Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm not confused at all Ricky.

Here it is for you again:

The laws under which civilians are tried for mishandling of classified information are different from those under which military personnel are tried.

All rules regarding classified information are made by the President of the United States, or those to which he or she has ceded authority to in order to do so.

That's it. You keep arguing whatever it is you're arguing. Which seems to be that the only regulations that someone can break regarding handling of classified material are made by the NSA, which is, of course, patently ridiculous as shown here repeatedly.

Yes, the NSA establishes certain rules in their sphere. The DOD, State, etc. all establish certain rules. These are those "agencies" referenced earlier four or five times.

All of those rules are derived from Presidential directive and Executive Order, which I've said now too many times.

"The laws under which civilians are tried for mishandling of classified information are different from those under which military personnel are tried."

Totally false and misleading.

The laws under which civilians and military are tried for mishandling classified information are the one and the sames laws.

The laws under UCMJ do not over ride the federal laws on classified information....

They are all tried under the same federal codes.


There is no difference in being a civilian charged with US Code 798, gross negligence, and a soldier being charged under Article 92 for being in violation of US Code 798, gross negligence.

Same damn code.

So no, the laws are not different for civilians and military pertaining to mishandling classified information.

originally posted by: introvert
Sounds to me like she is taking personal responsibility for the email fiasco and not pushing it off on to others.

Isn't that what we would want?

Or perhaps anything she could/would have said would of been a "humdinger" no matter what?

No she is not taking responsibility. She is saying that to curry favor from those naive voters who will eat it up. I hope your not one of them. In reality she will not revisit these questions on her email because if she mixes up her lies, I mean story, then she will be subject to perjury charges. This is why they say the truth is always easier to remember.

a reply to: Gryphon66

"All rules regarding classified information are made by the President of the United States, or those to which he or she has ceded authority to in order to do so."


It has been this way since the 1940's when FDR wrote the First EO on classified information. The EO that Obama signed and all presidents before him and after him will sign, is the same basic EO that FDR wrote... it has been slightly modified over the years as new technologies emerged, but all in all it is the same EO.

I will bet you money right now that the next President who signs a EO for classified information, it will be exactly the same as the one Obama signed, Bush signed, etc... they do not change, except for minor adjustments. The core of the EO will always stay it same...it HAS to.

The writing of the rules and regulations for classified information was ceded by a president decades ago. There was another group that formally decided the rules and regulations before that authority was granted to the NSA in NSD 42 by Bush in 90.

NO president is going to change the way classified information is handled,,, it is set in stone and has worked very nicely for decades.

The president is NOT going to any major changes the next EO for classified information, it will be like it always is, the next EO will adopt all policies of the previous EO's, just like they always have. The only changes may be tiny small changes to accommodate any new technologies.

So it is very misleading to claim that the President is the sole power when it comes to classified information, all Presidents have wisely decided to cede that responsibility to other government agencies.

NO PRESIDENT is going to do anything to change the way classified information is handled... that is the bottom line.

Sure you can make the argument that just because they are the President they have that power... but they don't... no one would allow a President to change anything to do with the rules and regulations that pertain to classified information that would be detrimental to the US, including the way it is safeguarded, stored, transmitted, etc. It would be an impeachable offense for a President to try.



I know you do not care and probably won't read this... but I hate when people try to be intentionally misleading... it is no different from telling a lie.


In other words... if classified information was a car, then the Presidents are the ones who wash and wax the car, but NSA are the ones who perform the maintenance and rotate the tires.

"or those to which he or she has ceded authority to in order to do so."


I am glad you agree with me that the NSA was ceded the authority to set the rules, regulations and policies regarding the safeguarding, storage and transmittal of classified information,,, that wasn't so hard now was it?

Or do you still want to argue that NSA had nothing to do with deciding the rules, regulations, requirements, policies, when it comes to classified information?

So once again, the National Security Agency has the SOLE power, as granted to them by NSD 42, to set forth the rules, regulations, policies, requirements, etc. concerning classified information.

Here are some memory hole links:
articles.latimes.com...

articles.latimes.com...

