Trump has stated this openly and tweeted it. There is more than 30,000 missing. Everyone knows the NSA has them that is why it is such a joke. The NSA, the CIA, the FBI, Obama, HRC and most of Silicon Valley knows they have them. In fact if it was Joe Blow citizen they would not only have been reading them in real time you would be in federal prison.
The very fact that the rest of her underlings went to the level of bleach bit indicates how little guys like Combetta know about NSA.
That was all a show...Comey knew damn well where to get them.
Why would you trust what Trump says about anything? He's just not a credible source
There is more than 30,000 missing.
There is not.
The State Department or the FBI or Judicial Watch are not entitled to Hillary's personal emails. Only work emails were required to be turned over to comply with the Federal Records Act. Some of the emails Clinton turned in were sent back to her, because they weren't considered federal records. She asked her lawyers to separate the emails out and they did so, but running series of searches. When the FBI got her server they recovered 15,000 of the deleted emails and a judge asked the State Department to review them. Some of the deleted emails were work related, but it's unclear if the FBI ever gave a number. These were considered as part of the original FBI investigation, (the FBI recovered emails as early as 2015.)
You're a fucking idiot. It is well documented that she deleted over 30k emails. You question the integrity of our president but not the person so incompetent that she used a private server to send classified information (which she denied). Then you trust her to pick and choose which emails contained classified information? The very idea that you would support a criminal, who denied their criminal activity, deciding
which information is handed over knowing that if she actually turns over evidence, she would be incriminating herself is fucking retarded.
We all know your a shill and I respect you for your honesty as well as your tenacity but at some point you have to come back to reality. The woman committed a fucking crime that many are sitting in jail for. In fact, many are in jail for less. This is why Trump was elected. Americans (legal Americans) are over the politics and over the special treatment afforded to politicians. Drain the swamp isn't a moto, it's a fucking expectation.
It is well documented that she deleted over 30k emails.
And I'll repeat myself: "The State Department or the FBI or Judicial Watch are not entitled to Hillary's personal emails. Only work emails were required to be turned over to comply with the Federal Records Act." Of the emails that were deleted another 15-17K WERE REVIEWED BY THE FBI.
so incompetent that she used a private server to send classified information (which she denied). Then you trust her to pick and choose which emails contained classified information?
This proves you are wholly ignorant of the issues at hand:
Issue 1
She would have had the exact same Federal Records Act issues if she used her @state.gov email address instead of a personal server because at the time she served her emails would not have been automatically archived because the software used at State was incompatible with a federal archive.
Issue 2
She would have had the exact same classified info issues if she used her @state.gov email address instead of a personal server because both were nonsecure systems
If you were not ignorant of the issues, your sentence would have read
Then you trust her to pick and choose which emails were work-related and which were personal?
The very idea that you would support a criminal, who denied their criminal activity,
Nope.
The woman committed a fucking crime that many are sitting in jail for.
Absolutely nope.
This was a talking point among Clinton haters for months and months, but it was completely false. For one, thing no classified documents passed through her email server. Second, for the emails that had classified info this often originated with career diplomats and other officials. Dozens of other people would have been guilty of the same crimes as her if she was in fact guilty, not all of them at the State Department. The issue was not like in Petraeus case willful evasion of the rules. There would be no expectation that she was being sent classified info on that email address (the expectation would be the same on a @state.gov email) because there was a completely separate secure system called SIPRNET for recieving actual classified documents. You can't email from SIPRNET to state.gov or or any other email on the regular internet. The issue was not mishandling classified documents, it was classified info slipping into regular emails. This is a problem common in the State Department and other agencies. In fact, the State Department has had a long, long battle with other intel agencies about what is properly classified since
A, they deal with open source intelligence like newspapers and other sources (there have been times when what the DIA considered Top Secret signals intelligence was known to folks in the State Department not through signals intelligence but other means like reading public reports or going to a public conference.
B. they have to talk to the public and other governments about these issues. Overclassification is a problem everyone admits goes on, but nothing changes
C. Some things even if publically known are inherently classifed. Sending an email like "Hey did you see this article in the New York Times yesterday?" would be classified at the very top level, if it dealt with a drone strike in Pakistan even though the article was public. Tweets from Wikileaks could be Top Secret.
