Hillary Clinton does not get a pass from me

You are clearly misrepresenting the truth on all levels here. No one cared before this
because nobody did anything even close to what Clinton did. Nobody! Nobody had
a private email server to conduct ALL of their work related emails including the classified
ones. Nobody transmitted classified information to people who didn't have security
clearances besides Hillary Clinton! Nobody destroyed evidence that was under
Congressional subpoena! Nobody instructed their staff to transmit classified information
over emails and remove the classification markings first besides Hillary Clinton!
Nobody else used BleachBit to destroy evidence, or hammers to destroy evidence that
was under Congressional subpoena.

And yes, by doing what she did, she did in fact break the laws, INTENTIONALLY!
She intentionally set up the server, in a non-secured location, and used it to transmit
and store classified information. There is no comparison to what anyone, ever, not
Condi Rice, not Collin Powell, ever did!!!

Whatever exception you are talking about that Darrell Issa wrote into a law, I'm quite
sure that it doesn't allow for the compromising of classified emails. It doesn't allow
people to transmit classified information on private servers or services. Classified
information is by definition information that must be secured at all times! Both
physically and electronically!

The level of blissful ignorance and self denial on these issues is ridiculous. You are
defending the indefensible. Even, even if what you said were one bit of the truth, I
would definitely be critical of my party's candidate if the situation were reversed. I
would in fact not vote or vote for the Democrat for the first time in my life.

This is a new accusation against Powell as far as I'm concerned. I have not seen
or heard what type of information was classified after the fact. Regardless, that does
seem like something that could not be prosecuted. So again, you are bunching the
two together, Powell, who did not do what Hillary did. According to reports I've seen,
he didn't transmit classified information over the AOL service. I don't think Powell is
guilty of anything, that is the accusation of the corrupt Clinton campaign and her
surrogates in the media.

He, as far as I know, is not accused of the crimes that she is which I I've listed in this
thread: Above the Law

 

The only thing that I really hate is the fact that we are governed by laws that is
supposed to apply to all Americans equally. You and the Democrats on the other
hand seem fine with a system that only applies to the little people and allow elite
powerful wealthy people off the hook. A separate standard for the well connected.

If you are fine with this kind of corruption, then welcome to Venezuela, because that
is what this country will look like.

By the way, I think that it is funny that you've recycle Al Gore's defense of taking illegal
campaign contributions. The "no controlling legal authority" argument is a riot! The
idea that we have no controlling legal authority is in itself an endorsement of anarchy.

The controlling legal authority is the law, and we rely on our politicians to see that it
is enforced.

 

the only difference is Hillary used her Private account 100%, Powell maybe 90% - other then that, exactly the same

 

You kinda screwed that first sentence up so much, I just skimmed the rest of what you wrote.

Anyway...whether YOU give her a pass or not...until legal authority charge her with something...she is just fine.

I gather that you want more than anything to put her into jail...just like the conservatives wanted so much to put Bill Clinton into jail.

Ain't gonna happen.

And I suspect she is going to be our next president...and you will have to live with that.

I wonder if you were this indignant with the lies and crimes committed by Ronald Reagan. You may have been.

Were you?

 

Once again you are just lying by using a false equivocation argument.

 

once against you call me a liar for stating the facts

I have linked to these facts, not sure how else I can help you see the truth

.

 

Powell never had an illegal private server.

 

neither did Clinton... her and Powell's private servers were both legal, both run by a third party, in Powell's case AOL, the other was owned I believe by Platte River Networks (not positive of that though)

.

 

You must be offly confident to mock patriotnews as you did. Your response was not very adult like. Makes me wonder?...are you an adult?

 

18 us 793 subsections a and b (intentional) c d and e ( reckless) and f (gross negligence. )
There is no 3rd party passage requirement, actual or intended for f (us v dedeyan) and it does not have to be intentional or even KNOWN when it occurs. Accidents are actionable.( US v roller. )

 

let me ask you this, why would Powell storing classified information on some 3rd party AOL servers with no idea who is able to see them be less of a problem for you?

I really want to hear why you think this is an important difference and can you show me any laws that defines this difference? you know, one that says personal email is ok as long as the email server is not located in your home


.

 

If Trump is our next president and we get a Gulliani or a Chris Christie as our AG then she'll be off to jail along
with her pervert husband, probably Chelsea as well.

As much as you'd like to derail this thread, it has nothing to do with Reagan, who has never been accused
of any wrongdoing.

 

Because your facts are not true! That makes them lies!

- - - Updated - - -

This is a made up charge, there is no proof that Powell sent classified information over an
AOL email system and he has denied ever doing this.

