China was hacking Hillary Clinton's e-mails in real time.

a reply to: introvert

Whistleblowers have their own laws that apply. For good reason.

Yea, they were actually protected by federal law until the Obama admin started going after them with the Espionage Act, which was unprecedented.

I agree. It was BS. Not sure how BS applies to the current laws, but BS it remains.

Again, no where in the law did it say anything about intent, that was interpreted without language in the law, again, unprecedented.

Either way, intent was shown, there were chains of communication proving the intent to circumvent the laws and policies.

a reply to: introvert

typical you choose not to respond to anything else
sow all the discord while you can, those days are coming to an end, and the american people will be much happier for it

Lol.

Best thread of the day.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yea, they were actually protected by federal law until the Obama admin started going after them with the Espionage Act, which was unprecedented.

Cool.

So how does that apply to this case?

It doesn't. It's a distraction and false equivalence, much like the sailor who took several pictures and admitted that he intended to share those pics with friends and family...and then plead guilty.

Again, no where in the law did it say anything about intent, that was interpreted without language in the law, again, unprecedented.

It's not unprecedented. That is why only one person was tried under those laws and I believe the conviction was overturned, if I remember correctly.

Your ignorance on the issue is not proof of anything.

Either way, intent was shown, there were chains of communication proving the intent to circumvent the laws and policies.

Are you sure?

Please provide an example.

a reply to: introvert

No. If you can properly read and are honest enough to put things in context, you would not ask such a thing. I did not say anything of the sort and not one of my posts even hinted at that. Stay focused.

Honest enough to put into context? I've shown no partisan affiliation when it comes to how this law should be enforced.

However, you keep on saying that there was no intent, hence they couldn't proceed with any kind of punishment. Where in the law does it say anything about intent? Further more, I showed there was intent.

You keep saying to show you a relevant case, and several have showed people prosecuted for the mishandling of classified information who went to prison without "intent", language not even in the law.

Play semantics all you want while implying people can't "properly read", but I can, and I read no where about intent.

Frankly, I think you're just being intellectually dishonest to accomplish an agenda. But that's my opinion.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

typical you choose not to respond to anything else
sow all the discord while you can, those days are coming to an end, and the american people will be much happier for it

Sure.

Leave it to someone such as yourself to label someone with a different opinion as sowing discord.

Imagine that.

a reply to: introvert

Yes, just like hillary sent emails and intended for other people to see them.

Oh and still no comment on the destruction of subpoenaed evidence?

Of course not.

a reply to: introvert

Are you sure? Please provide an example.

Examples of intent below.

What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Colin Powells email clearly spelling out the intent of circumventing laws and policies.

Here is another one that shows it clearly goes against the wishes of why the policy is in place.

When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals and could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn’t back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.

Source

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Honest enough to put into context? I've shown no partisan affiliation when it comes to how this law should be enforced.

Where did I mention partisan affiliation?

However, you keep on saying that there was no intent, hence they couldn't proceed with any kind of punishment. Where in the law does it say anything about intent? Further more, I showed there was intent.

I did not say there was no intent. I said there was no proof of intent, and you have no proven it. You say you did, but you haven't.

You keep saying to show you a relevant case, and several have showed people prosecuted for the mishandling of classified information who went to prison without "intent", language not even in the law.

Their actions clearly prove intent.

Play semantics all you want while implying people can't "properly read", but I can, and I read no where about intent. Frankly, I think you're just being intellectually dishonest to accomplish an agenda. But that's my opinion.

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

typical you choose not to respond to anything else
sow all the discord while you can, those days are coming to an end, and the american people will be much happier for it

Sure.

Leave it to someone such as yourself to label someone with a different opinion as sowing discord.

Imagine that.

How is that different from you saying anyone who has an opinion different than you is ignorant or has reading comprehension skills?

Pot, meet kettle.

a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Colin Powells email clearly spelling out the intent of circumventing laws and policies.

Sounds to me like his intent was to communicate with friends, without it being SD business.

It says it right there.

Here is another one that shows it clearly goes against the wishes of why the policy is in place.

Yes. Policy.

Now you are getting it.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

typical you choose not to respond to anything else
sow all the discord while you can, those days are coming to an end, and the american people will be much happier for it

Sure.

Leave it to someone such as yourself to label someone with a different opinion as sowing discord.

Imagine that.

How is that different from you saying anyone who has an opinion different than you is ignorant or has reading comprehension skills?

Pot, meet kettle.

I've never said that.

You just lied.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

typical you choose not to respond to anything else
sow all the discord while you can, those days are coming to an end, and the american people will be much happier for it

Sure.

Leave it to someone such as yourself to label someone with a different opinion as sowing discord.

Imagine that.

again you bring no substance only personal attacks?
perhaps because you lack the capacity for the subject matter?
with you, it was revealed ,it is much more than just a simple "difference of opinion"

a reply to: introvert

Sounds to me like his intent was to communicate with friends, without it being SD business.

You might want to reread that.

I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Yes. Policy. Now you are getting it.

I never argued it wasn't policy, I've said it is both policy and law. You did read that law, right?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.

Policy and law. Workplace policy could be drug free, those drugs could be illegal too. Sometimes matters fall under policy and law.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

typical you choose not to respond to anything else
sow all the discord while you can, those days are coming to an end, and the american people will be much happier for it

Sure.

Leave it to someone such as yourself to label someone with a different opinion as sowing discord.

Imagine that.

again you bring no substance only personal attacks?
perhaps because you lack the capacity for the subject matter?
with you, it was revealed ,it is much more than just a simple "difference of opinion"

Yes, I have no substance, yet here I am talking about the issue.

Talk about the issue or move on.

I do not want to waste my time with emotional hypocrites.

a reply to: introvert

He plead guilty because he did it. He had no intent of wrongdoing, just like Hillary, he had zero intent to do anything bad with them according to your source. Intent is nowhere in the law, please cite it.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.

Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..