First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply FBI REFUSES To Seek Justice Against Crooked Hillary
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

PhantomGundam wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Actually that would really depend on the facts of the case. The way I established it, they are throwing the flowerpot out the window into their own backyard, where they believed no one else would be. You need to establish that the defendant was aware of the risks, which wouldn't be possible with just the information I gave.


Well that's a really random example that doesn't match what you're defending. If you throw something into a private space where you don't expect anyone else to be in and it just happens to hit a person like an act of God, that would be one insanely difficult situation to predict since there's no reason for that to happen in the first place. That's nothing like knowingly removing top secret government documents from a secured server and moving them to a less secured server where you can reasonably expect them to be more vulnerable to hackers and thieves. And that's only the best possible outcome, assuming the person in this scenario isn't deliberately giving this information away, which could be considered treason.


I wasn't really defending anything by this statement. I was just saying that intent to cause harm could be important and OP misunderstood me. I was clarifying what I was talking about when I originally said that intent to cause harm would be a way to prove reasonable expectation of harm being done, which I don't think is something that could really be argued...


outontheop wrote:

Like I said, if we accept that there was national defense information on the server, that Clinton *knew* about the presence of the national defense information, and Clinton failed to report the information, that alone constitutes a felony violation of 18 USC 793 f).


Assuming she knew that it was illegal, yes. However, as I said, I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:
I wasn't really defending anything by this statement. I was just saying that intent to cause harm could be important and OP misunderstood me. I was clarifying what I was talking about when I originally said that intent to cause harm would be a way to prove reasonable expectation of harm being done, which I don't think is something that could really be argued...


I didn't misunderstand anything; I just know you are WRONG. Intent is not a factor of the elements of the crime for a felony violation of 18 USC 793. Period. It says that if you remove national defense information from its proper place of storage, you have committed a felony.

It does not matter if you removed the materials so you could give them to ze Russians (though that would then be an ADDITIONAL felony; 18 USC 794 Espionage) or if you took them home to work on after hours because you're just super dedicated. Or if you just love a nation allied with the US so much that you want to help them fight their and the US's common enemies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

Remove NDI from proper storage= felony. Not sure how much simpler I can make it.
VeggyZ 
2624 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
I love how people either make Hillary out to be the devil or they MASSIVELY underestimate her. Make no mistake, she's not just some buffoon. It's obvious she doesn't care and isn't worried - and that's not because she is free of guilt, it's because she knows she is actually literally untouchable, as the Clinton's have already proved to be true.

For my part, I feel like the devil impression is more correct, even if it weren't for the shit the Clintons have been under the gun for, I feel that I would still walk away with that impression after listening to her speak. The woman makes my skin crawl.

Given that someone without such vast resources mishandling top secret information could easily land them in jail, and has, it should at the least disqualify her from the running. The president of the United States can't afford to be careless like that. That's just my opinion, but I've already worked for a good handful of Hillary Clinton's in my short life, so I am especially wary about giving them such extravagant powers.

That isn't to say that I think Trump is going to be much better - but there are two areas that I have to give Trump credit, where Hillary fails miserably... He doesn't waste his time masking, or sugar coating what he says just because he knows people won't react well to it, and that he isn't afraid to offer his ideas in wake of potential backlash. Those two things DO make him president material. He's still just a businessman, though, and you can bet he'll run America like one too...

I've never before considered leaving the country I was born and raised in, not seriously at any rate. Until this year. I feel like, regardless of who wins the presidency, they're going to put us in our graves.

Maybe I shouldn't go on this tangent because it's just asking for people to decry me a conspiracy theorist, but... Maybe Obama getting his 3rd term will save us! Wouldn't that be fun?

Given the turmoil in the US, and his decisions that can only further increase the instability (like letting anyone into the country no matter who they are, the closing of gitmo, moving Jihad refugees to all corners of the country, trying to rid the US of it's identity as a nation) this possibility is not as far fetched as people like to think. <--- this is one that I sincerely hope IS actually in the realm of conspiracy, but the more I think about it the more sense all of his oversteps make. I can't be the only one thinking it. Every move he makes seems like it's headed towards that end, especially now towards the end of his presidency. It certainly seems like he's doing everything he can to shake people up and instigate the countries' already inflated discontent. Yes, this would be quite the extreme, but he's ALREADY going to some pretty crazy extremes. He's pretty much doing whatever he wants anyway, why stop now?
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:
Assuming she knew that it was illegal, yes. However, as I said, I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that.