In fact, the very most secret emails on the Clinton server were classified as TOP SECRET TSI/SAP. But they didn't jeopardize our security. They were vague emails about drone strikes. They were from diplomats and CIA folks who knew they were talking on the unsecure system, so the emails were very vague, and didn't mention drones or cia or Pakistan or any names or places. That is they were from people who sincerely believed they were complying with the classification rules.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/emails-about-drone-strikes-are-at-center-of-hillary-clinton-investigation-2016-06-09
For years State has argued with other agencies about what should be considered classified. State lost that battle, the new inspector general disagreed and ruled with the Intel folks, but there was a genuine and longstanding debate over classification that predated Clinton at State. It was not a cut and dry issue. One of the most famous emails involved public talking points sent through the classified system. There was no simple way to separate the unclassified paragraphs from the classified paragraphs. How not cut and dry were these decisions? Before they checked Clinton's emails, they ran a sample looking for ones with classified info. They came up with 4 emails. Later when the whole thing was said and done, they admitted that they made mistakes on 3 of these emails.
The truth as Comey said was no one was ever prosecuted for what Clinton did and it would have been a double standard against her to prosecute her. This is why the Comey memo before the interviews were completed is going to be a nothingburger. It's common for prosecutor/judges to write up a first draft and get their thoughts on paper before every bit of evidence is considered. It's not a judgement, it's a draft and it can easily change if new info comes in, but by the time Comey put his thoughts on paper, the FBI had the facts and nobody was getting charged unless they lied in their interviews. You can have conduct that violates policy, but is now illegal.
Drain the swamp isn't a moto, it's a fucking expectation.
The crime is that she used a personal server. Thats it. Nothing else matters. Had she used her .gov email, she wouldn't have violated the law. Unfortunately, she didn't comply with the law and used a personal server to send classified information thus committing a crime.
The fact that she committed a crime and then lied about the crime is what completely disqualifies her and her staff from being qualified to determine what is handed over to authorities or not. That would be no different than a suspected murderer being allowed to choose which guns they hand over to the investigating authorities.
This situation is her own fault. Maybe the "lost" emails contained nothing of importance and maybe they did. Due to the cronyism and corruption of the DNC, the DOJ and the FBI, we may never know. Fortunately, I think we will find out soon enough and off we are wrong, I'll own up to it but I wouldn't hooks my breath.
Edit: It is indeed a fact that she passed confidential emails through her private server. She even admits classified emails were handled on her server.
Edit 2: Coney testified to all this. He even says that he didn't proceed with charges because she didn't intend to violate the law thus confirming that she did, indeed, break the law.
Again. This is a "fact" you have wrong. This was not a crime. It was against department policy, it was not a crime. In fact, the State Department rules back then explicity discussed what you needed to do if you used personal email for work. The FBI was looking into criminal mishandling of classified info.
Had she used her .gov email, she wouldn't have violated the law. Unfortunately, she didn't comply with the law and used a personal server to send classified information thus committing a crime.
You're jumbling up the issues here and getting some parts wrong. You are not permitted to send classified information over a .gov email. The rules for classified info apply the same way to @state.gov emails AND to @clintonemail.com emails. Both of these are nonsecure systems. The folks who originated these email threads with the classified info used State, DOD, CIA, NSC and White House accounts that were not part of the secure system, SIPRNET. Thus they were all as culpable as Clinton was on her @clintonemail.com account.
Not all mishandling of classified info rises to the level of a crime. You don't seem to understand that. That was Comey's whole point.
The fact that she committed a crime and then lied about the crime is what completely disqualifies her and her staff from being qualified to determine what is handed over to authorities or not. That would be no different than a suspected murderer being allowed to choose which guns they hand over to the investigating authorities.
Now you are taking your original mistake and taking leaps and bounds away from it into speculation and opinion. The FBI said she did not lie in her interviews with them. Your murder analogy is ridiculous.
There's a difference between a classified document and an email that contains classified info. The first instance is very clear cut. Classified documents have to come with a classification header and every paragraph has to be marked to explain at what level of classification that paragraph is
It looks like this
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cc84b6f5fd01ceed1e9d255ea6f6f018
The second case of classified info blended into an email is not so clear cut. And if it is the case, the burden falls more on the creator of the email than the receiver. For example, if you send me an unclassified email that says Iran has nuclear facility at Fordow, this could be classified or unclassified information depending on how you learned it. It might be public knowledge that Iran has a nuclear facility at Fordow, but the fact that centifuges became active there in February might be classified. But if you are a professional at the State Department or the CIA or the NSC who is aware of classification rules and should be aware of how you learned what you are talking about and you send me something about Fordow on the "low end" meaning your nonsecure email to my nonsecure email, it's a reasonable assumption for me to make that this is not classified.
