Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rice aides and Powell
Author Message
Pyrizzo Offline
Eyes in the Sky
*

Posts: 3,642
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 235
I Root For: nothing
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 10:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:49 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

Nope it's not. And since you have had Zero experience with classified information, you are in no place to make such a statement.

Yes it is. There's a lot more smarter people then you "experts". People putting their name out there. And none of them have been able to put forth anything concrete yet.

And it's ridiculous in the fact that having a clearance in no way makes you an expert on the law, not does it make you an expert of determining what is and what isn't classified. You guys like to pretend that no grey area exists whatsoever, yet we know this to be 100% false by what we've seen in this whole ordeal. You've got several government departments who continually disagree on what was classified and when it was classified. They all have smart people with clearances, yet they don't all agree. Hummmmm.

For one, I never said I was an "expert", I am only going off of my own personal experiences. The only department that was disagreeing with the original classified emails was the State Department, and they were'nt even the Original Classification Authority. And now the State Department gave up covering for Hill's emails and will not release 22 emails deemed too dangerous for disclosure, no one but Hillary disagreed with that release. Now you have this issue with the DoS IG submitting this info on Powell and Rice, which on it's face looks like a petty attempt at "well they did it too!", when they clearly did not.

On a side note, I have yet to see anyone on this board with "experience" in this area back up your statements.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 11:02 AM by Pyrizzo.)
02-05-2016 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #62
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 11:02 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:49 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

Nope it's not. And since you have had Zero experience with classified information, you are in no place to make such a statement.

Yes it is. There's a lot more smarter people then you "experts". People putting their name out there. And none of them have been able to put forth anything concrete yet.

And it's ridiculous in the fact that having a clearance in no way makes you an expert on the law, not does it make you an expert of determining what is and what isn't classified. You guys like to pretend that no grey area exists whatsoever, yet we know this to be 100% false by what we've seen in this whole ordeal. You've got several government departments who continually disagree on what was classified and when it was classified. They all have smart people with clearances, yet they don't all agree. Hummmmm.

For one, I never said I was an "expert", I am only going off of my own personal experiences. The only department that was disagreeing with the original classified emails was the State Department, and they were'nt even the Original Classification Authority. And now the State Department gave up covering for Hill's emails and will not release 22 emails deemed too dangerous for disclosure, no one but Hillary disagreed with that release. Now you have this issue with the DoS IG submitting this info on Powell and Rice, which on it's face looks like a petty attempt at "well they did it too!", when they clearly did not.

On a side note, I have yet to see anyone on this board with "experience" in this area back up your statements.

What "experience". We don't know these people from Adam. And I doubt any of them worked in the highest levels of the State Department.

You have to ask yourself one question. When all the "experts" here make this continually sound like a slam dunk, yet not one "named" person in an official position ever comes out with a smoking gun...or an indictment, that maybe just maybe they don't really know what they claim to be so damned certain.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 11:12 AM by Redwingtom.)
02-05-2016 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Rice aides and Powell
You know the other telling thing about this. When they had their chance to grill her under subpoena in the 12 hr. "Hillary Infomercial" they tapped danced around it. That Trey Gowdy fiasco was the best thing to happen to Hillary.

This is going nowhere.
02-05-2016 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ECUGrad07 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,200
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 1261
I Root For: ECU
Location: Lafayette, LA
Post: #64
RE: Rice aides and Powell
Tom, do you teach your kids (if you somehow convinced a woman to sleep with you) that if one of their friends jumps off a bridge, it's OK for them to do it?
02-05-2016 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dcCid Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,538
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 37
I Root For: ACC, Big East
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Post: #65
RE: Rice aides and Powell
As a Hilary supporter she will be able to pardon herself and maybe her predecessors if it is proven they did not cause the blood of millions.
02-05-2016 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #66
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 05:03 PM)dcCid Wrote:  As a Hilary supporter she will be able to pardon herself and maybe her predecessors if it is proven they did not cause the blood of millions.

we need more people to die quicker.....

or was that a sordi fly-over....
02-05-2016 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #67
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-04-2016 11:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  May have also gotten classified information on personal e-mail accounts.
Quote:The State Department’s Inspector General has found classified information sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned.
In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State’s archives contained national security information now classified “Secret” or “Confidential.” The letter was read to NBC News.
Two of the messages were sent to Powell’s personal account, and 10 were sent to personal accounts of Rice’s senior aides, the letter said.
None of the messages were marked classified when originally sent, and none were determined to include information from the intelligence community, Linick said in the document.
Rice aides, Powell also got classified info on personal emails

The issue is not use of personal e-mail accounts, the issue is use of non-secure servers and communication links. If I access my personal email only through a secure server and link, then there is no violation. I don't know that they did or did not do that, the article does not make that clear.