That's not actually true. She DIDN'T need to know it was illegal for it to still be a crime.

Also, there is a near-zero chance that she did not know.

You have clearly never held a US security clearance, because if you had, you would understand that EVERY SINGLE YEAR you hold that clearance, you are required to receive a classified material handling refresher and responsibilities indoctrination brief.

But I guess maybe she's just the most forgetful, selective-hearing person to ever walk the face of this earth... and again, if that IS the case (and somehow excuses the crime, which it does NOT), it still means she's completely incapable of executing the duties and responsibilities of any position of responsibility greater than a fry cook.
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

outontheop wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
I wasn't really defending anything by this statement. I was just saying that intent to cause harm could be important and OP misunderstood me. I was clarifying what I was talking about when I originally said that intent to cause harm would be a way to prove reasonable expectation of harm being done, which I don't think is something that could really be argued...


I didn't misunderstand anything; I just know you are WRONG. Intent is not a factor of the elements of the crime for a felony violation of 18 USC 793. Period. It says that if you remove national defense information from its proper place of storage, you have committed a felony.

It does not matter if you removed the materials so you could give them to ze Russians (though that would then be an ADDITIONAL felony; 18 USC 794 Espionage) or if you took them home to work on after hours because you're just super dedicated. Or if you just love a nation allied with the US so much that you want to help them fight their and the US's common enemies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)

DOES. NOT. MATTER.

Remove NDI from proper storage= felony. Not sure how much simpler I can make it.


...Intent itself is not a requirement, but intent can show that the information was available which would lead a reasonable person to assume harm would be done. I've said this three times now.

As for whether removal alone constitutes a felony, I've asked to you to clarify, so I'll ask again. Are you talking about section 1 or 2?

(1) "through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, "

Requires gross negligence

(2) "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, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer"

Requires knowledge that it has been "illegally" removed
10654 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

outontheop wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
Assuming she knew that it was illegal, yes. However, as I said, I'm not aware of any evidence that proves that.


That's not actually true. She DIDN'T need to know it was illegal for it to still be a crime.

Also, there is a near-zero chance that she did not know.

You have clearly never held a US security clearance, because if you had, you would understand that EVERY SINGLE YEAR you hold that clearance, you are required to receive a classified material handling refresher and responsibilities indoctrination brief.

But I guess maybe she's just the most forgetful, selective-hearing person to ever walk the face of this earth... and again, if that IS the case (and somehow excuses the crime, which it does NOT), it still means she's completely incapable of executing the duties and responsibilities of any position of responsibility greater than a fry cook.


I don't think we can trust Hillary Clinton with even that much responsibility.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
I like how we've all become legal experts capable of rendering judgement on a year long FBI investigation based on the equivalent of standing across the street staring at their office.
24538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
All political figures hide or do something wrong it just has not came to light. I am not saying criminally I mean making agreement behind close doors, sponsoring or believing in something in their earlier years. I mean if you look deep enough you can find something in all of us. Point is there are only 2 candidates at this point. Which one is the lesser unnecessary evil that you want to vote for. Even our greatest past leaders have done things that are just now surfacing and we look at it now and say really are you serious he did what I try not to get into the day to day battles that both candidates get into, I just want things to get better and fair opportunity for all and then I woke up.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:

...Intent itself is not a requirement, but intent can show that the information was available which would lead a reasonable person to assume harm would be done. I've said this three times now.

As for whether removal alone constitutes a felony, I've asked to you to clarify, so I'll ask again. Are you talking about section 1 or 2?

(1) "through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, "

Requires gross negligence

(2) "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, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer"

Requires knowledge that it has been "illegally" removed




.... oh my god. Are you naturally this dense, or do you maintain a harsh daily regimen to work up to such idiocy?

I stand corrected, perhaps Clinton is not the most willfully ignorant person on the planet; YOU are.