He even says that he didn't proceed with charges because she didn't intend to violate the law thus confirming that she did, indeed, break the law.
That's not what Comey said. He said you needed to intentionally misuse the classified info for and indictment to be filed.
The reality is if Clinton was not running for President of the United States, this never would have gone to the FBI.
She violated section 1924 of title 18 of the US Crimes and criminal procedure code which states:
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, con-
tractor, or consultant of the United States, and,
by virtue of his office, employment, position, or
contract, becomes possessed of documents or
materials containing classified information of
the United States, knowingly removes such doc-
uments or materials without authority and with
the intent to retain such documents or mate-
rials at an unauthorized location shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for not more than
one year, or both.
The FBI confirmed that they recovered 110 emails containing classified information. How many more included classified information is unknown because they were deleted, hard drives wiped by bleachbit and then smashed with hammers along with their blackberries. She claims she want aware of the classified markings, however, ignorance doesn't exclude someone from punishment. There is a clear violation which the FBI decided to give her a free pass.
So, if I'm understanding you properly, she didn't violate the law even though the law specifically addresses exactly what she did?
Edit: If I am correct, I believe I am, then what I stated earlier still stands. She committed a crime and then the FBI allowed a criminal to determine what evidence was allowed to be scrutinized thus giving her the opportunity to dispose of further incriminating evidence.
It's a real good try, but she did not violate this statue. Opening an email is not removing documents and the statue says clearly says "knowingly" so your bit about ignorance doesn't apply. Why does this statue say "knowingly?" It's because they are making a distinction between someone being careless and committing an intentional act. One is criminal and one is not.
So no, she did not commit this misdemeanor.
She had political liability, not criminal liability. No one has faced charges for what she did. This from the lawfare blog informs why I say that.
" it's very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time,.... I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law."
So, if I'm driving along 15 mph over the speed limit and get pulled over, I can legally avoid the ticket by saying I wasn't paying attention to the speedometer?
Late edit.....
I didn't really read through and respond properly, so, I figure ill give it another shot.
My original response was off base to say the least. In fact, my attempted analogy doesn't apply to the situation. I was wrong.
I can see your point. While I concede to your point regarding the term "knowingly", it is rather ambiguous but ambiguity is not on my side.
That being said, a woman who had spent her entire life in politics should know the rules governing her position. She should also know what markings are used to designate information as classified. To say she didn't is asinine.
A case could easily bee made to prosecute this case. She "knowingly" used a private server without proper authority. It is also fact that this server was used, intentionally or not, to transmit information clearly marked as classified. She knew she was in violation when using a private server as 2 separate IT (see link) members were told to keep quiet on the matter. To say that she didn't "intend" to violate the law could easily be debunked in court. Add in the additional information we have, such add Coney dogs memo regarding his decision not to prosecute that was written before her interviewed her and her staff (he lied under oath mind you), the sweet immunity deals given to her staff as well as her destruction of evidence and you have a pattern of evidence that suggest she did in fact knowingly violate the law. It would certainly be enough for a judge to issue a supeona for the email records held by the NSA. Not that a supeona was necessary as they volunteered to hand them over. Either way, all this is exactly what she lost the election. Any average American would have been fired and prosecuted yet magically she avoids any punishment.
There is clearly a different set of rules for politicians and Americans are tied of it. She is not above the law.
"It's a real good try, but she did not violate this statue. Opening an email is not removing documents and the statue says clearly says "knowingly" so your bit about ignorance doesn't apply. Why does this statue say "knowingly?" It's because they are making a distinction between someone being careless and committing an intentional act. One is criminal and one is not.
So no, she did not commit this misdemeanor.
She had political liability, not criminal liability. No one has faced charges for what she did. This from the lawfare blog informs why I say that.
" it's very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time,.... I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law."
Isn't deleting an email that contains classified information considered removing? If the information were marked classified, then she knowingly removed classified info thus putting her in violation of the law.
I just remembered the term for when classified info turns up in a non-classified documents, spillage.
Clinton's issues were both government wide issues: spillage and records retention.
Spillage is
Security incident that occurs whenever classified data is spilled either onto an
unclassified information system or to an information system with a lower level of
classification or different security category.
You don't get prosecuted for spillage. Mainly because it's mostly accidental. You could get disciplined by your agency. This is precisely what Comey meant when he said careless, but not a crime.
