.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I know evil exists

I was sure that you did.

Ribs on Monday....

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Not this crap again.. The information in the public realm is enough to indict, try and convict her. She violated the espionage act.

See my signature line for all the laws she has violated. She is a disgrace and should be charged. Democrats who support her to the extent of trying to absolve her of her crimes are indicative of whats wrong with politics today.

If that is correct, why haven't we heard from any legal experts outside of the political realm state she is clearly guilty?

That's because prosecutions for things like this are rare and certain conditions have to be met. In fact, legal experts have come out to say the opposite.

University of Michigan Professor of Law and Sociology and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert Richard Lempert debunked common right-wing talking points about the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server for government emails to explain why Clinton "won't be indicted and shouldn't be."

What constitutes criminal conduct with respect to the disclosure of classified information? Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: "Whoever knowingly and willfully ... [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned." The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States. [...] Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified.

Statute [18 USC, Section 798] also provides a definition of what constitutes classified information within the meaning of the subsection described above: "[C]lassified information, means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for ... restricted dissemination." Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clinton's server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such. [...] No matter how sensitive the information, if no one has taken steps to classify it, the rules for safeguarding classified information cannot be violated despite the harm that might be caused by disclosure. When documents are unmarked, it is difficult to prove that a person knew or should have known that what they were reading was classified.

mediamatters.org...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

I think it would be appropriate for you to disclose in these types of threads that you once worked for her campaign.. In Iowa if I remember your comment correctly.

I worked an event for Bernie on the night of the caucus.

I think it would be appropriate to stick to the topic and not focus on me...unless you have your # together.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Recusing is a particular legal procedures. Saying she's backing away to let other council review the case is not recusing herself.

a reply to: UnBreakable

The AG will not ignore and I will accept any findings from the FBI.
I trust James Comey and I trust the law.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Does that mean something?
Are we all going to be subject to personal disclosure to satisfy you?
You are completely Out of line.

Out of line is failing to disclose you worked for the campaign under fire while trying to spin facts.

a reply to: introvert

You still fail to understand the legal system which is sad.

She is innocent until proven guilty. The list I provided are federal laws she has violated thus far. You trying to say she didnt break the law is not supported by the facts.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Bedlam

Come on man, you know she forgot all about signing that SF 312 and the briefing that came along with it. And since she forgot signing it, she is not liable to it's terms don'tcha know?

Hell, I tried "I'm not signed onto that project series" in 2004 and got it in the butt anyway, despite never having worked on the..um..project I blew totally. Projects. They said "you have worked on so many of these projects you are in a privileged position to know about projects you have not directly worked on, and what should and should not be spoken about despite not having been directly involved". Luckily they didn't invoke 794 and execute me without a jury trial.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Which would be recusing herself. She is no longer the determining factor in sending this to a grand jury.


From your own linked definition..

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

If she had truly recused herself, she wouldn't be in a position to "accept" anything regarding the case...

a reply to: UnBreakable

I guess you just can't behave properly can you?
Did I accuse you of human worship? Not ever.

All I've ever done is disagree with you. You get dirty.

a reply to: introvert

I worked an event for Bernie on the night of the caucus.

Just want to be sure here.
You worked an event for Bernie....
or
You worked at an event for Bernie.

a reply to: Bedlam

Was I talking to you?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Recusing is a particular legal procedures. Saying she's backing away to let other council review the case is not recusing herself.

As you once again move the goal posts, please explain difference how recusal is different than backing away.

a reply to: introvert

and yet you said you didnt work for Bernie.

Were you lying then or are you lying now?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bedlam

Was I talking to you?

It's a public forum. You have to accept what happens.

Especially when you make it clear you don't understand how TS or SCI works, in terms of law.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Recusing is a particular legal procedures. Saying she's backing away to let other council review the case is not recusing herself.

She is leaving the determination of charges to the prosecutors and will not be a deciding factor. She recused herself and her stating she will allow them to decide confirms the recusal. Trying to ply semantics to distort doesnt work in this case.

a reply to: Mirthful Me

If she recused herself it means she took herself out of the loop where a determination to indict is made. She is no longer a part of that process.

Lynch was just on CNN saying she did not recuse herself and will do the review of the findings.

This isn't over.