It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

page: 98
284
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: pianopraze

Two different sources have stated that these emails do not involve Hillary Clinton.

AP and NYT, linked several times in the thread.

Subseuqent sources have suggested that these emails may be duplicates that the FBI has already reviewed.




posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well, darn. So much for that hope.

Right right, the requirements of the Constitution are only meaningful when you agree with them and they match up with your partisanship. Not unexpected.

MIght want to actually provide your link to Wikipedia ... just for form's sake.

He agreed to a five-year SUSPENSION of his law license in ARK.

He resigned from the Supreme Court Bar, which he had never argued before.

So no ... he was and is completely innocent in the eyes of the law.

The US Senate acquitted him. If you don't like the way the Constitution does things, that's your issue.





LOL...

So the House finds him guilty as does civil court. I have no issue with the Constitution at all. It was his buddies that kept the Senate from doing their job. At least civil court got it correct I guess.

But no, in the eyes of the Arkansas supreme Court he was found guilty....funny that!



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

In. Your. Opinion.


No... in the Law:




18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.


She removed classified information from a secure system and put it on her server. That broke the law.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: pianopraze

In your opinion.

You're not an attorney, nor a judge nor a jury in the mattter.

You are reading the law and applying it as it suits your beliefs.

Director Comey was quite clear in July on this point.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


my dad wwa hit by a car in a Walmart parking lot this morning.

He's ok and resting now, but he may still have to have brain surgery if the bruise in his brain spreads.


Oh my. So sorry about this. Just taking a moment here to say I hope he heals up real soon!



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Clinton willfully set up a private server and used it for government business.
And besides the training that everyone with a security clearance gets, there is this:


So, I'm pretty sure that she knew what she was doing, and did it willfully and knowingly.


edit on 10/29/16 by BlueAjah because: vid



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Still working my way through the thread, it's moving fast and I'm also dealing with the favt that my dad wwa hit by a car in a Walmart parking lot this morning.

He's ok and resting now, but he may still have to have brain surgery if the bruise in his brain spreads.

Regardless, he also has a fractured knee that will take 6-8vweeks to recover from and he's elderly so it might be longer.

He is an ornery old cuss and so I expect he'll be ok, but I am still quite concerned.


Good heavens. In the heat of discussion I totally missed this personal note.

I hope for the best for your father, for his health and a speedy recovery.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: imjack

Clinton willfully set up a private server and used it for government business.
And besides the training that everyone with a security clearance gets, there is this:


So, I'm pretty sure that she knew what she was doing, and did it willfully and knowingly.



Answer the fking querstion and stop deflecting, does the law state intent is or is not applicable?

The answer is obvious, you people live in denial. His story about the sailor taking pictures is far more questionable than a third party hacking you.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: pianopraze

Did any of the emails originate from Clinton...

If Huma had classified emails on that computer, and knowing she did not have security access to all levels of classified info, how did she get them / who sent them to her?


Realistically, Who here doesn't think Huma had complete access to Hillary Clinton's Emails? I'm quite confident she even knows her login info. Once that is confirmed, you might as well let the band play as the HMS Clinton Sinks to the Bottom of the Ocean. Huma is the Right hand Women of Clinton.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

793(f) is the relevant law.

18 U.S. Code § 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 negligencepermits 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.



intent is NOT a requirement under the statute.

The use of the word "and" and "or" is important. When the word "and" is used it means ALL elements of a crime listed must be broken to violate the law. When the word "or" is used, each element stands on its own and only the elements for the section must be broken to violate the law.

In this case the word "or" is used so each element stands on its own.
edit on 29-10-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Do did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield ...

Powell and Rice used private email.

Representatives Chaffetz and Gowdy both use non-government email accounts ...

But no ... this is not political at all.

Riiight.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

" Why not people who 'purposefully and willingly' spread the information connect to the server?

Is it not possible she sent information to someone who has done this? "



It is Possible , but in this Case the Suspects are Employees of Hillary Clinton's State Department , who , without a Security Clearance , Viewed and Sent Classified Material through an Unsecured Server . Hillary Clinton , as their Boss and Employer , is also Guilty of the Crimes they May have knowingly or unknowingly Committed by allowing them Access to such a System which by Law is a Crime .



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Still trying wrap my head around whats going on.


It would appear to me that Huma Abedin is in some very serious trouble.

IF she was keeping classified information on her home laptop accessible by a person with no clearance....she got some serious explaining to do.

IF this is correct, then I do not see anyway forward without Huma being indicted for mishandling classified information...it would be a slam dunk no brainer.... no one else involved.

It would look very very bad for Team Clinton if Hillarys #1 sidekick goes down the tubes.


I don't see how anyone can logically try to extradite Hillary Clinton out of this revelation due to her closeness with Huma these last few years.

Looks like that relationship has now went toxic.
edit on R552016-10-29T14:55:07-05:00k5510Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R572016-10-29T14:57:47-05:00k5710Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: pianopraze

Did any of the emails originate from Clinton...

If Huma had classified emails on that computer, and knowing she did not have security access to all levels of classified info, how did she get them / who sent them to her?


Realistically, Who here doesn't think Huma had complete access to Hillary Clinton's Emails? I'm quite confident she even knows her login info. Once that is confirmed, you might as well let the band play as the HMS Clinton Sinks to the Bottom of the Ocean. Huma is the Right hand Women of Clinton.


Agreed...

and to extend your metaphor what the Clinton campaign is doing is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: imjack

793(f) is the relevant law.

18 USC 793(f)


(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 negligencepermits 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.



intent is NOT a requirement under the statute.


And what's the precedence of jurisprudence in the last 99 years on this issue.

I.e., what and how have US Courts actually ruled (or what cases have actually been brought)?

Why is that always left out of these analyses?



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

In the event of any leak, access to the source is critical. Anything beyond that is baseless speculation.

How is that not obvious?



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

In your opinion.

You're not an attorney, nor a judge nor a jury in the mattter.

You are reading the law and applying it as it suits your beliefs.

Director Comey was quite clear in July on this point.


Comey admitted there was Classified info on her server. He was quite clear on that point.

That means she broke the law, that they didn't throw her crooked butt in jail shows there is a two-tiered system of justice in the USA, one for the rich and or connected, and one for us the little people.

EVERY service man or woman on ATS knows their butts would be in jail if they had done what Clinton had done. One even confronted her at a Debate.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

First thing you've said in a while that I agree with Rick.

I believe the focus here will be on Huma.

If she sent confidential info to her husband, that is indeed going to be actionable in court.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: imjack

793(f) is the relevant law.

18 USC 793(f)


(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 negligencepermits 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.



intent is NOT a requirement under the statute.


I agree..... intent is NOT a requirement under 793(f). That was written specifically for cases where there is not intent..just stupidity..... or extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
Still trying wrap my head around whats going on.


It would appear to me that Huma Abedin is in some very serious trouble.

IF she was keeping classified information on her home laptop accessible by a person with no clearance....she got some serious explaining to do.

IF this is correct, then I do not see anyway forward without Huma being indicted for mishandling classified information...it would be a slam dunk no brainer.... no one else involved.

It going to look very very bad for Team Clinton if Hillarys #1 sidekick goes down the tubes.


I don't see how anyone can logically try to extradite Hillary Clinton out of this revelation due to her closeness with Huma these last few years.

Looks like that relationship has now went toxic.

Yep next time we see Huma she is going to have bus tracks across her body

edit on 29-10-2016 by Tarzan the apeman. because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
284
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join