No agency fully complies with the National Records Acts. And there's no real penalty for noncompliance. The IG report said "NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, "
Had she followed the rules, and not used a personal server, this wouldn't even be an issue. Why would anyone, especially someone who is as technologically inept as Clinton is, need a private server in her home. Furthermore, why would she use it to conduct government business. She could have run her personal server for her personal email and still had her .gov email access on her BB.
Had she followed the rules, and not used a personal server, this wouldn't even be an issue.
I agree.
Why would anyone, especially someone who is as technologically inept as Clinton is, need a private server in her home.
This is kind of like saying, I shouldn't have plumbing or electrical wiring in my house because I'm inept with construction. She was not the person who dealt with the server. That is also addressed in the Politico article. One techie wanted it and the other did not.
Furthermore, why would she use it to conduct government business. She could have run her personal server for her personal email and still had her .gov email access on her BB.
I thought I mentioned it. It would mean carrying two devices around. This really began as "the boss" doesn't want to be inconvenienced. And again that would do nothing to the stop the issue with classified info being included in emails sent to her. Which is the legal issue. The server was not a legal issue.
If she was carrying a government device, it would still be an insecure device and still be prone to the issue of "spillage" of classifed info.
You know, you're not as big of a douchebag as I thought you were. Don't get me wrong. I think you're a douche but not like I had previously.
We don't have to agree to get along. Previously, I just down voated all your posts without contributing. We will never be on the same page but i stop down voating you to hell. Unless you're Just being a fuck stick.
I usually am not bad unless someone is being dick and then I respond it in kind. Also sometimes posts are so far into conspiracyland that they deserve no respect.
My key thing is all humans are prone to this mistakes in thinking. It's how are brains are wired. You need to actually work to remain logical.
I agree with that in part. Logical is a relative term. I believe I'm a logical individual, as are you I assume. However, our beliefs are polar opposite. Let me rephrase; the views and you express appear at odds with mine.
You consistently defend the left and I despise them. I could easily consider you illogical as you support a party that has actively conspired against our nation. You could easily consider my positions illogical as I believe an lifetime public servant is capable of, not only, betraying her sworn oath to this nation but of actively trying to subvert the principals this nation are founded upon.
Mostly I'm defending them against falsehoods, like they have actively conspired against our nation.
What you are describing is using logic in service of a belief. I don't think the logic is a relative term here. I just don't think it's the starting point. And politics is so emotional that confirmation bias happens all the time.
Fair enough. I agree, there are extremes on both sides which is driven by a combination of ignorance and bias.
That being said, I do believe they have conspired against our nation. For the last 16 years, we have been involved in a pointless war. One of which I was a part of. We created and actively support terrorism (in the form of ISIS) and we funded Iran with a huge shipment of cash which was supposedly to free some hostages.
Our politicians go into public service under the guise of bettering or nation but come out multi-millionaires while only drawing a modest salary. They are bought and paid for. They side with big business at the expense of our residents. They send millions in foreign aid to other nations, export our jobs and import foreign people while ignoring the millions of homeless already here. Our veterans suffer because the VA had been run into the ground. They will dole out opioids like they are being paid by big pharma while ignoring the issue. Getting treatment is nearly impossible and yet they expect us to trust them to run a single payer system.
Literally, everything they have done over the last 8 years has been nothing shy of catastrophic to our nation. I, literally, can't think of one item that had made this nation better.
We created and actively support terrorism (in the form of ISIS)
The US did not create or support ISIS. The most you could say is the invasion of Iraq set in motion the conditions from which ISIS came out of. ISIS of course was an enemy we actively fought during the Iran war.
we funded Iran with a huge shipment of cash which was supposedly to free some hostages.
This was Iran's money. We were going to have to pay this back. The only question was how much we had to pay. This was one of many cases that stem from the Iran Hostage crisis. At the end of the Hostage Crisis we signed the Aligiers Accords that set up a tribunal in the Hague to settle lawsuits between the two countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accordshttps://www.state.gov/s/l/3199.htm
This case was one of those lawsuits. Iran paid us $400 million for an arms deal in 1970's. When the Ayatollah took over, we froze that money. The tribunal handled almost 5,000 claims. US companies got $2.5 billion from these claims. This $400 million and 30 years on interest on it were one of the last claims. Iran was claiming on the last remaining claims with interest we owed them $4 billion. There was a possibility we could lose at the tribunal and be on the hook for $4 billion. So the money we sent to Iran was a settlement for less than their claim.
Literally, everything they have done over the last 8 years has been nothing shy of catastrophic to our nation. I, literally, can't think of one item that had made this nation better.