Without that clarification, it is impossible to determine whether they did what Hillary did.

I'm guessing that you have a personal email. I'm guessing that you can access it at home or at work. It's not the email account, it's the machine that you access it on.

derailing is mandatory at this point..

Chelsea vs Man U......stoked I am....
02-05-2016 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #68
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 10:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:49 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

Nope it's not. And since you have had Zero experience with classified information, you are in no place to make such a statement.

Yes it is. There's a lot more smarter people then you "experts". People putting their name out there. And none of them have been able to put forth anything concrete yet.

And it's ridiculous in the fact that having a clearance in no way makes you an expert on the law, not does it make you an expert of determining what is and what isn't classified. You guys like to pretend that no grey area exists whatsoever, yet we know this to be 100% false by what we've seen in this whole ordeal. You've got several government departments who continually disagree on what was classified and when it was classified. They all have smart people with clearances, yet they don't all agree. Hummmmm.

noir d' grey is equally ridiculous as that posit...am certain you will not understand the previous..
02-05-2016 06:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #69
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 07:03 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 05:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 04:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So wait......receiving classified information over private email is bad now?

Always was...as long as it was marked classified from the jump.

Nope. "Sorry".

"Marked or unmarked". It makes NO difference, read the NDA she agreed to and signed.

You read it, because that's not at all what it says. It only says that she can't disclose any classified information without authorization. She's never been found to have done this that I'm aware of.

Then, she signed a second NDA for other classified information. That one only speaks to negligent handling of classified information, but it goes on to say that she is responsible for determining if the information was classified. None of this information so far was found to have a classified stamp on it. So she gets to determine whether it's classified. And sorry Owl #'s but she has a double-secret gold lined security clearance just like you claim to have had and she determined the stuff was not classified at that time.

This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

Do you really, truly, honest to god not understand this stuff? If you did you would stop with all the nonsense.
02-05-2016 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #70
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You read it, because that's not at all what it says. It only says that she can't disclose any classified information without authorization. She's never been found to have done this that I'm aware of.

Placing classified information on a non-secure server, or transmitting it over an unencrypted communication medium, constitutes disclosing it. If that is done without authorization, then she has violated the law.

By the way, there's a big difference between what has been reported so far regarding Colin Powell and the Condoleeza Rice staff members. What has been said is that they sent the information to personal e-mail accounts. That is different from physically placing the information on non-secure servers or transmitting the information over non-secure media. To be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't do those things, that's simply not what has been reported. And if they did not do those things, then the use of a personal email account is NOT equivalent to what Hillary did.

Quote:Then, she signed a second NDA for other classified information. That one only speaks to negligent handling of classified information, but it goes on to say that she is responsible for determining if the information was classified. None of this information so far was found to have a classified stamp on it. So she gets to determine whether it's classified. And sorry Owl #'s but she has a double-secret gold lined security clearance just like you claim to have had and she determined the stuff was not classified at that time.

She does not have the legal right to make such a determination.

Quote:This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

I don't know anyone who subscribes to that notion. I certainly don't, in fact, just the opposite. The person who initiates the information establishes the classification. If someone down the line believes that it should be declassified, that person down the line must go back to the originator and resolve the issue with him/her. I would anticipate that as Secretary of State, Hillary saw a lot of information that was classified not because of content but because release of the information could expose the identity of an intelligence operative. There is no way that Hillary, getting the information down the line, would have any knowledge that would permit her to make an assessment of that likelihood. Let's say hypothetically that someone files a report that Assad is in a bad mood because his rose garden isn't doing very well. The fact that the roses aren't blooming obviously does not require classification. But that message obviously came from someone who has been in Assad's rose garden, and if that information is released then Assad has a short list of people who have been in his rose garden to investigate as possible spies, and kill the ones that may be spies. That's why you have to go back to the originator to change classification.

Bottom line, you've obviously never worked with information that has been classified for national security purposes, and you obviously have not clue how the system works. You're just making yourself look stupid.

