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.

 

Just Comey? It Was A COORDINATED Effort Among Top FBI Brass To Decriminalize Clinton's Conduct!

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.


Having a private server was not illegal.




It is when you store classified information on it.




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements report (direct .pdf link)


Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.

...

Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

...
These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.


She was not authorized and would not have received authorization to use a private, unsecured server.

But you know all of this.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.


Having a private server was not illegal.




It is when you store classified information on it.


Exactly. Apparently they could not find that she intended to store classified info on the server.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yep, she just did so accidentally.

Either she didn't know better and thus was inept and unfit for the position, or she did know better and was unfit for the position.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements report (direct .pdf link)


Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.

...

Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

...
These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.


She was not authorized and would not have received authorization to use a private, unsecured server.

But you know all of this.


Yes, I do know this and this appears to be where many people do not understand what is going on.

Her server was completely legal. Period.

Classified info found it's way on to the server through email and, laughably, even emails that contained public info were classified.

Now did she intend to host that server for the purpose of storing classified info or hiding stuff from FOIA requests? No. Not that the FBI could prove.

So again we go back to what she could be charged with. The current push is to charge her with gross negligence, but we have been down that road and have been shown how it is a non-starter in that particular statute.

You have to have intent to commit these crimes for it to be prosecuted. Otherwise, you are looking at internal consequences that would include reprimand, a slap on the wrist, loss of clearance or loss of employment.

In Clinton's case, none of that can occur since she was no longer SoS.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Yep, she just did so accidentally.

Either she didn't know better and thus was inept and unfit for the position, or she did know better and was unfit for the position.


Or she never sent the particular emails that contained portion markings and cannot be held accountable for what another person did, down the list of replies in an email chain.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.


Having a private server was not illegal.




It is when you store classified information on it.


Exactly. Apparently they could not find that she intended to store classified info on the server.



I assume she had procedures in place to make sure classified info didn't end up on her non Government private server.

"I didn't "intend" to have Kiddie Porn on my computer your honor".

Well in that case, case dismissed.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
wow i remember that so you would rather piss off new potus than out going ag seems idiotic to me.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Well, that's a horrible example and comparison, but ok.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.


Having a private server was not illegal.




It is when you store classified information on it.


Exactly. Apparently they could not find that she intended to store classified info on the server.




If you believe that, when then you are just plain ignorant.

The State Departments own guidebook for employees states that the majority of the information they deal with is classified.


You claim that she is so utterly and completely stupid that she didn't know what classified information was, and yet you think she would have been a great president.


Tells me all I need to know about your logic and reasoning.
edit on R062017-12-15T17:06:23-06:00k0612Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R082017-12-15T17:08:03-06:00k0812Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

as opposed to cnn ,msnbc, abc, nbc, cbs, wapo, nyt, bloomberg,



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Or she never sent the particular emails that contained portion markings and cannot be held accountable for what another person did, down the list of replies in an email chain.


You do know that it does not matter whether or not the information was marked, she should have known better.


And if a previous Clinton family scandal hinged on what the definition of “is” is, the scandal around the emails appears to hinge on how you view that little (c) on the email about President Banda—as well as the 192 other classified emails identified by the FBI that together represent 0.48 percent of the some 40,000 emails Hillary Clinton sent and received over more than four years as the nation’s top diplomat, all running through a jerry-rigged computer server that let her stay comfortably on the BlackBerry she liked.


Politico

Also, regardless of who sent or received the emails, she was responsible for actions undertaken by those to whom she had authority.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



If you believe that, when then you are just plain ignorant.


It's not about what we believe. It's about what can be proven.



The State Departments own guidebook for employees states that the majority of the information they deal with is classified.


True and the server was not setup for that purpose. Still, there was some leakage on to it.



You claim that she is so utterly and completely stupid that she didn't know what classified information was, and yet you think she would have been a great president.


I have never claimed either one. In fact, I said specifically that I thought people were dumb for voting for her.



Tells me all I need to know about your logic and reasoning.


Doesn't say much for you when you have to lie about what you think I believe.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert


Or she never sent the particular emails that contained portion markings and cannot be held accountable for what another person did, down the list of replies in an email chain.


You do know that it does not matter whether or not the information was marked, she should have known better.


And if a previous Clinton family scandal hinged on what the definition of “is” is, the scandal around the emails appears to hinge on how you view that little (c) on the email about President Banda—as well as the 192 other classified emails identified by the FBI that together represent 0.48 percent of the some 40,000 emails Hillary Clinton sent and received over more than four years as the nation’s top diplomat, all running through a jerry-rigged computer server that let her stay comfortably on the BlackBerry she liked.


Politico

Also, regardless of who sent or received the emails, she was responsible for actions undertaken by those to whom she had authority.


