Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Baz Dane

Clinton Email Scandal Facts

1,792 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Its been demonstrated before that people without privilidge lose their jobs and potentially their freedom for doing the exact same thing she did in regards to the email.

Actually for doing much less.  They certainly didn't have their own email servers set up in order to bypass any FOI requests.  That should be ranked as hi treason IMO.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zenith
2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The simple act of connecting a private server to the government system is a violation of the law. The installers all went 5th because they are in trouble.

What law specifically did it violate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Zenith said:

What law specifically did it violate?

3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email Accounts for State Business 

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 minutes ago, Zenith said:

What law specifically did it violate?

Being extremely careless with secret information is a violation in itself and should at the very least result in her losing her security clearance.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zenith
2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Being extremely careless with secret information is a violation in itself and should at the very least result in her losing her security clearance.

I would probably agree with you there... but that still doesnt make her a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zenith
6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email Accounts for State Business 

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.

Thanks for that. Where's Claire when you need her? LOL

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Clearly Zenith you are just babbling along with no idea what you are talking about and will continue to argue from a position of ignorance.

13 minutes ago, Zenith said:

What law specifically did it violate?

I already posted it in this thread. I've told you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zenith
3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Clearly Zenith you are just babbling along with no idea what you are talking about and will continue to argue from a position of ignorance.

I already posted it in this thread. I've told you that.

Actually, I'm not. I know that what Hilliary did is not a criminal offense. I asked you for the 'rules' you kept mentioning to see what you knew. You didn't present them... nor did you tell me you had already posted them on this thread. What you did tell me was to take an online course.

So if you know something about the law that the Department of Justice doesn't know, then by all means present it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, Zenith said:

That's not what I wrote. The FBI recommended that Hillary not be indicted, and the DoJ concurred. They saw no evidence that she committed a crime under the law. What you think or I think doesn't matter... the law does. Anyway, don't ask me, ask Claire.. she can better explain the legalities of it than I can.

I wasn't talking about the classified material case, I was talking about the ongoing public corruption case against the Clinton Foundation.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zenith
1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

I wasn't talking about the classified material case, I was talking about the public corruption case against the Clinton Foundation.

Then we got our wires crossed sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
11 minutes ago, Zenith said:

Actually, I'm not. I know that what Hilliary did is not a criminal offense. I asked you for the 'rules' you kept mentioning to see what you knew. You didn't present them... nor did you tell me you had already posted them on this thread. What you did tell me was to take an online course.

So if you know something about the law that the Department of Justice doesn't know, then by all means present it.

No. I told you I already posted in this thread. You apparently have trouble reading as well as knowing nothing at all about the issues at hand. You can try to learn something for a change.

The DOJ handed her a get out of jail free card. As I already pointed out connecting the private server to the government system is a violation of the law.

I believe the reason that Hillary used a private server was to break the law by mixing the foundation with the government. What she should have done is run side by side servers. One for the government and one for herself. In fact, there should have been one for secret, one for top secret, and one for classified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Just so everyone knows, Hillary actually had a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility) in her home complete with a classified computer and email account as well as a classified fax machine, she just chose not to use them.   She did, however, allow her maid, who has co clearance, into the SCIF unescorted to retrieve classified fax documents (see wikileaks)

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Zenith said:

That's not what I wrote. The FBI recommended that Hillary not be indicted, and the DoJ concurred. They saw no evidence that she committed a crime under the law. What you think or I think doesn't matter... the law does. Anyway, don't ask me, ask Claire.. she can better explain the legalities of it than I can.

 

In an honest, nonpolitical, Department of Justice, this is correct.  When the AG is political and refuses to do the right thing, it's meaningless.  Trump should allow his AG to reopen the investigation and follow wherever it leads.  She need not necessarily be imprisoned but she should be put on display for the criminal she is.  People like Lerner and Koskinen SHOULD be prosecuted and given serious jail time.  If Trump doesn't at least have a transparent investigation and impanel a grand jury where needed, he will look just as corrupt as they.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
55 minutes ago, and then said:

In an honest, nonpolitical, Department of Justice, this is correct.  When the AG is political and refuses to do the right thing, it's meaningless.  Trump should allow his AG to reopen the investigation and follow wherever it leads.  She need not necessarily be imprisoned but she should be put on display for the criminal she is.  People like Lerner and Koskinen SHOULD be prosecuted and given serious jail time.  If Trump doesn't at least have a transparent investigation and impanel a grand jury where needed, he will look just as corrupt as they.