Look, I want Hillary to stay afloat long enough to head off Bernie. Electing Bernie would be the worst possible thing we could do, except maybe electing Liz "Pocahontas" Warren.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 11:51 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-05-2016 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,369
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6859
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #71
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You read it, because that's not at all what it says. It only says that she can't disclose any classified information without authorization. She's never been found to have done this that I'm aware of.

Placing classified information on a non-secure server, or transmitting it over an unencrypted communication medium, constitutes disclosing it. If that is done without authorization, then she has violated the law.

By the way, there's a big difference between what has been reported so far regarding Colin Powell and the Condoleeza Rice staff members. What has been said is that they sent the information to personal e-mail accounts. That is different from physically placing the information on non-secure servers or transmitting the information over non-secure media. To be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't do those things, that's simply not what has been reported. And if they did not do those things, then the use of a personal email account is NOT equivalent to what Hillary did.

Quote:Then, she signed a second NDA for other classified information. That one only speaks to negligent handling of classified information, but it goes on to say that she is responsible for determining if the information was classified. None of this information so far was found to have a classified stamp on it. So she gets to determine whether it's classified. And sorry Owl #'s but she has a double-secret gold lined security clearance just like you claim to have had and she determined the stuff was not classified at that time.

She does not have the legal right to make such a determination.

Quote:This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

I don't know anyone who subscribes to that notion. The person who initiates the information establishes the classification. If someone down the line believes that it should be declassified, that person down the line must go back to the originator and resolve the issue with him/her. I would anticipate that as Secretary of State, Hillary saw a lot of information that was classified not because of content but because release of the information could expose the identity of an intelligence operative. There is no way that Hillary, getting the information down the line, would have any knowledge that would permit her to make an assessment of that likelihood. Let's say hypothetically that someone files a report that Assad is in a bad mood because his rose garden isn't doing very well. The fact that the roses aren't blooming obviously does not require classification. But that message obviously came from someone who has been in Assad's rose garden, and if that information is released then Assad has a short list of people who have been in his rose garden to investigate as possible spies, and kill the ones that may be spies. That's why you have to go back to the originator to change classification.

Bottom line, you've obviously never worked with information that has been classified for national security purposes, and you obviously have not clue how the system works. You're just making yourself look stupid.

Look, I want Hillary to stay afloat long enough to head off Bernie. Electing Bernie would be the worst possible thing we could do, except maybe electing Liz "Pocahontas" Warren.

that's a lot of words....

I'll summarize with one....

wimmenz

edit: it goes much deeper into the psycho of women having/wanting more than birthing
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 11:51 PM by stinkfist.)
02-05-2016 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #72
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-05-2016 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You read it, because that's not at all what it says. It only says that she can't disclose any classified information without authorization. She's never been found to have done this that I'm aware of.

Placing classified information on a non-secure server, or transmitting it over an unencrypted communication medium, constitutes disclosing it. If that is done without authorization, then she has violated the law.

Authorized by who, The president...the Secretary of Defense...The head of the CIA...FBI..., who? She's the freaking SOS!!! And cite a source for your law violation.

(02-05-2016 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  By the way, there's a big difference between what has been reported so far regarding Colin Powell and the Condoleeza Rice staff members. What has been said is that they sent the information to personal e-mail accounts. That is different from physically placing the information on non-secure servers or transmitting the information over non-secure media. To be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't do those things, that's simply not what has been reported. And if they did not do those things, then the use of a personal email account is NOT equivalent to what Hillary did.

Quote:Then, she signed a second NDA for other classified information. That one only speaks to negligent handling of classified information, but it goes on to say that she is responsible for determining if the information was classified. None of this information so far was found to have a classified stamp on it. So she gets to determine whether it's classified. And sorry Owl #'s but she has a double-secret gold lined security clearance just like you claim to have had and she determined the stuff was not classified at that time.

She does not have the legal right to make such a determination.

Says who? Cite your source. And no, your alleged one time high ranking clearance is not a source.

