WH rejects call to block Clinton from receiving classified briefings

a reply to: neo96

We knew his treason was already considerable, too.

Supporting the gritchy one is just further proof of his great desire to DESTROY THE REPUBLIC down to ashes.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jonjonj

To me? Yea.

To Director Comey? Yea.

To the guy who decides whether she gets access or not? No.

Which one matters?

Well... Isn't that the biggest shame of all? Damn!!

a reply to: Jonjonj

shouldn't she face some kind of official reprimand?

According to the FBI yes.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

The US government has consistently argued that it does not have to show any of the following:

1. That the person acted with the intent to harm the United States or to aid a foreign power.

2. That the person actually believed or even had reason to believe that disclosing the information would harm the national defense.

3. That the person did not act to disclose information related to illegal activity, or information of significant public interest, i.e., that the person was not acting as a “whistle blower.” (It asserts that there is simply no First Amendment right to disclose such information.)

4. That the disclosure actually caused harm t o the United States,

5. That the person acted with the intent to violate the statute, or

6. That there was a reasonable belief that the disclosure would cause harm (unless only information and no documents were transferred

www.right2info.org...

Next.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

Let's be honest here: "the other side" doesn't have any better grasp of the situation than the one you're referring to. All they heard is "no charges."

And they will pay zero attention to the use of the phrase "gross negligence" and "did not intentionally" in lieu of "did not."

Sure. I'm not above admitting that some on the other side did not look in to this as they should have.

Also, the gross negligence aspect is a non-starter. the SCOTUS addressed that issue in regards to the espionage act in 1941. Intent was key to their opinion.

You've done your homework, and I applaud that.

I would urge you to do a little more.

"Intent or reason to believe....information used to the advantage of a foreign nation."

Intent is not the end-all, be-all. "Reason to believe" is a delimiting phrase in the SCOTUS opinion paper.

Just a question, but would a petition by The People make any difference in this?

If so, I'm going to start one. ( if there isn't one already)

a reply to: essentialtremors

PLEASE DO.

I wonder if a class action suit would be possible . . . from the people of the USA . . . put at hazard by her reckless arrogance and ruthless greed.

a reply to: neo96

Hillary needs to register herself and pass a background check !!

a reply to: Jonjonj

That may be your opinion, but the FBI ruling was in-line with previous decisions.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It was stupid of Paul Ryan to call for that. He knew it would never happen he was grandstanding.

He was doing the right thing in the wake of rampant Government corruption and misconduct. I appreciate the gesture.

a reply to: Shamrock6

In that opinion, it also says something about "bad faith".

How do you interpret that part?

To me, it means the SCOTUS would consider what their intent was.

It's not the end-all be-all, but it is important.

a reply to: introvert

We don't have to interpret it. Using the same case (Gorin v United States), the court rejected the claim that the law was too vague. Bad faith, according to that case, is either demonstrable intent OR committing the act while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.

It's an either or, not a both.

There is really nothing to say except, I hope that all that cognitive dissonance has finally worn off.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Sillyolme

I don't think so.

If a person has been irresponsible for handling a weapon they lose their rights correct ?

Same reasoning applies to Clinton.

She should not be given a loaded weapon.

In the wrong hands.

Classified material gets people killed.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

And when she's around . . . or involved . . . all the WRONG people are the ones ending up dead.

= = =

BTW: On a recent thread--and I've read all of them over again trying to find it--someone recommended OUT OF THE ASHES (bk) . . . Amazon lists several books with that title and I have no idea which one. I hope whomever suggested that title will see this and let me know. Cheers.

a reply to: neo96

HEY - don't be so rude. Let's ask Hills herself:

Q: Hills, are you an honest person - someone with integrity?
A:

Q: Did you have a textual relationship with your private server?
A:

Q: What will be your main foreign policies to bring about world peace?
A:

Q: What will be your main domestic policies to bring about reduced unemployment, higher wages & infrastructure upgrades?
A:

Q: Why do you want to be the POTUS?
A:

Q: What do you say at private wall street meetings - we cannot get your transcripts?
A:

Q: Before puffin Billy came clean (pardon the pun), you said that it was all just a vast right wing conspiracy but it turns out you were wrong - what do you have to say about that?
A:

a reply to: Shamrock6

Bad faith, according to that case, is either demonstrable intent OR committing the act while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.

Exactly what I have been saying. if the act itself cannot be proven to have harmed the interests of the US, intent must be looked at.

In this case, neither apply.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Shamrock6

Bad faith, according to that case, is either demonstrable intent OR committing the act while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.

Exactly what I have been saying. if the act itself cannot be proven to have harmed the interests of the US, intent must be looked at.

In this case, neither apply.

He did not say that the act had to actually harm the interests, only that the persons committing the act has reason to believe the info they are passing/ in possession of could be damaging.

Or am I off in interpreting that? I find these kinds of court decisions so open-ended sometimes.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It was stupid of Paul Ryan to call for that. He knew it would never happen he was grandstanding.

Was he wrong for doing so?

a reply to: atomish

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what they said.

All that matters is that in cases like this, someone would of had to have acted in a way that compromised the potential security of the US/secure data, or had the intent of committing such an act.

Otherwise, lapses in proper security procedure are handled internally.

Comey's comments reflect that and he specifically mentions the differences.

a reply to: essentialtremors

There is one on Facebook...it reads like this..Secretary of State Clinton was in direct violation of the agreement between her and the United States of American outlined on the Standard Form 312, section 4. She sent classified information outside of a server with the classification needed to keep the information she was sending secure. Her actions have created a major security violation and could potentially be used by enemies of the state.