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.
originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66
I'm sure there were things disclosed today in the classified
Sections of the I G Report that brought about his removal from the
FBI building.
Many "deleted" texts out there were recovered, perhaps
It is true that he threatened the president!?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RadioRobert
By the time HRC was appointed SOS, the technology had evolved and gov't email systems were a lot different. With Hillary, it wasn't just email. She had three private servers, multiple non-gov't devices in use, and multiple non-gov't email accounts in use. Several other high officials, including President Obama, were using those private systems and communicating with pseudonyms.
A bit different from the early 2000's, I think. She knew better by then and so did everybody else.
Barring the differences in technology, though ... what is the crime?
Is it mishandling of classified material?
Isn't the law in play like the Espionage Act of 1917 and/or the National Security Act of 1947?
Obviously, at least in this universe, these laws existed before computers and email was widespread, yes?
originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66
I'm sure there were things disclosed today in the classified
Sections of the I G Report that brought about his removal from the
FBI building.
Many "deleted" texts out there were recovered, perhaps
It is true that he threatened the president!?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog
*trudges through the obligatory ad hominem BS*
When did the mishandling of classified material become a crime, and under what statute?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog
*trudges through the obligatory ad hominem BS*
When did the mishandling of classified material become a crime, and under what statute?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy
You aren't understaning my question or my argument.
I am arguing that the mishandling of classified documents has been in place for years.
Espionage Act of 1917
National Security Act of 1947
These have been amended as needed to cover the mishandling of classified documents, right?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog
*trudges through the obligatory ad hominem BS*
When did the mishandling of classified material become a crime, and under what statute?
originally posted by: rickymouse
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog
*trudges through the obligatory ad hominem BS*
When did the mishandling of classified material become a crime, and under what statute?
Gee, I googled your first part before the comma and came up with lots of articles adressing it is a crime. Here is the first one...criminal.findlaw.com... next one. www.law.cornell.edu...
That was googling that first part of your sentence, Highlight and google.
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog
*trudges through the obligatory ad hominem BS*
When did the mishandling of classified material become a crime, and under what statute?
Haha! You got used to the Obama/Clinton style of accountability for so long you think it's normal to walk away freely after committing class C felonies with classified information.
Hillary-ous!
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RadioRobert
By the time HRC was appointed SOS, the technology had evolved and gov't email systems were a lot different. With Hillary, it wasn't just email. She had three private servers, multiple non-gov't devices in use, and multiple non-gov't email accounts in use. Several other high officials, including President Obama, were using those private systems and communicating with pseudonyms.
A bit different from the early 2000's, I think. She knew better by then and so did everybody else.
Barring the differences in technology, though ... what is the crime?
Is it mishandling of classified material?
Isn't the law in play like the Espionage Act of 1917 and/or the National Security Act of 1947?
Obviously, at least in this universe, these laws existed before computers and email was widespread, yes?
Mr. Palmer: "Are you aware that Strzok went to London in July of 2016?"
Horowitz: "I've learned of that through various public reports"
Mr. Palmer: "Thank you. Would it be fair to say that McCabe approved that trip and approved the expenditures for that?"
Horowitz: "I don't know the answer one way or the other"
Mr. Palmer: "I just wonder what other justification there could have been for a trip to London at that particular time other than the Russia probe and what concerns me was that when he returned he almost immediately launched that probe, that McCabe approved him going to London and he came back and he launched it. Do you think that there's any possibility that Strzok had prior knowledge that Christopher Steele was assembling the dossier?"
Horowitz: "That's one of the issues that we are / have been asked to look at. So we're in the middle of that work on how that played out with regard to the FISA application."
Mr. Palmer: "I'm glad that you made that point because another question I need to ask. Was there any possibility that the dossier was at least part of Strzok's 'Insurance Policy'? Because that statement came later I believe.
Horowitz: "That's right. The insurance policy statement came up on August.."
...They go on to discuss McCabe's bias due to Clinton contributions to his wife's campaign.
Mr. Palmer: "Do you think that either of them had knowledge that the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier?"
Horowitz: "... that is something that is part of the review that we are doing"