(02-05-2016 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
Quote:This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

I don't know anyone who subscribes to that notion. I certainly don't, in fact, just the opposite. The person who initiates the information establishes the classification. If someone down the line believes that it should be declassified, that person down the line must go back to the originator and resolve the issue with him/her. I would anticipate that as Secretary of State, Hillary saw a lot of information that was classified not because of content but because release of the information could expose the identity of an intelligence operative. There is no way that Hillary, getting the information down the line, would have any knowledge that would permit her to make an assessment of that likelihood. Let's say hypothetically that someone files a report that Assad is in a bad mood because his rose garden isn't doing very well. The fact that the roses aren't blooming obviously does not require classification. But that message obviously came from someone who has been in Assad's rose garden, and if that information is released then Assad has a short list of people who have been in his rose garden to investigate as possible spies, and kill the ones that may be spies. That's why you have to go back to the originator to change classification.

Bottom line, you've obviously never worked with information that has been classified for national security purposes, and you obviously have not [sic] clue how the system works. You're just making yourself look stupid.

Right...says you...the anonymous internet national security expert.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 10:14 AM by Redwingtom.)
02-08-2016 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pyrizzo Offline
Eyes in the Sky
*

Posts: 3,642
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 235
I Root For: nothing
Location:
Post: #73
Rice aides and Powell
(02-08-2016 10:13 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You read it, because that's not at all what it says. It only says that she can't disclose any classified information without authorization. She's never been found to have done this that I'm aware of.

Placing classified information on a non-secure server, or transmitting it over an unencrypted communication medium, constitutes disclosing it. If that is done without authorization, then she has violated the law.

Authorized by who, The president...the Secretary of Defense...The head of the CIA...FBI..., who? She's the freaking SOS!!! And cite a source for your law violation.

(02-05-2016 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  By the way, there's a big difference between what has been reported so far regarding Colin Powell and the Condoleeza Rice staff members. What has been said is that they sent the information to personal e-mail accounts. That is different from physically placing the information on non-secure servers or transmitting the information over non-secure media. To be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't do those things, that's simply not what has been reported. And if they did not do those things, then the use of a personal email account is NOT equivalent to what Hillary did.

Quote:Then, she signed a second NDA for other classified information. That one only speaks to negligent handling of classified information, but it goes on to say that she is responsible for determining if the information was classified. None of this information so far was found to have a classified stamp on it. So she gets to determine whether it's classified. And sorry Owl #'s but she has a double-secret gold lined security clearance just like you claim to have had and she determined the stuff was not classified at that time.

She does not have the legal right to make such a determination.

Says who? Cite your source. And no, your alleged one time high ranking clearance is not a source.

(02-05-2016 11:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
Quote:This notion by all you internet message board top secret security "experts" that every person with a high-level clearance can look at any piece of information and all agree that yep it's classified, is ludicrous.

I don't know anyone who subscribes to that notion. I certainly don't, in fact, just the opposite. The person who initiates the information establishes the classification. If someone down the line believes that it should be declassified, that person down the line must go back to the originator and resolve the issue with him/her. I would anticipate that as Secretary of State, Hillary saw a lot of information that was classified not because of content but because release of the information could expose the identity of an intelligence operative. There is no way that Hillary, getting the information down the line, would have any knowledge that would permit her to make an assessment of that likelihood. Let's say hypothetically that someone files a report that Assad is in a bad mood because his rose garden isn't doing very well. The fact that the roses aren't blooming obviously does not require classification. But that message obviously came from someone who has been in Assad's rose garden, and if that information is released then Assad has a short list of people who have been in his rose garden to investigate as possible spies, and kill the ones that may be spies. That's why you have to go back to the originator to change classification.

Bottom line, you've obviously never worked with information that has been classified for national security purposes, and you obviously have not [sic] clue how the system works. You're just making yourself look stupid.

Right...says you...the anonymous internet national security expert.

Damn. You are seriously over the top Tom. There's no pleasing you unless we bow down to Hillary in person. It's quite sad, really.
02-08-2016 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #74
RE: Rice aides and Powell
Sorry Py, but I deal in facts and reality and I'm not here to just to please you or be pleased by you. Until she's charged and convicted, she's not guilty of crimes. And once again, the investigation is still ongoing. Excuse me if I don't take the word of all you anonymous internet national security clearance and classified information "experts" when you've shown absolutely no impartiality throughout. Where specific laws are never cited and concrete evidence is never shown. It's always, I know...I held a top security clearance...I know how these things works...I know what's classified and what isn't. Blah Blah Blah.