True. Now what are the consequences for what happened?

Criminal prosecution? No. We have learned that.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Any REASONABLE person would have been aware that a significant amount of their daily work and correspondence would be classified as Secretary of State.

Anybody.

She set up her server to handle her correspondence as SoS.

She is either utterly completely stupid, or she just didn't care.


You can believe what you want.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Intent is not a requirement to violate 18 USC 793F. One would think you would learn this by now instead of repeating democratic talking points that have been debunked many times now.

Even more so showing the coordinated collusion at the top of the FBI to exonerate the criminal Hillary Clinton.

Now pay attention cause its only like the 100th time this base been explained to you.

(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 negligence permits 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.


Point out the term gross negligence (hint - its bolded for you).
Now, point out the term intent in that same statute (yeah its not there because the standard is gross negligence).

But if you insist on sticking to the bs intent crap the very fact she was a US Senator on the armed services committee and budget committee, former first lady of the US, former first lady of Arkansas, Presidential candidate - twice and Secretary of State and, oh, yes, a lawyer - her use of her own private server establishes intent to violate federal law by using it to store classified information that is not allowed of secured government systems.

You cant have it both ways that she was the most qualified candidate to be President while arguing she was to stupid to know the law given her history.
edit on 15-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

Any REASONABLE person would have been aware that a significant amount of their daily work and correspondence would be classified as Secretary of State.

Anybody.

She set up her server to handle her correspondence as SoS.

She is either utterly completely stupid, or she just didn't care.


You can believe what you want.




I will. Thanks for the permission Rick.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Intent is not a requirement to violate 18 USC 793F. One would think you would learn this by now instead of repeating democratic talking points that have been debunked many times now.


As you were shown before, only one other person was charged under this statue and it was later dropped.

Comey explained mens rea and why intent is important.



Even more so showing the coordinated collusion at the top of the FBI to exonerate the criminal Hillary Clinton.


By following precedence and understanding of the law?



Now pay attention cause its only like the 100th time this base been explained to you.


Show me any other case where this statute was used to try someone without intent.

Please.



You cant have it both ways that she was the most qualified candidate to be President while arguing she was to stupid to know the law given her history.


Just one case, please.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
As you were shown before, only one other person was charged under this statue and it was later dropped.

Comey explained mens rea and why intent is important.


and the standard then was and still is gross negligence and not intent. As for comey yes, you keep repeating the lie he told however it doesn't make it truthful. Mens rhea is the fancy term for intent, which is not needed.




originally posted by: introvert
By following precedence and understanding of the law?

By drafting an exoneration letter several months before people were interviewed. By not recording those interviews as required by policy. B7y allowing suspect in the investigation act as lawyers to compromise their status with attorney client privilege, by allowing 1 lawyer to represent multiple parties in the same investigation, by changing the wording in the exoneration letter to nullify the actual crime committed, by creating their own element and adding it the legal section in question when only Congress can change the laws..

All of which, by the way, is text book obstruction of justice.



originally posted by: introvert
Show me any other case where this statute was used to try someone without intent.

Please.

I dont need to as it has nothing to do with how this section is worded and the required element to violate the law - gross negligence.

Show me how many people were charged under this statute, section F, who plead guilty, creating a situation where the stats would not show in research on people who were charged under the statute and prosecuted who plead no guilty and it went to court. A fact the left ignores for obvious reasons.

* - United States v. McGuinness
The courts found that Congress created a sliding scale under 18 usc 793

In McGuinness, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals rejected the defendant’s claim, and it did so in a way that is instructive for our purposes. The judges explained that in Section 793 (part of the codification of the Espionage Act of 1917), Congress sought to establish a sliding scale of violations involving the mishandling of classified information. The first subsection – Sec. 793(a) – requires proof of “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Subsequent subsections – Sec. 793(d) and (e) – “require only that the accused act ‘willfully’” (i.e., in violation of a known legal duty, but not necessarily with intent to harm the U.S.). Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the judges matter-of-factly endorse Congress’s framework: There is no hint of a problem with the concept of employing the criminal law to punish a related series of national security offenses from the most serious, involving intent to harm the United States, down to the least serious, involving gross negligence. Within that framework, the court rejects the claim that the less serious offenses require proof of the higher criminal intent called for in the more serious offenses.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...



originally posted by: introvert
Just one case, please.

Hillary Clinton.

Also see above.

By the way - NDA - CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT **PDF LINK**

Pay attention to sections 4 and 5 as it directly says she cant do what she did.




Again if she was the most qualified how can her crimes be absolved by claiming she was stupid then?

Even you are intelligent enough to understand the game the Democrats are playing to try and protect Clinton, Obama and other criminals from the last 8 years.
edit on 15-12-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just one case, please.




top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join