"GOP-issued laptops now a White House headache
April 09, 2007|Tom Hamburger | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — When Karl Rove and his top deputies arrived at the White House in 2001, the Republican National Committee provided them with laptop computers and other communication devices to be used alongside their government-issued equipment.

The back-channel e-mail and paging system, paid for and maintained by the RNC, was designed to avoid charges that had vexed the Clinton White House -- that federal resources were being used inappropriately for political campaign purposes.

Now, that dual computer system is creating new embarrassment and legal headaches for the White House, the Republican Party and Rove's once-vaunted White House operation.

Democrats say evidence suggests the RNC e-mail system was used for political and government policy matters in violation of federal record preservation and disclosure rules."


I get the feeling that this is a WWF mud-wrestling championship between the Democrats and Republicans.

originally posted by: introvert
Sounds to me like she is taking personal responsibility for the email fiasco and not pushing it off on to others.

Isn't that what we would want?

Or perhaps anything she could/would have said would of been a "humdinger" no matter what?

Spoken like a true soldier. An enemy of the people. Congratulations!

Yet Crazy Crooked Hillary refuses to do a press conference because she knows that she well get tripped up on her lies, and that could cause the bat crazy mad woman to have a seizure. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you're willing to overlook Benghazi, or CLintons Foster and WACO, or the money for an audience charged by the Clinton foundation to allow the Saudis into the WHite house.

You never struck me as one to suffer from cognitive dissonance, maybe only when it comes to Bill Hillary

www.follownews.com...

www.follownews.com...

Article 92: Failure to obey order or regulation.

Any person subject to this chapter who:

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 134: General Article:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.


Soldiers charged with mishandling classified information are charged under this article.

I give you:

Bradley Manning... or Chelsea Manning if you prefer...

Courts-Martialed under Article 134...


Courts-Martialed for gasp!!!!! Violation of federal laws concerning classified information..... eek!!!

Like:

18 US CODE 641
18 US CODE 793(e)
18 US CODE 1030(a)

My my my... the Bradtser went to jail for violation of a US CODE...the EXACT SAME LAWS a civilian could go to jail for violating.. imagine that!!!


Not some imaginary military only classified information law that some claim exist!!

"The laws under which civilians are tried for mishandling of classified information are different from those under which military personnel are tried." has been proven to be totally 100% FALSE.

Case closed. Class is dismissed.

I love this thread!!!

" You keep arguing whatever it is you're arguing. Which seems to be that the only regulations that someone can break regarding handling of classified material are made by the NSA, which is, of course, patently ridiculous as shown here repeatedly."


For the umpteenth time.... the National Security Agency has the sole power over the rules, policies, storage, safeguarding, transmittal. etc of ALL classified information.

NSA has a set of basic rules, policies and guidelines that ALL federal agencies must adhere to as well as all government employees, contractors and members of the armed forces. Federal agencies may add to, but can never take away from the basic guidelines set forth by NSA.

If the State Department, for instance, decided that the NSA requirement for two signatures on the destruction forms for classified information wasn't enough.... they could require that SD policy be that there be three signatures,,, or four or five....... but they can not change it to anything less than the two signatures required by NSA.

No one can be charged with a federal code violation that is specifically for classified information unless they break one of the rules, policies, requirements, etc set forth by NSA. Someone who came up short on the SD requirement of three signatures can not be charged under federal code as long as they have met the NSA requirement of two signatures.



NSA defines terms used in the federal codes concerning classified information such as "proper place of custody" which for top secret and above information is inside a NSA mandated and approved SCIF in a NSA mandated approved safe or on computers located in the SCIF.

a reply to: Sublimecraft


Sure you're not being extra hard on her because she's a woman? I think that's possible and you give the guy a handicap. He throws every possible answer there is out there, then watches cable the next day, and checks to see what got the best response, goes with it. Is that the way to answer a question? Really? I'll tell ya, these debates are going to be interesting, I mean, if he shows.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you're willing to overlook Benghazi, or CLintons Foster and WACO, or the money for an audience charged by the Clinton foundation to allow the Saudis into the WHite house.

