FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

a reply to: Gryphon66

Curious if this applies to your question. I've been watching this thread and it's one of the better ones!

(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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Wouldn't this apply to the private server?





ETA: Wouldn't this also pertain to anyone who saw classified information coming from, or being sent to anything but a .gov address?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Rules of evidence have nothing to do with what we are talking about for starters.

Secondly the evidence is her using a private server that was not authorized to store classified material on.

Here is the stature and what it says -
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 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—

Please point out the requirement for intent in that statute. I bolded the requirement needed to violate the law - Gross Negligence.




This is on the NDA she signed when she started as SecState.

Click to enlarge -



With the information above do you understand why a no recommendation for indictment makes no sense? Comey based that on "no intent" as the standard which is the wrong standard for violating this law. Intent is not required, gross negligence is.

Here is the segment in question that caused the problem.
Key lawmaker demands answers from FBI after Comey clears Clinton

a reply to: Xcathdra

If rules of evidence have nothing to do with what we're talking about, then there's no way you can talk about whether a law has been broken.

To do that, you must provide evidence, not just pointing at a law and saying "broken."

You have not presented evidence that any of the material listed in the Act were "removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed"

From the NDA, can you prove that Clinton "divulged classified information" to anyone that was not properly authorized to receive it?

Without evidence, you cannot prove that any law (or agreement) has been broken.

a reply to: JinMI

I suppose to really answer that question, we would have to review current jurisprudence on the intersection between custody and general email security. I have doubts as to whether any email systems are truly "safe" and therefore, the problem of "custody" is a lot more widespread than just regarding Hillary Clinton.

It is my feeling that what should arise from all this (and remember that Director Comey and others have alluded to the lack of security in many governmental systems at large) is that we should update all laws regarding information to reflect the realities of the digital age.

I have a strong feeling that would answer the question of any government employee having a "private" server, whether that's the Secretary of State or the President of the United States.

a reply to: Gryphon66

YES we can...
www.forbes.com...
If the Russians come forward she's gone.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JinMI

I suppose to really answer that question, we would have to review current jurisprudence on the intersection between custody and general email security. I have doubts as to whether any email systems are truly "safe" and therefore, the problem of "custody" is a lot more widespread than just regarding Hillary Clinton.

If it's networkable, it's hackable. One private server would theoretically be easier to hack than a system of servers with various securities throughout.

Custody now that would be from where it (information) currently resides or from where it is viewable from . For example, I'm reading this forum at work, but it is stored on the ATS server. Where does the burden of custody reside, with them? With me? Both?

a reply to: Gryphon66


You do not understand rules of evidence.

I provided the evidence / video highlighting it.
I provided the statute in question and highlighted the issue.

The evidence is her use of a private server that was not authorized coupled with diverting all of her emails, which included classified material, onto that server. Servers used to store classified information (all 4 types) are secured and restricted to certain locations. It is against the law to store / remove / destroy those types of emails and you cannot lawfully move them to a non secure server. It is also why Clintons cell phone could not be used when she was in those areas.

There is the evidence, the statue, the vio0lation of that statute.

Now about your misuse of "rules of evidence".
Federal Rules of Evidence

Rules of evidence details the procedures for collecting, analyzing, holding, obtaining, presentation, admissibility, etc. Rules of evidence are applied to the courts. The overlap of rules of evidence with law enforcement is based on how the evidence was collected, handled and stored. However a challenge to any issues must be done in court and is usually done during a motion to suppress / exclude based on fruit of the poisonous tree.

Your use of rules of evidence has no application whatsoever to whats being discussed.


What it applies to -

ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE
ARTICLE III. PRESUMPTIONS IN CIVIL CASES
ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
ARTICLE V. PRIVILEGES
ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY
ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
ARTICLE XI. MISCELLANEOUS RULES

Rule 101 - Scope and Definition

(a) Scope. These rules apply to proceedings in United States courts. The specific courts and proceedings to which the rules apply, along with exceptions, are set out in Rule 1101.

(b) Definitions. In these rules:

(1) “civil case” means a civil action or proceeding;

(2) “criminal case” includes a criminal proceeding;

(3) “public office” includes a public agency;

(4) “record” includes a memorandum, report, or data compilation;

(5) a “rule prescribed by the Supreme Court” means a rule adopted by the Supreme Court under statutory authority; and

(6) a reference to any kind of written material or any other medium includes electronically stored information.

Please stop trying to raise "Rules of Evidence" to support your position as it does not apply to what we are discussing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You want to claim I don't understand evidence, and I'm stating that you obviously don't.