 

Remember this does not apply to Hillary or her supporters. Maybe he short circuited.

 

a) b) and c) require obtaining information with the "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". That doesn't apply.

d) and e) require wilful transmission of information to someone who is not authorised. That doesn't apply.

f) requires removal from proper place of custody due to gross negligence. The emails were always in the custody of Secretary Clinton, so that does not apply.

US v Dedeyan does not stand for the principle you state. That was a case in which secret military plans were actually photographed by a Soviet agent. The person with custody of the plans found out about the photographing several months later but failed to tell his superior. Completely different.

US v Roller had nothing to do with 18 us 793, so does not apply.

I am still waiting for someone to identify the applicable section of code and apply some alleged facts to those sections to prove each and every element of the offence. I have not seen that done. Lots of people citing code sections but not going into the detail of showing that the facts in Clinton's case would result in a conviction.

 

I backed up all my facts with links....

- - - Updated - - -

now now, everything I said is factual... I have posted links, as they say...... can lead a horse to water

 

Can I see some ID god?

 

Hillary is the lesser evil

 

I listed nearly 2 dozen offenses that she committed in this post #10 I would say that there is
no question that she violated every single one of the statutes I listed. That is the opinion of a career
criminal prosecutor, Mayor Rudy Guilliani.

Here is a reply to the statute you two are talking about which is a good one to add to the list I already presented. This is from Mark Levin, who is not only a radio talk show host, but an accomplished Constitutional lawyer.

Your facts do not comport to what you are implying they do.

There is no proof that Collin Powell did what you are alleging
or that he did what Hillary Clinton did.

 

I imagine lots of strange things will happen if the sun starts rising in the west also!

Know what I mean?

One...Reagan HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF WRONGDOING.

Two...the thread has nothing to do with Al Gore or Venezuela either...but you brought those things up in it. Ya know...sauce for the goose...etc.



Venezuela Al gore

 

She's guilty under subsection f, have you actually READ dedeyan and what the court said was the threshold there rather than a summation of facts, and what do you think was one of the charges and the one roller appealed all the way to the scotus?

 

The prosecution in Dedeyan was under what is now subsection f(2), which reads
"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,"
The emails remained in the custody of Secretary Clinton. I am not aware that they were removed from her custody, either illegally or at all.

And even if using a private email server in and of itself did amount to "illegal removal", if Obama knew she was using a private email server (how could he not, if she did all her work on it?) his knowledge amount to informing her boss.

So prosecution would fail for one of those reasons.

To answer your question, I have only read the appeal judgment in Dedeyan, not the trial judgment. If you have a link for that perhaps you could provide it.

 

Your argument that she is guilty of a crime under 793(f) is based on the premise that putting the emails on a private server is, and and of itself, removing them from their proper place of custody. I think if that were the case, she would be prosecuted (as would Colin Powell and Condi Rice).

If someone had broken into the barn and physically stolen the server, there might have been a case against her. But that didn't happen.

The emails remained in her custody at all times, so I don't think 793(f) would be a successful route to prosecution.

Do you know how prosecutors approach a prosecution? They have a checklist of all of the elements of an alleged crime and they see if they have the evidence to prove each and every single element of that crime. If they don't have evidence for one of the elements there is no point in prosecuting.

As for your many other references to alleged crimes, by all means go through one of them and identify all the elements and the evidence that supports a prosecution. If you can do that I will come round to your side.

Or you could just say that, although what she did might not have been illegal it was still poor judgment, and because of her poor judgement you won't give her a free pass. That would be fair enough.

 

I wouldn't wait up for that.

 

The proper place of custody would be at a secured government facility. Her house in Chappaqua is not a secured government facility. As for Colin Powell and CondiRice, neither has been accused of having a private email server. They may have had personal email accounts. That was not forbidden at the time. Nobody has proved they used it for classified information.

Well there's a high likelihood that someone, probably the Russians did break into her server. Or the Chinese or Iran or ISIS. That according to the FBI Director himself.

This is also not true. She didn't take it with her on her travels. There were actually 4 servers in total, one in a bathroom closet in an office of Platt River in Colorado. They were in the custody of many individuals who by the way, didn't have Top Secret (SCI) clearances. This includes the Platt River employees, her lawyers, her IT guys and several other people.

But they did have enough evidence. Hillary is above the law, that is the only reason not to prosecute.

I could have a photo of Crooked Hillary standing over the corpse of Vince Foster with one foot on his chest posing with the murder weapon and there will still be millions of people who would vote for her.

If I had Top Secret information on the computer that I am using right now, I'd already be in jail. It's a rigged system and Crooked Hillary is above the law.