8 years ago the economy was falling off a cliff and we were in the midst of an the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. So I can think of one. I don't think the crime stats are in yet for 2016, but from 2009 to 2015 every year the murder rate was under 5.0 per 100,000 population. At no point since good stats started in 1960 have we had 7 years in a row under 5.0. We are also in the longest streak of continuous job growth ever
view the rest of the comments →
Jem777 ago
Trump has stated this openly and tweeted it. There is more than 30,000 missing. Everyone knows the NSA has them that is why it is such a joke. The NSA, the CIA, the FBI, Obama, HRC and most of Silicon Valley knows they have them. In fact if it was Joe Blow citizen they would not only have been reading them in real time you would be in federal prison.
The very fact that the rest of her underlings went to the level of bleach bit indicates how little guys like Combetta know about NSA.
That was all a show...Comey knew damn well where to get them.
Are_we__sure ago
Why would you trust what Trump says about anything? He's just not a credible source
There is not.
The State Department or the FBI or Judicial Watch are not entitled to Hillary's personal emails. Only work emails were required to be turned over to comply with the Federal Records Act. Some of the emails Clinton turned in were sent back to her, because they weren't considered federal records. She asked her lawyers to separate the emails out and they did so, but running series of searches. When the FBI got her server they recovered 15,000 of the deleted emails and a judge asked the State Department to review them. Some of the deleted emails were work related, but it's unclear if the FBI ever gave a number. These were considered as part of the original FBI investigation, (the FBI recovered emails as early as 2015.)
VaginalCanal ago
You're a fucking idiot. It is well documented that she deleted over 30k emails. You question the integrity of our president but not the person so incompetent that she used a private server to send classified information (which she denied). Then you trust her to pick and choose which emails contained classified information? The very idea that you would support a criminal, who denied their criminal activity, deciding which information is handed over knowing that if she actually turns over evidence, she would be incriminating herself is fucking retarded.
We all know your a shill and I respect you for your honesty as well as your tenacity but at some point you have to come back to reality. The woman committed a fucking crime that many are sitting in jail for. In fact, many are in jail for less. This is why Trump was elected. Americans (legal Americans) are over the politics and over the special treatment afforded to politicians. Drain the swamp isn't a moto, it's a fucking expectation.
RweSure ago
Says the person who has the facts wrong.
And I'll repeat myself: "The State Department or the FBI or Judicial Watch are not entitled to Hillary's personal emails. Only work emails were required to be turned over to comply with the Federal Records Act." Of the emails that were deleted another 15-17K WERE REVIEWED BY THE FBI.
This proves you are wholly ignorant of the issues at hand:
Issue 1
She would have had the exact same Federal Records Act issues if she used her @state.gov email address instead of a personal server because at the time she served her emails would not have been automatically archived because the software used at State was incompatible with a federal archive.
Issue 2
She would have had the exact same classified info issues if she used her @state.gov email address instead of a personal server because both were nonsecure systems
If you were not ignorant of the issues, your sentence would have read Then you trust her to pick and choose which emails were work-related and which were personal?
Nope.
Absolutely nope.
This was a talking point among Clinton haters for months and months, but it was completely false. For one, thing no classified documents passed through her email server. Second, for the emails that had classified info this often originated with career diplomats and other officials. Dozens of other people would have been guilty of the same crimes as her if she was in fact guilty, not all of them at the State Department. The issue was not like in Petraeus case willful evasion of the rules. There would be no expectation that she was being sent classified info on that email address (the expectation would be the same on a @state.gov email) because there was a completely separate secure system called SIPRNET for recieving actual classified documents. You can't email from SIPRNET to state.gov or or any other email on the regular internet. The issue was not mishandling classified documents, it was classified info slipping into regular emails. This is a problem common in the State Department and other agencies. In fact, the State Department has had a long, long battle with other intel agencies about what is properly classified since
A, they deal with open source intelligence like newspapers and other sources (there have been times when what the DIA considered Top Secret signals intelligence was known to folks in the State Department not through signals intelligence but other means like reading public reports or going to a public conference.
B. they have to talk to the public and other governments about these issues. Overclassification is a problem everyone admits goes on, but nothing changes
C. Some things even if publically known are inherently classifed. Sending an email like "Hey did you see this article in the New York Times yesterday?" would be classified at the very top level, if it dealt with a drone strike in Pakistan even though the article was public. Tweets from Wikileaks could be Top Secret.