From your link:

Rule 101

These rules apply to proceedings in United States courts.

You are not arguing in a United States court, granted. It is more than obvious to all concerned that I am not alluding to that act when I use the common phrase "rules of evidence" that extends all the way back through Blackstone and into the Common Law. If you didn't realize this fact, I am now informing you of it, so stop the specious nonsense that I don't understand evidence law.

I would also like to direct your attention to Rule 403:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

Given that we are not in court, you ARE making a legal argument here. The requirements of a legal argument are clear and are based on the aforementioned rules of evidence. in particular, one doesn't merely cite the law, point to another's action and say "See, she broke the law." without a meticulous chain of hard evidence that links the actions of the accused with the specific transgressions of law.

Now, have done with that silliness.

On to the next real question:

Was her private server considered her "custody"? Or not. Do you have evidence regarding that ... or not?

I've listened to Comey's statement a few times now and what is really clear is that, at the very least, he is saying that Hillary Clinton is incompetent and a liar.

She said she sent no classified documents via her private server(s) and yet Comey confirmed that she did and not only that, she sent and received them via her private server whilst in countries hostile to the US.
Comey also confirmed that she had not released all the work related emails as she said she had (under oath), so he is saying she committed perjury.
Comey also said it was very likely that her server was hacked and that many people knew she was doing it.

If she really did do all this without realising she was putting US national security at risk, then she is completely unfit to hold public office, let alone the top job in the land. It blows her attack line against Trump out of the water. The American people now know for sure who is really unfit for the office and is incompetent. I suspect she will dial down that attack line now!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You want to claim I don't understand evidence, and I'm stating that you obviously don't.

No the one mistaken is you.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
From your link:

These rules apply to proceedings in United States courts.

You are not arguing in a United States court.

Correct so why do you insist on trying to use the term rules of evidence when it has no application to what we are talking about.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It is more than obvious to all concerned that I am not alluding to that act when I use the common phrase "rules of evidence" that extends all the way back through Blackstone and into the Common Law. If you didn't realize this fact, I am now informing you of it, so stop the specious nonsense that I don't understand evidence law.

Which again, has nothing to do with what we are discussing and has everything to do with Court Rooms.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You are making a legal argument here.

Because we are dealing with legal terms and legality issues.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Even though you are not in court, the requirements of a legal argument are clear. n particular, one doesn't merely cite the law, point to another's action and say "See, she broke the law." without meticulous hard evidence that links the actions of the accused with the specific transgressions of law.

If you took the time to read and understand what im talking about you would know:

* - evidence was provided of Clinton using a personal server located in her basement.
* - evidence was provided via depositions of aides that all her work emails were diverted to the private server.
* - evidence was provided by an OIG report that her server violated the rules in place at the State Department at the time she was secstate.
* - evidence was provided that emails did in fact contain classified information (at all 4 levels) and that those emails were stored on her personal server.
* - evidence was provided / stated by Comey that her actions were:

Although we did not find clear evidence that secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to break laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

Since intent is not a requirement its irrelevant to the statute in question. However "extremely careless" is "gross negligence".

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Now, have done with that silliness.

You tell me as you are the one trying to speak with authority on a legal topic you know nothing about.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
On to the next real question:

Was her private server considered her "custody"? Or not. Do you have evidence regarding that ... or not?

Her private server was located in the basement of her personal new york residence so yes, it was in her custody. Thats further reinforced by Hillary voluntarily turning her private server over to the FBI.

Because it was voluntary no warrant is required to seize the server or to search its contents / conduct a forensic analysis of the server.

Hearing what Comey said today and going through everything that has been on display, I'm really curious to what is keeping them from recommending an indictment.

The FBI spent 1.5 years working on this. The easy route is to claim corruption but there has to be something, admittedly or not, that is keeping from going forward.

a reply to: UKTruth

One problem here is the meaning of the word "classified" in this context, wouldn't you say?

I offered evidence from Gen. Colin Powell earlier, a man intimately aware of the most critical issues of secrecy, security, et. al.

In relation to THIS SPECIFIC question, Gen. Powell mused that not everything that was "classified" truly merited that status.

Anti-Clinton proponents here want to make every question as simplistic as possible, black-and-white, and anyone involved in the practice of law, and law enforcement as well as government and politics knows that the world just isn't usually that DISCRETE.