Have you missed the part where, many persons who have never even held a security clearance are quite able to identify that conducting official department of state business on a private email server can be reasonably expected to increase the risk of compromise of that information? Or that therefore, the "reasonable belief" test indicates that Clinton DEFINITELY should have known better

Or perhaps you just chose to ignore the part where all security clearance holders (this includes Clinton!) must receive an initial and annual brief where they are told EXACTLY what methods can be used to store and transmit classified data, and therefore ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY knew better.

There is no excuse. You can't just say "oh, well, maybe she just didn't KNOW it was wrong!". If she did it on purpose, she has no business being president. If she was stupid enough to not know it was wrong, she has no business being president.

If your expectations of top-level government leadership is truly SO low that you think someone can hold those positions and not be EXPECTED to know the regulations on handling classified material, or even to apply a basic "what could possibly go wrong?" test of the course of action before doing it, then I recommend you vote for a baked potato this presidential election. It would provide the exact amount of reasoned judgement and accountability you seem to think should apply to the "leaders" of the nation.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

runec wrote:

I like how we've all become legal experts capable of rendering judgement on a year long FBI investigation based on the equivalent of standing across the street staring at their office.


I like how you have no idea that I specifically trained in counterintelligence, and for a great many years, my ACTUAL job was investigating and building evidence portfolios against persons who committed national security crimes against the Unites States. Knowing the law behind it *may* have had some bearing on this process.

But, sure, you're right, no one here has a clue about the legal implications of this. Why not.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

outontheop wrote:
I like how you have no idea that I specifically trained in counterintelligence, and for a great many years, my ACTUAL job was investigating and building evidence portfolios against persons who committed national security crimes against the Unites States. Knowing the law behind it *may* have had some bearing on this process.

But, sure, you're right, no one here has a clue about the legal implications of this. Why not.


and this gives you access to the FBI's investigation does it? -.-

Oh, and I like how you have no idea that I am in fact, a unicorn, and have to type using a special mouth wand. So perhaps you can get down off your high horse ( its insulting to my kind ) and realize that anyone can claim anything on the internet. So acting snide about something I had no possible way of knowing and that you have no possible way of proving is pretty silly.

13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

outontheop wrote:

1) Have you missed the part where, many persons who have never even held a security clearance are quite able to identify that conducting official department of state business on a private email server can be reasonably expected to increase the risk of compromise of that information? Or that therefore, the "reasonable belief" test indicates that Clinton DEFINITELY should have known better

2) Or perhaps you just chose to ignore the part where all security clearance holders (this includes Clinton!) must receive an initial and annual brief where they are told EXACTLY what methods can be used to store and transmit classified data, and therefore ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY knew better.


1) The wording of the legal definition of "gross negligence" speaks about whether harm was likely, not about whether the potential for harm was increased (which even that I don't think is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I don't know what she was told about the security of her system, but I do know that her system was a lot less well known, cutting down the amount of possible threats, and the State Department did fall victim to hacking, so its not like that was exactly perfect...but I digress). I think proving that a reasonable person would expect harm to be likely would be extremely difficult.

2) I wasn't in those briefings with Clinton. I doubt you were either. I don't know whether or not she was specifically advised on the policy regarding using a private email server. And if she was, was she told that it was against policy, or was she told that it violated criminal codes? Does the mere act even violate criminal codes (or is something like gross negligence or intent to distribute necessary)? Knowledge of illegal activity is necessary here, which means that the activity needs to be considered illegal outside of this one point. You can't convict someone of knowing that they are breaking the law if the only law they broke was knowing that they broke a law...that just doesn't make sense.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
I'm probably selfish and somewhat hopeful this whole ordeal can be put behind us.

Granted, I understand that security negligence is no small offense, and had someone other than Hillary been the perpetrator there could have been more serious repercussions; however, when this is mounted as the case as Hillary it just... leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not because Hillary is perfect--oh heavens no, she is pretty damn imperfect; and yet, despite those imperfections, a private email server became the story for over a year? I suppose part of this is the fact I'm extremely skeptical of Hillary, and given the other options be what they may, I'd generally prefer an honest and focused critique of her candidacy instead of writing her off alleging some email problem, as if the other candidates are immune to comparable (or worse) negligence.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.