In fact, the very most secret emails on the Clinton server were classified as TOP SECRET TSI/SAP. But they didn't jeopardize our security. They were vague emails about drone strikes. They were from diplomats and CIA folks who knew they were talking on the unsecure system, so the emails were very vague, and didn't mention drones or cia or Pakistan or any names or places. That is they were from people who sincerely believed they were complying with the classification rules. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/emails-about-drone-strikes-are-at-center-of-hillary-clinton-investigation-2016-06-09
For years State has argued with other agencies about what should be considered classified. State lost that battle, the new inspector general disagreed and ruled with the Intel folks, but there was a genuine and longstanding debate over classification that predated Clinton at State. It was not a cut and dry issue. One of the most famous emails involved public talking points sent through the classified system. There was no simple way to separate the unclassified paragraphs from the classified paragraphs. How not cut and dry were these decisions? Before they checked Clinton's emails, they ran a sample looking for ones with classified info. They came up with 4 emails. Later when the whole thing was said and done, they admitted that they made mistakes on 3 of these emails.
The truth as Comey said was no one was ever prosecuted for what Clinton did and it would have been a double standard against her to prosecute her. This is why the Comey memo before the interviews were completed is going to be a nothingburger. It's common for prosecutor/judges to write up a first draft and get their thoughts on paper before every bit of evidence is considered. It's not a judgement, it's a draft and it can easily change if new info comes in, but by the time Comey put his thoughts on paper, the FBI had the facts and nobody was getting charged unless they lied in their interviews. You can have conduct that violates policy, but is now illegal.
Well, you've been suckered.
VaginalCanal ago
Who has the facts wrong?
The crime is that she used a personal server. Thats it. Nothing else matters. Had she used her .gov email, she wouldn't have violated the law. Unfortunately, she didn't comply with the law and used a personal server to send classified information thus committing a crime.
The fact that she committed a crime and then lied about the crime is what completely disqualifies her and her staff from being qualified to determine what is handed over to authorities or not. That would be no different than a suspected murderer being allowed to choose which guns they hand over to the investigating authorities.
This situation is her own fault. Maybe the "lost" emails contained nothing of importance and maybe they did. Due to the cronyism and corruption of the DNC, the DOJ and the FBI, we may never know. Fortunately, I think we will find out soon enough and off we are wrong, I'll own up to it but I wouldn't hooks my breath.
Edit: It is indeed a fact that she passed confidential emails through her private server. She even admits classified emails were handled on her server.
Edit 2: Coney testified to all this. He even says that he didn't proceed with charges because she didn't intend to violate the law thus confirming that she did, indeed, break the law.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-james-comey-hillary-clinton-email-probe/story?id=41044927
RweSure ago
Again. This is a "fact" you have wrong. This was not a crime. It was against department policy, it was not a crime. In fact, the State Department rules back then explicity discussed what you needed to do if you used personal email for work. The FBI was looking into criminal mishandling of classified info.
You're jumbling up the issues here and getting some parts wrong. You are not permitted to send classified information over a .gov email. The rules for classified info apply the same way to @state.gov emails AND to @clintonemail.com emails. Both of these are nonsecure systems. The folks who originated these email threads with the classified info used State, DOD, CIA, NSC and White House accounts that were not part of the secure system, SIPRNET. Thus they were all as culpable as Clinton was on her @clintonemail.com account.
Not all mishandling of classified info rises to the level of a crime. You don't seem to understand that. That was Comey's whole point.
Now you are taking your original mistake and taking leaps and bounds away from it into speculation and opinion. The FBI said she did not lie in her interviews with them. Your murder analogy is ridiculous.
There's a difference between a classified document and an email that contains classified info. The first instance is very clear cut. Classified documents have to come with a classification header and every paragraph has to be marked to explain at what level of classification that paragraph is It looks like this https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cc84b6f5fd01ceed1e9d255ea6f6f018
The second case of classified info blended into an email is not so clear cut. And if it is the case, the burden falls more on the creator of the email than the receiver. For example, if you send me an unclassified email that says Iran has nuclear facility at Fordow, this could be classified or unclassified information depending on how you learned it. It might be public knowledge that Iran has a nuclear facility at Fordow, but the fact that centifuges became active there in February might be classified. But if you are a professional at the State Department or the CIA or the NSC who is aware of classification rules and should be aware of how you learned what you are talking about and you send me something about Fordow on the "low end" meaning your nonsecure email to my nonsecure email, it's a reasonable assumption for me to make that this is not classified.