The second, third and fourth hand guessing and musing going on here is based on POLITICAL beliefs not LEGAL facts.

a reply to: Xcathdra

1. You're boring me again. I've never claimed we were in court. Debate, however, turns on the same concepts. Continue your specious posturing with someone else. You are not following even the most basic elements of proof in your presentations. You offer law, you state that Clinton broke it without providing evidence of same, and then proceed as if you've proven something. Again, you haven't.

2. If the materials were in her custody, she has no culpability under the Espionage Act unless you can prove she passed those materials to someone else.

a reply to: JinMI

Well however this turns out keep an eye on Comey and see what type of job he ends up with after all of this is done.

a reply to: UKTruth


Right UKTruth. Who would want someone proven as an "incompetent liar" in charge of one of the world's largest economies and the world's most powerful military? I hope and pray that Hillary supporters come to grips with this reality before election day. Either vote for Trump, or sit this election out.

If Hillary wins, those who vote for her will regret it before her first year is up.

@Gryphon66
@Xcathdra

Is not the proper place of custody for email communications for the SOD located in the internal servers located within the department?

a reply to: Xcathdra



to that. We'll hopefully know eventually.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

One problem here is the meaning of the word "classified" in this context, wouldn't you say?

I offered evidence from Gen. Colin Powell earlier, a man intimately aware of the most critical issues of secrecy, security, et. al.

In relation to THIS SPECIFIC question, Gen. Powell mused that not everything that was "classified" truly merited that status.

Anti-Clinton proponents here want to make every question as simplistic as possible, black-and-white, and anyone involved in the practice of law, and law enforcement as well as government and politics knows that the world just isn't usually that DISCRETE.

The second, third and fourth hand guessing and musing going on here is based on POLITICAL beliefs not LEGAL facts.

Comey was clear that 'classified' included the 'Top Secret' classification and such was sent and received knowingly via Clinton's private server. Trying to posit that maybe it shouldn't have been 'Top Secret' is not relevant. It really is black and white. Either the documents were classified (including Top Secret), or they were not. In this case, some were. This is now confirmed as fact.

By not indicting her, Comey has positioned her as incompetent and she has been exposed in the clearest way yet as a liar trying to cover up her incompetence.

originally posted by: JinMI
Hearing what Comey said today and going through everything that has been on display, I'm really curious to what is keeping them from recommending an indictment.

The FBI spent 1.5 years working on this. The easy route is to claim corruption but there has to be something, admittedly or not, that is keeping from going forward.

It is simple, Clinton's activities are all intertwined with top secret issues of National Security.

The whole idea of the concept of "National Security" is that people involved in some levels and activities of government are excluded from prosecution from illegal acts that they may do. Presumably, it is because it is necessary to do these illegal things in the interests of the Nation. Whoever makes the determination of what is being done in the Nation's interests is the real boss behind the scenes.

All corruption stems from secret activities. Corruption is good, when it's in the Nations interests, and bad when it is simply for personal self gain. The smart politician mixes both his personal interests with the Nations interests, so that nobody can untangle the two. In this way a person can use "National Security" to his own advantage.

What motivates people?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
1. You're boring me again.

I think your tired of being corrected with facts.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I've never claimed we were in court.

and yet youve tried using rules of evidence to support your position, which it doesn't, because it applies to courts.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Debate, however, turns on the same concepts. Continue your specious posturing with someone else. You are not following even the most basic elements of proof in your presentations. You offer law, you state that Clinton broke it without providing evidence of same, and then proceed as if you've proven something. Again, you haven't.

As a matter of fact I am. What I suspect is you are willingly allowing yourself to dismiss evidnce and facts that do not support your position. Thats obvious by the way you are using the circular argument of asking for proof, ignoring the proof / evidence / facts, then asking for it again.

That demonstrates a lack of understanding of what we are talking about on your part.

Now you tell me why the following is not evidnce you can acceot -

* - evidence was provided of Clinton using a personal server located in her basement.
* - evidence was provided via depositions of aides that all her work emails were diverted to the private server.
* - evidence was provided by an OIG report that her server violated the rules in place at the State Department at the time she was secstate.
* - evidence was provided that emails did in fact contain classified information (at all 4 levels) and that those emails were stored on her personal server.
* - evidence was provided / stated by Comey that her actions were:

Although we did not find clear evidence that secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to break laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
2. If the materials were in her custody, she has no culpability under the Espionage Act unless you can prove she passed those materials to someone else.

Wrong -

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 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—

Defend your culpability argument (which again demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the law and how its applied) with the statute in question. The first sentence should be a massive huge red flag that you do not understand whats being discussed.