WH rejects call to block Clinton from receiving classified briefings

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.

Still incorrect.

Reasonable belief that the information COULD disadvantage the United States.

Not that it DID.

Again, semantics matter.

a reply to: Shamrock6

while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.

Can you prove Hillary had "reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States"?

a reply to: introvert

Can you get me a JD? Job as a federal prosecutor? Access to all the interviews, emails, and files from the investigation?

Hook that up and I'll give your strawman an answer.

This is all just so Huma can still supply the brotherhood....right?

a reply to: introvert

Weeee, round and round we go..in circles it seems.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Shamrock6

while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.

Can you prove Hillary had "reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States"?

She either knew the sensitive data she was carrying and storing on unprotected devices was dangerous or she didn't.

I'd say odds are she definitely knew but either way, doesn't show her in a good light and certainly should preclude her from any position handling sensitive data again, IMO.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You may not have liked my answer, but you should have known that would of been the next step.

Fact remains, you cannot prove what needs to be proven to make your case.

Like you said, semantics matter.