You never struck me as one to suffer from cognitive dissonance, maybe only when it comes to Bill Hillary

www.follownews.com...

www.follownews.com...

What am I overlooking with Benghazi? About eight Congressional investigations, mostly conducted by Clinton's political enemies, clearly demonstrated no wrongdoing on her part.

The rest of your list of what I'm "overlooking" is merely debunked right-wing garbage.

I'm not suffering from cognitive dissonance at all. I'll clearly state my position again: I am voting against Donald Trump. I have listened to his positions and he is a dangerously ignorant man combined with an utterly unbridled ego. Dangerous is an understatement.

As far as voting for Clinton? Yes.

As far as believing that Clinton is a good person, innocent of all wrong-doing? Hardly. She's a politician, and she's been successful in that for over 20 years in the face of some of the most vitriolic partisan opposition anyone has faced in modern times. Yet, no convictions, no finding of wrongdoing.

As far as disputing all the nonsense that gets spouted here as fact regarding Clinton, that's just my nature.

a reply to: Gryphon66


You have failed to prove one single thing I have schooled you on about classified information...

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

Some folks just don't get it.

For example, we've seen here, and in repeated threads, those who cannot accept the reality before their faces. Spurious claims debunked repeatedly and completely. Yet, the egos of some just can't accept reality.

Basic misunderstandings of the US Code, and of legal matters generally, pathetic attempts to troll others get ignored ... and still it continues.

Nope, some folks just don't get it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Some folks just don't get it.

For example, we've seen here, and in repeated threads, those who cannot accept the reality before their faces. Spurious claims debunked repeatedly and completely. Yet, the egos of some just can't accept reality.

Basic misunderstandings of the US Code, and of legal matters generally, pathetic attempts to troll others get ignored ... and still it continues.

Nope, some folks just don't get it.

You have failed to back up your statement that there are different laws for military and civilians when it comes to classified information.

ONCE again, to claim that Military members and civilians are treated under different laws when it comes to mishandling of classified information... is a LIE.... care to refute that?

/yawn

I rest my case.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
/yawn

I rest my case.

In other words... I got caught in a lie and have no defense... so I will /yawn and bow out. Typical damn Hillary supporter.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
/yawn

I rest my case.

In other words... I got caught in a lie and have no defense... so I will /yawn and bow out. Typical damn Hillary supporter.

Ricky, I'll give you one compliment here. You don't back down, even when you've made a complete fool of yourself, repeatedly.

I'm not a "Hillary supporter." I'm on the record here numerous times. Don't let the facts bother you though, in your evangelical desperation to stay relevant. You're sadly mistaken on so many points of fact, that's been shown to you repeatedly here and in so many threads it's getting, frankly, embarrassing to keep showing you up.

Go ahead. Follow this up with yet another pathetic version of "the last word." I'm done with you.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Quit deflecting and specifically point how military and civilians are prosecuted under different laws for the mishandling of classified information:


"The laws under which civilians are tried for mishandling of classified information are different from those under which military personnel are tried."

Just admit you are wrong ....good grief... we are all wrong sometimes....

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
/yawn

I rest my case.

In other words... I got caught in a lie and have no defense... so I will /yawn and bow out. Typical damn Hillary supporter.

Ricky, I'll give you one compliment here. You don't back down, even when you've made a complete fool of yourself, repeatedly.

I'm not a "Hillary supporter." I'm on the record here numerous times. Don't let the facts bother you though, in your evangelical desperation to stay relevant. You're sadly mistaken on so many points of fact, that's been shown to you repeatedly here and in so many threads it's getting, frankly, embarrassing to keep showing you up.

Go ahead. Follow this up with yet another pathetic version of "the last word." I'm done with you.

Sorry, but as someone who has read this thread, what Rick is saying makes complete sense to me. Are you having reading comprehension issues? Because if I were Rick, I'd have started ignoring you a long time ago. As someone who used to work in the FBI, I would say that Rick has a much better idea of WHAT the secrecy laws are than you do, and I have seen not one word from you that shows anyone reading this thread that you know what you're talking about...