Was he doing anything illegal? Idiotic comparison, it was an accident.
Whoops, I accidentally set up a private server.
Thinking of committing a felony? Good news!
- Thread starter NinjaKnight
- Start date
Whoops, I accidentally set up a private server.
And how many classified messages were transmitted?
And LOL at you digging down to the Karl Rove level to deflect away from Hillary.
You know you are dead in an argument when you pull out the Blame Bush card, right?
Then he shouldn't have made the recommendation and just let Lynch refuse to charge her. Him making the call makes it seem like she is innocent.
A friend forwarded this to me.....its worth a read
![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/heres-why-im-delighted-about-the-fbis-verdict-on-hillary
Can you at least just come clean already and admit you're willfully supporting a corrupt, lying, deceitful cretin simply because she has a D next to her name?
I'm voting for her because I think she is capable, I think she will do well, and is far superior to the other candidates. An added bonus is that she is a woman, meaning the GOP will hate her nearly as much as they hate people of color.
Who are you voting for?
LOL!!
Your defense of voting for Clinton is so shaky that you had to actually resort to the "WAR ON WOMEN!" line of bullshit. It's incredible how rehearsed your HuffPo taglines are.
Why exactly would you consider her "capable"? She's been incapable in most everything she's done, aside from using the corruptive force of intimidation and power to.....remain in power. She bills herself as a women's rights advocate yet she has a documented history of intimidating and demeaning Bill's rape accusers. She sells herself as some sort of oracle of smart foreign power, yet she was Sec of State during perhaps the most destructive period of foreign policy we've had. She sells herself as some sort of advocate for the poor and working people, yet she's spent her entire life amassing power amongst the powerful and elite wealthy at the expense of......the working class and the poor. She's also now conveniently "Pro LGBT" despite the fact that she and her husband signed some of the most punishing anti-gay legislation.
Thank you for proving my point though, that there is no credible defense of Clinton without saying "She's a woman", "War on women!", or "GOP are sexist and that's why they don't support her!"
She is capable of getting into a new scandal every year. As a bonus she gets to tell us common folk about inequality while wearing a $12,000 outfit. This while running a charity scam. God bless the ruling class.
Let's not forget the Uranium One farce that occurred during his tenure as Sec of State. For those who forgot here are the cliffs:
- Russian oligarchs took control of a Canadian mining company that enriched uranium and would have consumed 1/5 of all uranium stocks in the US
- The group of wealthy Canadians (and Russians) that eventually created Uranium One became massive donors to the Clinton Foundation, with the CEO personal giving $2.5M
- Bill Clinton was given $500,000 personally to give a speech for a Kremlin linked finance group in Russia, who had direct involvement in the Uranium One deal
- Clinton as Sec of State put together an advisory board to approve the transfer of this uranium to the Russians via Uranium One
- Despite a "promise" to Obama to disclose every donation and donor to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary, she did NOT disclose the millions of dollars that poured in from Uranium One linked donors
So yes, she's very "capable". Capable of anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
- Russian oligarchs took control of a Canadian mining company that enriched uranium and would have consumed 1/5 of all uranium stocks in the US
- The group of wealthy Canadians (and Russians) that eventually created Uranium One became massive donors to the Clinton Foundation, with the CEO personal giving $2.5M
- Bill Clinton was given $500,000 personally to give a speech for a Kremlin linked finance group in Russia, who had direct involvement in the Uranium One deal
- Clinton as Sec of State put together an advisory board to approve the transfer of this uranium to the Russians via Uranium One
- Despite a "promise" to Obama to disclose every donation and donor to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary, she did NOT disclose the millions of dollars that poured in from Uranium One linked donors
So yes, she's very "capable". Capable of anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Aw you getting upset that your support for Hillary is looking more sad by the moment?
My vote? No idea yet. Probably Gary Johnson simply as a protest vote. Maybe I'll write in Jon Snow, King In the North.
So she's either playing dumb and is guilty or she IS that dumb and isn't qualified to be a cashier at walmart much less POTUS.