That's not what Comey said. He said you needed to intentionally misuse the classified info for and indictment to be filed.
The reality is if Clinton was not running for President of the United States, this never would have gone to the FBI.
VaginalCanal ago
She violated section 1924 of title 18 of the US Crimes and criminal procedure code which states:
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, con- tractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such doc- uments or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or mate- rials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
The FBI confirmed that they recovered 110 emails containing classified information. How many more included classified information is unknown because they were deleted, hard drives wiped by bleachbit and then smashed with hammers along with their blackberries. She claims she want aware of the classified markings, however, ignorance doesn't exclude someone from punishment. There is a clear violation which the FBI decided to give her a free pass.
So, if I'm understanding you properly, she didn't violate the law even though the law specifically addresses exactly what she did?
Edit: If I am correct, I believe I am, then what I stated earlier still stands. She committed a crime and then the FBI allowed a criminal to determine what evidence was allowed to be scrutinized thus giving her the opportunity to dispose of further incriminating evidence.
Are_we_sure ago
Yeah.
It's a real good try, but she did not violate this statue. Opening an email is not removing documents and the statue says clearly says "knowingly" so your bit about ignorance doesn't apply. Why does this statue say "knowingly?" It's because they are making a distinction between someone being careless and committing an intentional act. One is criminal and one is not. So no, she did not commit this misdemeanor.
She had political liability, not criminal liability. No one has faced charges for what she did. This from the lawfare blog informs why I say that.
" it's very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time,.... I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law."
VaginalCanal ago
So, if I'm driving along 15 mph over the speed limit and get pulled over, I can legally avoid the ticket by saying I wasn't paying attention to the speedometer?
Late edit.....
I didn't really read through and respond properly, so, I figure ill give it another shot.
My original response was off base to say the least. In fact, my attempted analogy doesn't apply to the situation. I was wrong.
I can see your point. While I concede to your point regarding the term "knowingly", it is rather ambiguous but ambiguity is not on my side.
That being said, a woman who had spent her entire life in politics should know the rules governing her position. She should also know what markings are used to designate information as classified. To say she didn't is asinine.
A case could easily bee made to prosecute this case. She "knowingly" used a private server without proper authority. It is also fact that this server was used, intentionally or not, to transmit information clearly marked as classified. She knew she was in violation when using a private server as 2 separate IT (see link) members were told to keep quiet on the matter. To say that she didn't "intend" to violate the law could easily be debunked in court. Add in the additional information we have, such add Coney dogs memo regarding his decision not to prosecute that was written before her interviewed her and her staff (he lied under oath mind you), the sweet immunity deals given to her staff as well as her destruction of evidence and you have a pattern of evidence that suggest she did in fact knowingly violate the law. It would certainly be enough for a judge to issue a supeona for the email records held by the NSA. Not that a supeona was necessary as they volunteered to hand them over. Either way, all this is exactly what she lost the election. Any average American would have been fired and prosecuted yet magically she avoids any punishment.
There is clearly a different set of rules for politicians and Americans are tied of it. She is not above the law.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3075347/government-it/state-dept-it-staff-told-to-keep-quiet-about-clinton-s-server.html
Edit #2:
"It's a real good try, but she did not violate this statue. Opening an email is not removing documents and the statue says clearly says "knowingly" so your bit about ignorance doesn't apply. Why does this statue say "knowingly?" It's because they are making a distinction between someone being careless and committing an intentional act. One is criminal and one is not. So no, she did not commit this misdemeanor.
She had political liability, not criminal liability. No one has faced charges for what she did. This from the lawfare blog informs why I say that.
" it's very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time,.... I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law."
Isn't deleting an email that contains classified information considered removing? If the information were marked classified, then she knowingly removed classified info thus putting her in violation of the law.
Are_we_sure ago
I just remembered the term for when classified info turns up in a non-classified documents, spillage.
Clinton's issues were both government wide issues: spillage and records retention.
Spillage is
You don't get prosecuted for spillage. Mainly because it's mostly accidental. You could get disciplined by your agency. This is precisely what Comey meant when he said careless, but not a crime.
No agency fully complies with the National Records Acts. And there's no real penalty for noncompliance. The IG report said "NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, "
VaginalCanal ago
Had she followed the rules, and not used a personal server, this wouldn't even be an issue. Why would anyone, especially someone who is as technologically inept as Clinton is, need a private server in her home. Furthermore, why would she use it to conduct government business. She could have run her personal server for her personal email and still had her .gov email access on her BB.