Agreed but Trump, as president, should stay out of it, just as Obama should've stayed out of it.  Trump should appoint a strong, independent Attorney General who fully grounded in the constitution and allow that AG to decide if a grand jury should be impaneled for the public corruption case being investigated at this time by the FBI.   Public corruption cannot be allowed because it erodes the public's trust and confidence in their state and federal government and just because there are Clintons involved is no reason to "avoid the noise".  Public confident and trust in the federal government is at an all time low because of the abuses we have seen in the last 8 years and Trump needs to fix that by proving there is one law for all, even if it means upsetting the always whining left.  . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Ewww...How slimey is this?
 

Quote

 

In a May email released by DC Leaks, Marlon Marshall, the director of states and political engagement for the Hillary Clinton campaign, forwarded two documents to several top Clinton staffers. One of these was a spreadsheet of detailed information about several Bernie Sanders supporters and Sanders delegates. This was described as part of a “Unity Check” for the Democratic Party.

“Second doc is the research we have on Bernie delegates to date,” wrote Marshall. “This is more of a FYI for everyone so you can see the type of information we are gathering.”

 

The amount of research, background and personal data the Clinton campaign gathered and circulated among its staff is disturbing. The email reveals they conducted research on Sanders delegates, monitored their social media accounts and graded them on how susceptible they would be to defecting from Sanders to Clinton.

Some 713 Sanders delegates were profiled. Included in the Clinton campaign’s spreadsheet was information on the states the delegates lived in, their email addresses, phone numbers, social media profiles, history of donations made to political campaigns based on data from the FEC, short biographies and levels of Sanders support.

“Denise Groves is critical of Hillary Clinton for being a war hawk and she hopes for a contested convention. All of her Facebook posts are strong pro-Bernie. https://www.gofundme.com/DelegateDenise,read a bio on a Sanders delegate from Maine.

“Tweeted, ‘Just changed my voter registration from Democrat to Unaffiliated,’ ” noted a brief on Ohio Sanders delegate Katharine Jones.

“Tweeted, ‘Irregular activities at polls in Massachusetts. Bill Clinton was taking photos and handing out materials. Ask DNC to cancel HRC delegates’ [sic] Posted on Facebook ‘never HRC’ and shared photo with Bernie’s logo saying ‘write him in.’ From Facebook: ‘I will leave the DEMs if they rig this primary for HRC…get $$$$ out of politics.’ Dr. Randi Pokladnik was born and raised in Ohio. She earned an associate degree in Environmental Engineering, a BA in Chemistry, MA and PhD in Environmental Studies,” read another bio. 

“She protested the 2012 State of the Union. http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16079coll32/id/246557 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/minnesotans-for-peace-to_b_434769.html,said a bio on Minnesota Sanders delegate Delia Jurek.

This research from the Clinton campaign is disturbing and highly unethical, especially given how Sanders delegates were treated at the Democratic National Convention.

Former Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner, a popular Sanders surrogate, is included on the list. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) banned Turner from introducing Sanders at the convention without any explanation. Turner said in an interview with Mother Jones that the Clinton campaign was likely responsible.

 

 

 

 

Source and more to read

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email Accounts for State Business 

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.

18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act. What's important to know about 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is that the correct standard is intent not gross negligence. In other words, intent is required to sustain a conviction. In his statement Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show that Hillary had malicious intent:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here. Source: FBI News

The long and short of it is that negligent mishandling of classified material is not a criminal offense. Comey made the right call.

I could address the other laws, statutes and whatever, but I have already covered them off in various other posts and haven't the energy to do so again. I covered 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)  though because it's the most serious of them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Claire. said:

18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act. What's important to know about 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is that the correct standard is intent not gross negligence. In other words, intent is required to sustain a conviction. In his statement Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show that Hillary had malicious intent:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here. Source: FBI News

The long and short of it is that negligent mishandling of classified material is not a criminal offense. Comey made the right call.

I could address the other laws, statutes and whatever, but I have already covered them off in various other posts and haven't the energy to do so again. I covered 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)  though because it's the most serious of them.

Yeah ill never in a million years believe Hillary had anything but malicious intent. I'll also never believe that Comeys decision was made based on law alone. 

So in essence you're right you could address all the laws and statutes but we'll never agree on this one. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Yeah ill never in a million years believe Hillary had anything but malicious intent. I'll also never believe that Comeys decision was made based on law alone. 

So in essence you're right you could address all the laws and statutes but we'll never agree on this one. 

Define what you mean by malicious intent, because under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) it's very specific in that Comey would have had to show that Hillary maintained a private server "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.." Maintaining a private server for the purpose of circumventing the FOA does not even come close to that. So yes, Comet did indeed make his decision based on the law. And before anyone starts citing examples of military personnel who were dealt with more harshly, military and civilian law are very different when it comes to the mishandling of classified materials.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Define what you mean by malicious intent, because under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) it's very specific in that Comey would have had to show that Hillary maintained a private server "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.." Maintaining a private server for the purpose of circumventing the FOA does not even come close to that. So yes, Comet did indeed make his decision based on the law. And before anyone starts citing examples of military personnel who were dealt with more harshly, military and civilian law are very different when it comes to the mishandling of classified materials.

