Meet Bryan Nishimura, Found Guilty For "Removal And Retention Of Classified Materials"

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think it's pretty clear that different rules have been applied to Clinton.

Obviously the Clintons are not bound by rules. Therefore, they must be the rulers!

The Republic is currently suffocating under Clinton's boot heel.

Soon we'll be forced to establish a *new* Independence Day from our current rulers.

originally posted by: introvert
Big difference.

He actually removed the classified data from it's proper place and placed it on personal devices. Hillary did not do that.

If she had classified information on her private server, then how did it get there?

Also there's a big difference between copying something and removing it.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: introvert
Big difference.

He actually removed the classified data from it's proper place and placed it on personal devices. Hillary did not do that.

If she had classified information on her private server, then how did it get there?

Email.

The difference is that the man in question removed the info from government systems, copied it to his personal devices and walked around Afghanistan with it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: introvert
Big difference.

He actually removed the classified data from it's proper place and placed it on personal devices. Hillary did not do that.

If she had classified information on her private server, then how did it get there?

Email.

The difference is that the man in question removed the info from government systems, copied it to his personal devices and walked around Afghanistan with it.

Hillary put classified information on a private server and effectively walked it around the whole world.
I suspect that she was negligent rather than wilfully trying to hide or pass on classified documents. Still that kind of negligence calls into question her suitability to be President. I had thought that intent was not required for her actions to be punishable, but that must not be the case.

a reply to: UKTruth

Hillary put classified information on a private server and effectively walked it around the whole world.

Effectively? Well, did she or did she not?

I suspect that she was negligent rather than wilfully trying to hide or pass on classified documents. Still that kind of negligence calls into question her suitability to be President. I had thought that intent was not required for her actions to be punishable, but that must not be the case.

Negligence is complicated. It requires a bit of research, in regards to issues like this.

That information has been provided many times on how negligence and intent meet.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Hillary put classified information on a private server and effectively walked it around the whole world.

Effectively? Well, did she or did she not?

I suspect that she was negligent rather than wilfully trying to hide or pass on classified documents. Still that kind of negligence calls into question her suitability to be President. I had thought that intent was not required for her actions to be punishable, but that must not be the case.

Negligence is complicated. It requires a bit of research, in regards to issues like this.

That information has been provided many times on how negligence and intent meet.

Effectively as in bypassing the required security and leaving classified documents open to hackers the world over.
I don't get you point about negligence and intent. To me they don't meet at all.

Is intent required or not?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: introvert
Big difference.

He actually removed the classified data from it's proper place and placed it on personal devices. Hillary did not do that.

If she had classified information on her private server, then how did it get there?

Email.

The difference is that the man in question removed the info from government systems, copied it to his personal devices and walked around Afghanistan with it.

So if I scan a classified document and attach it to an email that runs through my personal server, am I not removing it from government systems?

a reply to: UKTruth

Is intent required or not?

Yes, unless other conditions exist.

By definition, this man removed/copied classified information on to person devices, walked around Afghanistan, came back to the US and tossed the devices in a lake as means of destroying them.

At that point, intent is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: introvert
Big difference.

He actually removed the classified data from it's proper place and placed it on personal devices. Hillary did not do that.

If she had classified information on her private server, then how did it get there?

Email.

The difference is that the man in question removed the info from government systems, copied it to his personal devices and walked around Afghanistan with it.

So if I scan a classified document and attach it to an email that runs through my personal server, am I not removing it from government systems?

Depends on whom you sent the email to, if I am not mistaken.

Hillary and all of the career politicians should be held to a higher standard, since they are supposed to be leading our country, but it's the exact opposite.
And our country will not be able to withstand many more cycles of corruption coming out of Washington and even at the state level, and what happens when our country is destroyed from within the very system that is supposed to make it stronger and more productive.

a reply to: UKTruth

No, you are correct. Every expert on TV has been saying that intent is not required to be guilty of a felony under the statutes.

Comey had no valid reason not to recommend prosecution.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: UKTruth

No, you are correct. Every expert on TV has been saying that intent is not required to be guilty of a felony under the statutes.

Comey had no valid reason not to recommend prosecution.

Previous Supreme Court decisions and similar cases would contradict their assessments.

a reply to: introvert

First of all, she did have intent. She purposely used a server not on the government system, even though she was told it was not secure.

And if you are going to claim that she did not intend to do anything bad, then how is her case different than Nishimura?

The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

www.fbi.gov... n-of-classified-materials

And yet he was indicted and found guilty.

a reply to: BlueAjah

First of all, she did have intent. She purposely used a server not on the government system, even though she was told it was not secure.

Was her intent to subvert the security of the US or it's best interests?

And if you are going to claim that she did not intend to do anything bad, then how is her case different than Nishimura?

Intent does not apply to Nishimura's case. His actions alone were enough.

a reply to: onequestion

It's not the same thing, because this person wasn't Secretary of State. Like it or not, getting a high level government position involves getting much reduced to no sentences for criminal activity. It's a requirement in order to make sure the government doesn't spend it's time prosecuting each other. If Hillary goes to jail, within 20 years so too will W, Rice, Obama, and Trump.

If you can't stand a certain person having legal advantages, then don't vote for them or the people appointing them. That's part of what you're voting for.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BlueAjah

First of all, she did have intent. She purposely used a server not on the government system, even though she was told it was not secure.

Was her intent to subvert the security of the US or it's best interests?

And if you are going to claim that she did not intend to do anything bad, then how is her case different than Nishimura?

Intent does not apply to Nishimura's case. His actions alone were enough.

Her intent and/or actions were to willfully ignore and neglect the NDA she signed in return for convenience.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: introvert
Big difference.

He actually removed the classified data from it's proper place and placed it on personal devices. Hillary did not do that.

If she had classified information on her private server, then how did it get there?

Email.

The difference is that the man in question removed the info from government systems, copied it to his personal devices and walked around Afghanistan with it.

So if I scan a classified document and attach it to an email that runs through my personal server, am I not removing it from government systems?

Depends on whom you sent the email to, if I am not mistaken.

Sure... if I sent it through a secured government server. The fact that Hillary used a private server makes whoever she sent it to irrelevant because she still has a classified document stored on her server.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Is it really convenient to put a private server in a bathroom(what?) and hire tech personnel to maintain instead of just using the government servers?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Is it really convenient to put a private server in a bathroom(what?) and hire tech personnel to maintain instead of just using the government servers?

Well, the point of having her own server would be that she could do things that would evade record keeping. Everyone in business/government does that to one extent or another.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Is it really convenient to put a private server in a bathroom(what?) and hire tech personnel to maintain instead of just using the government servers?

Expensive too.. she apparently paid $140,000 out of her own money to keep it separate from the official system.