Oh yeah? What law?Originally Posted by dawg80
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah? What law?
R U really that goofy?
Since you don’t know what the constitution says it doesn’t surprise me that you know the law on this subject either.
Without looking it up I can't cite the article or statue by name and number (bet you can) but Comey quoted it and then inserted the concept of "intent" although the law said nothing about "intent" only that someone (a "person") can't cause classified information to be revealed, stolen, etc... so when Killary passed classified information across her secret, unprotected server and it was hacked by foreign operatives she violated that law. She caused said info to be revealed, stolen, etc..
And she, and the DNC, colluded with foreign operatives (in Ukraine) to affect the 2016 POTUS election. Another law broken.
Not knowing the law you believe Hillary definitely violator is kind of the definition of an ignorant uninformed opinion, wouldn’t you agree?
No! I recall that law being put on the screen graphically, back at the time. I remember learned-folks, lawyers/judges, stating emphatically that Killary violated the law. Has nothing to do with my opinion.
YOU are so far up Killary's ass you can see what she just swallowed. You defend Krooked Killary and any other lib no matter what they do, no matter what laws they violate. YOU are the ignorant uninformed fool.
Well, you are wrong, and it is because you are ignorant on the subject.
According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”
Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.
She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.
Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).
Two examples demonstrate this point.
When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.
Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.
Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”
While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.
There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.
Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.
The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.
Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.
First of all, the law you cited, 18 usc 1924(a), is a misdemeanor and not a felony.
The missing link in proving a felony (793f) is that it wasn’t shown that she knew the information was classified at the time she put them on the server. The SC in an 8-0 opinion, established this higher level of scienter is required in the Espionage Act cases.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/
Misdemeanor convictions can result in jail time not to exceed one year. LOCK HER UP!
Reminds me of an old joke, and not a very good one...
I need ______ [fill in the blank], the more I miss da meaner I get.
You still got the same problem with the misdemeanor. You have to prove she knew the materials were classified at the time she put them on the server (and not just that she was reckless or careless).
For one, it is unclear whether conducting email correspondence on a private server constitutes “remov[ing]” information. Secondly, although it has been determined by the FBI that over two thousand classified documents passed through her server, only 110 had been deemed classified at the time they were sent and received. Of these 110, only three had been marked as confidential, two of which were “mistakenly” marked confidential. Under those facts, proving that she knew documents were classified at the time she “removed” them was not something the government had adequate evidence to prove.
OK. The same applies to the accusations against Trump. Why are you satisfied with one determination and not the other?
Because Trump violated a different law that the government can prove, but Mueller followed the standing DOJ guidance that a sitting president can’t be indicted. He punted to Congress. Congress now just needs to do their damn job.
Mueller could have filed a secret indictment. He knew there was no corrupt intent thus no obstruction so he didn’t. So he and his democratic cronies did what they could to cast Trump in a bad light.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