 

I believe the email server was set up in an attempt to  have what she thought was an untraceable means of communication due to her illegal/immoral/shady activities.  I believe she sold influence to the highest bidder, she armed ISIS and AL Qaeda intentionally , and  I believe she let Ambassador Stevens and company die to cover up her running of guns to terrorist hands. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
53 minutes ago, Claire. said:

18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act. What's important to know about 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is that the correct standard is intent not gross negligence. In other words, intent is required to sustain a conviction. In his statement Comey said there was insufficient evidence to show that Hillary had malicious intent:

Claire, no where in the code is intent mentioned, in fact when you receive training in the handling of classified material they expressly tell you intent is NOT necessary because these laws are designed to punish for mishandling of classified material as well as espionage.   Now you may not get prison time for mishandling material but you will certainly lose your clearance and probably be fined.  That she broke the law is beyond argument as she most definitely mishandled classified information whether she knew it was classified or not.   I know people who were punished for doing bone headed things with classified material and there was no intent involved, some lost their clearances and therefore lost their job as a clearance was a requirement. 

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I believe the email server was set up in an attempt to  have what she thought was an untraceable means of communication due to her illegal/immoral/shady activities.  I believe she sold influence to the highest bidder, she armed ISIS and AL Qaeda intentionally , and  I believe she let Ambassador Stevens and company die to cover up her running of guns to terrorist hands.

You've quite the imagination. I'd shoot myself if ever you were on one of my juries. :lol:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Just for everyone's information the investigation into The Clinton Foundation is alive and well and despite resistance from the Attorney General and DoJ is still fully underway.  In a few weeks Hillary will lose her firewall at DoJ and in the White House and then the FBI will, in all likelihood, get the subpoena power Justice has denied them up until this time. 

http://usherald.com/fbi-says-full-steam-ahead-investigation-clinton-foundation/

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
31 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Clair, no where in the code is intent mentioned, in fact when you receive training in the handling of classified material they expressly tell you intent is NOT necessary because these laws are designed to punish for mishandling of classified material as well as espionage.   Now you may not get prison time for mishandling material but you will certainly lose your clearance and probably be fined.  That she broke the law is beyond argument as she most definitely mishandled classified information whether she knew it was classified or not.   I know people who were punished for doing bone headed things with classified material and there was no intent involved, some lost their clearances and therefore lost their job as a clearance was a requirement.

The Supreme Court rewrote the statue some time ago to require intent to sustain a conviction, so yes intent is indeed mentioned (more than once), and yes it is absolutely necessary. Intent, not gross negligence, is the standard, so on that Hillary did not break the law.  I realize that many believe gross negligence should have been enough, but they can't go around rewriting the statute simply because they don't like someone. You're correct though in stating that as a civilian she could have still lost her clearance or her job, but that would have been at the discretion of  her boss, not Comey or the Department of Justice.

 

Edited by Claire.
OCD acting up again.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
15 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Just for everyone's information the investigation into The Clinton Foundation is alive and well and despite resistance from the Attorney General and DoJ is still fully underway.  In a few weeks Hillary will lose her firewall at DoJ and in the White House and then the FBI will, in all likelihood, get the subpoena power Justice has denied them up until this time. 

http://usherald.com/fbi-says-full-steam-ahead-investigation-clinton-foundation/

Five bucks says you're doing a happy dance. :lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
37 minutes ago, Claire. said:

The Supreme Court rewrote the statue some time ago to require intent to sustain a conviction, so yes intent is indeed mentioned (more than once), and yes it is absolutely necessary. Intent, not gross negligence, is the standard, so on that Hillary did not break the law.  I realize that many believe gross negligence should have been enough, but they can't go around rewriting the statute simply because they don't like someone. You're correct though in stating that as a civilian she could have still lost her clearance or her job, but that would have been at the discretion of  her boss, not Comey or the Department of Justice.

 

Intent is not required for the section of the law that Hillary broke.

Since the whole law itself is quite long I feel a link would be appropriate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

In the law itself intent is mentioned, but it's only mentioned in sections a and b.  Initially that may seem to prove your case that intent is required but the problem is the word or at the end of each section.  Since or is used only one section needs to broken for Hillary to of broken the law instead of all sections.  While without intent they can't prosecute Hillary under sections a and b, Hillary can definitely be prosecuted under section f which has no intent required and possibly under section d depending on what emails may still come up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.