The most likely thing he is referencing is portion marking. It's the only thing that makes sense because all other markings spell it out (i.e. TOP SECRET). Portion marking is where a (TS), (S), et. al. are placed before the start of a sentence. It's used so that you know exactly what information is classified, but it's not that complicated and is covered in any handling of classified data training. Personally, I think she is playing dumb; most people would believe that its more complicated than it actually is.
Everyone is missing the point. The debate should be about this: Why does the government impute an intent requirement into a statute regarding releasing classified information to our enemies, but there is no intent requirement for dropping a can of oil into your sewer. In some cases, depending on the substance, the penalties for the sewer violation are higher than the release of classified information. If the release of the oil or the classified documents are such a threat that it must be criminalized, why has Congress exempted themselves from both statutes?
What she did was criminal. We cannot prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt -- which is required. Rather than constructive change of the law to clarify or reduce the amount of intent to be guilty of the violation, we are talking about Kabuki theater questions for soundbites that are going out over twitter in real time.
And never mind that members of Congress transmit classified info via private server every day. That's effing wrong too, but it isn't illegal.
Fix the effing law.
What she did was criminal. We cannot prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt -- which is required. Rather than constructive change of the law to clarify or reduce the amount of intent to be guilty of the violation, we are talking about Kabuki theater questions for soundbites that are going out over twitter in real time.
And never mind that members of Congress transmit classified info via private server every day. That's effing wrong too, but it isn't illegal.
Fix the effing law.
My understanding of the discussion while watching the hearing was that they were discussing a series of documents that consisted of a log of telephone calls, who made them, and brief summaries of what was discussed. Some, but not all of the summaries were marked (C). There were hundreds, if not thousands of entries in each document. Clinton prepared some of the summaries personally, others were drafted for her. So the question became whether sufficient evidence existed to prove that Clinton had seen the (C), knew what it meant, and transmitted the document in willful disregard of that designation. That's a monumental evidentiary hurdle without a confession. Even though a reasonable person who had received the necessary training might see the (C) and understand it, that isn't the evidentiary standard. Which is basically what he said on Tuesday. We all know she did it. She knows she did it. But everyone who knows their way around knows that she knows that he can't prove it because there are multiple reasonable hypothesis of innocence, including she never saw it, she personally did understand it, other persons sent the email on her behalf, etc.
Agreed. The hurdle you describe is exactly why intent is not included in the typical interpretation of the law. That's a serious concern. The training provided is to teach how to handle the classified data but also the consequences of not handling it properly. It's on the individual not to mess up, there are no excuses.
If some of the document they described was portion marked, then the entire thing should be portion marked. Even Unclassified statements get a (U) so to not understand any of the markings means she has no idea what constitutes classified information and how it's transmitted/marked. That's a serious concern for her going forward.
If you are cleared for TS and above, you know the markings. Period.
That has always been my understanding of the law. Comey's testimony today included statements that FBI policy dating back several years imputes an intent requirement based upon some specific past cases. We shall see if that is true.
I don't know Huffy. The law explicitly doesn't require intent. All the training that we get for both secret and top secret clearances stresses that intent is not necessary to violate the law. The documents that everyone with a clearance signs includes the laws. Hillary Clinton worked on a secure floor and was very familiar with SCIFs. There is no way that Hillary Clinton did not know that the server that she was using was an unacceptable means of transporting classified data. The fact that she should have known that is was improper and should have known that she was actually handling classified information is enough to comprise gross negligence explicitly because it is so hard to prove intent when a smart person decides to lie. They've prosecuted people for taking pictures of military equipment they didn't know was classified and sending it to their mom, a far more innocent and less compromising mishandling than Sec. Clinton. Especially with Clinton's changing narratives after the fact showing a consciousness of guilt.
Actually, that is partially true. Do they even handle their own email accounts and texts? Probably most of the communications are opened by staff and the staff prepares a summary for their boss. Even the replies are sent by staff