I dont buy it.
Are_we_sure ago
I agree.
This is kind of like saying, I shouldn't have plumbing or electrical wiring in my house because I'm inept with construction. She was not the person who dealt with the server. That is also addressed in the Politico article. One techie wanted it and the other did not.
I thought I mentioned it. It would mean carrying two devices around. This really began as "the boss" doesn't want to be inconvenienced. And again that would do nothing to the stop the issue with classified info being included in emails sent to her. Which is the legal issue. The server was not a legal issue.
If she was carrying a government device, it would still be an insecure device and still be prone to the issue of "spillage" of classifed info.
VaginalCanal ago
You know, you're not as big of a douchebag as I thought you were. Don't get me wrong. I think you're a douche but not like I had previously.
We don't have to agree to get along. Previously, I just down voated all your posts without contributing. We will never be on the same page but i stop down voating you to hell. Unless you're Just being a fuck stick.
Respect.
Are_we_sure ago
thanks. lol.
I usually am not bad unless someone is being dick and then I respond it in kind. Also sometimes posts are so far into conspiracyland that they deserve no respect.
My key thing is all humans are prone to this mistakes in thinking. It's how are brains are wired. You need to actually work to remain logical.
VaginalCanal ago
I agree with that in part. Logical is a relative term. I believe I'm a logical individual, as are you I assume. However, our beliefs are polar opposite. Let me rephrase; the views and you express appear at odds with mine.
You consistently defend the left and I despise them. I could easily consider you illogical as you support a party that has actively conspired against our nation. You could easily consider my positions illogical as I believe an lifetime public servant is capable of, not only, betraying her sworn oath to this nation but of actively trying to subvert the principals this nation are founded upon.
So, who is illogical?
Are_we_sure ago
Mostly I'm defending them against falsehoods, like they have actively conspired against our nation.
What you are describing is using logic in service of a belief. I don't think the logic is a relative term here. I just don't think it's the starting point. And politics is so emotional that confirmation bias happens all the time.
VaginalCanal ago
Fair enough. I agree, there are extremes on both sides which is driven by a combination of ignorance and bias.
That being said, I do believe they have conspired against our nation. For the last 16 years, we have been involved in a pointless war. One of which I was a part of. We created and actively support terrorism (in the form of ISIS) and we funded Iran with a huge shipment of cash which was supposedly to free some hostages.
Our politicians go into public service under the guise of bettering or nation but come out multi-millionaires while only drawing a modest salary. They are bought and paid for. They side with big business at the expense of our residents. They send millions in foreign aid to other nations, export our jobs and import foreign people while ignoring the millions of homeless already here. Our veterans suffer because the VA had been run into the ground. They will dole out opioids like they are being paid by big pharma while ignoring the issue. Getting treatment is nearly impossible and yet they expect us to trust them to run a single payer system.
Literally, everything they have done over the last 8 years has been nothing shy of catastrophic to our nation. I, literally, can't think of one item that had made this nation better.
Are_we_sure ago
The US did not create or support ISIS. The most you could say is the invasion of Iraq set in motion the conditions from which ISIS came out of. ISIS of course was an enemy we actively fought during the Iran war.
This was Iran's money. We were going to have to pay this back. The only question was how much we had to pay. This was one of many cases that stem from the Iran Hostage crisis. At the end of the Hostage Crisis we signed the Aligiers Accords that set up a tribunal in the Hague to settle lawsuits between the two countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords https://www.state.gov/s/l/3199.htm
This case was one of those lawsuits. Iran paid us $400 million for an arms deal in 1970's. When the Ayatollah took over, we froze that money. The tribunal handled almost 5,000 claims. US companies got $2.5 billion from these claims. This $400 million and 30 years on interest on it were one of the last claims. Iran was claiming on the last remaining claims with interest we owed them $4 billion. There was a possibility we could lose at the tribunal and be on the hook for $4 billion. So the money we sent to Iran was a settlement for less than their claim.
8 years ago the economy was falling off a cliff and we were in the midst of an the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. So I can think of one. I don't think the crime stats are in yet for 2016, but from 2009 to 2015 every year the murder rate was under 5.0 per 100,000 population. At no point since good stats started in 1960 have we had 7 years in a row under 5.0. We are also in the longest streak of continuous job growth ever
https://www.ten-x.com/company/blog/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/09/august-2017-job-additions.jpg
The last time we lost jobs in a month was in 2010. Next month will be 7 full years I believe.