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

originally posted by: UnBreakable

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.

They sure do squirm when you stick them with cold hard facts, don't they?

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

...priceless.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How do you know this? Are you in the FBI? Is that you Clarice


INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A JURY OF HER PEERS.
That's the way we do it here in America.

You have no evidence because the FBI hasn't released one friggin word yet. You don't have a single thing to go by but the opinions of others. :

a reply to: butcherguy

You're doing ribs?
Ooo low and slow and those baby's will sing to you in French.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Once again read the post. When you are done feel free to point out where I said she is guilty. You and introvert seem to be trying to distract by arguing guilt, which I never introduced into the conversation.

Stop trying to obfuscate through misleading comments.

As for evidence of a law violation she diverted all her emails to her private account in New York. That private server contained confidential, secret, top secret and SCI information. Re-read the first espionage statute I listed and explain to us how she didnt violate it. Keep in mind intent is not needed to violate that section f the espionage act. Only gross negligence is required and she met it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

I provided a link to a legal expert in the field that shows how it is very unlikely Hillary will be indicted.

Your personal opinion on what you think I do or do not understand is irrelevant.

originally posted by: butcherguy
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.

I did not do any work for his campaign. I did work at the event itself in another capacity.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

and yet you said you didnt work for Bernie.

Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Neither. I have clarified my statement.

a reply to: introvert

and I linked you to the laws she violated... I could care less about your source and will rely on my own experience and training in the matter.


Also your source, as I pointed out before and you ignored, tried to argue she didnt break the law because she had no intent. Intent is not needed to violate the espionage act and that has been explained t you before.

a reply to: introvert

No you didn't clarify anything. You just got caught lying and now your trying to change your story.. Ironic.

I will give you a last chance to correct your statement or I will link to the post that shows the discrepancy IE were you lying to us then or are you lying to us now?

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?

Isn't it amazing how someone who claims to forget so much can remember enough to write a 656 page memoir?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

and I linked you to the laws she violated... I could care less about your source and will rely on my own experience and training in the matter.


Also your source, as I pointed out before and you ignored, tried to argue she didnt break the law because she had no intent. Intent is not needed to violate the espionage act and that has been explained t you before.

Intent is very important. Specific language was used that indicated the importance of it.

"Knowingly and willingly".

Forgive me if I tend to trust someone that works in the legal field on these specific matters, and not some anonymous poster on the internet.

Your experience and training could be made-up. Who knows?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

No you didn't clarify anything. You just got caught lying and now your trying to change your story.. Ironic.

I will give you a last chance to correct your statement or I will link to the post that shows the discrepancy IE were you lying to us then or are you lying to us now?

Please show where I lied.

I worked at an event for Bernie on the night of the Iowa caucuses. My work was not directly involved with his campaign.

a reply to: introvert

Again, so pay attention.

INTENT is NOT NEEDED to violate the espionage act - GROSS NEGLIGENCE is.

* - 18 USC Chapter 37 - Espionage Act
A - 18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(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.

B - 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Gross Negligence - Legal Definition (In general)

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

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. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

Again the section is highlighted so you can understand it.

I hate to be off topic and for that I do apologize.

I always see the same arguments used in certain threads and is has me genuinely wondering something about the "left", especially those that know history (which I assume many here do).

Do many of the left believe Alfonso Capone's only crime was tax evasion simply because that was the only crime he was convicted of?

Is conviction the only measurement of guilt to those of a certain political persuasion, or is it a convenient caltrop to throw before opponents?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you miss this part in what you posted:

conscious and voluntary

Knowingly and willingly...just like I said.

a reply to: introvert

My work was not directly involved with his campaign.

Was it involved with Hillary's campaign?

a reply to: 200Plus

In our system we have due process.

Belief cannot be used to convict someone. You have to prove it.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

My work was not directly involved with his campaign.

Was it involved with Hillary's campaign?

I wish. I probably would have made more money.

a reply to: introvert

ATS - Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up


The question asked of you -

Do you work for a candidate? Paid or volunteer?

Your answer -

No. I do not work in either capacity.

and now all of a sudden you claim you work for Sanders. I don't buy it since you said you dont work for a candidate in either a paid or unpaid capacity.

Were you lying to us then or are you lying to us now?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you miss this part in what you posted:

conscious and voluntary

Knowingly and willingly...just like I said.

Point that part out in the Espionage Act section I quoted. Ive read it a few times and what you typed is not in the statute.

(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—