And no, I don't trust her either and no, I don't really want to have to vote for her. I'd rather vote for Bernie. Yes, she screwed up and made mistakes. Sorry, but I've still yet to see (or be shown) anything that requires her incarceration as many here have called for.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 11:01 AM by Redwingtom.)
02-08-2016 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-08-2016 11:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Excuse me if I don't take the word of all you anonymous internet national security clearance and classified information "experts" when you've shown absolutely no impartiality throughout.

It doesnt take an expert to read the law. She's toast, and you know it.

Quote:Where specific laws are never cited and concrete evidence is never shown.

The law has been cited, and she admitted that she sent her emails to her attorney. The state department admits some of those emails were and still are classified. That is a crime. End of story.


Quote:And no, I don't trust her either and no, I don't really want to have to vote for her. I'd rather vote for Bernie. Yes, she screwed up and made mistakes.

so you admit she committed crimes? you are just downplaying them to "mistakes" and screwing up.

Quote: Sorry, but I've still yet to see (or be shown) anything that requires her incarceration as many here have called for.

We're calling on her to be prosecuted, as should you.
02-08-2016 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #76
RE: Rice aides and Powell
1. I've read the law...at least the one that I believe applies...and I cited it previously asking if this was all that was being cited as being broken and my question was ignored. That law had a lot of wiggle room in it.

2. Hence, I don't think she actually broke it as written. So no, from what I've seen I don't see any actual crime.

3. No, you don't prosecute just to prosecute. They're still investigating...if they find enough for a possible conviction, then by all means prosecute. I take no issue with that.

Quote:Title 18, Section 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a ) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, 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 documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b ) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a ).

(c ) In this section, the term ‘‘classified information of the United States’’ means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2016 11:21 AM by Redwingtom.)
02-08-2016 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pyrizzo Offline
Eyes in the Sky
*

Posts: 3,642
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 235
I Root For: nothing
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-08-2016 11:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry Py, but I deal in facts and reality and I'm not here to just to please you or be pleased by you. Until she's charged and convicted, she's not guilty of crimes. And once again, the investigation is still ongoing. Excuse me if I don't take the word of all you anonymous internet national security clearance and classified information "experts" when you've shown absolutely no impartiality throughout. Where specific laws are never cited and concrete evidence is never shown. It's always, I know...I held a top security clearance...I know how these things works...I know what's classified and what isn't. Blah Blah Blah.

And no, I don't trust her either and no, I don't really want to have to vote for her. I'd rather vote for Bernie. Yes, she screwed up and made mistakes. Sorry, but I've still yet to see (or be shown) anything that requires her incarceration as many here have called for.

Everything you wrote has already been covered in great detail throughout many posts in numerous threads by many people. It's not worth the time to go through everything again only for you to throw it out once more. You're not worth it. I have better ways of wasting my time.
02-08-2016 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #78
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-08-2016 11:17 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 11:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry Py, but I deal in facts and reality and I'm not here to just to please you or be pleased by you. Until she's charged and convicted, she's not guilty of crimes. And once again, the investigation is still ongoing. Excuse me if I don't take the word of all you anonymous internet national security clearance and classified information "experts" when you've shown absolutely no impartiality throughout. Where specific laws are never cited and concrete evidence is never shown. It's always, I know...I held a top security clearance...I know how these things works...I know what's classified and what isn't. Blah Blah Blah.

And no, I don't trust her either and no, I don't really want to have to vote for her. I'd rather vote for Bernie. Yes, she screwed up and made mistakes. Sorry, but I've still yet to see (or be shown) anything that requires her incarceration as many here have called for.

Everything you wrote has already been covered in great detail throughout many posts in numerous threads by many people. It's not worth the time to go through everything again only for you to throw it out once more. You're not worth it. I have better ways of wasting my time.

I agree, everyone's lay opinion has been thoroughly laid out for months now. So, why can't we just wait until the investigation is over before we string her up?
02-08-2016 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul M Offline
American-American
*

Posts: 21,196
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 649
I Root For: OU
Location: Next to Boomer
Post: #79
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-08-2016 11:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry Py, but I deal in facts and reality

Stop this nonsense. You've done nothing but argue against the facts.
02-08-2016 11:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #80
RE: Rice aides and Powell
(02-08-2016 11:44 PM)Paul M Wrote:  
(02-08-2016 11:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry Py, but I deal in facts and reality

Stop this nonsense. You've done nothing but argue against the facts.

You mean facts like she has not been indicted and facts like the investigation is still going on?

Or facts as you see them with comments like "She's guilty"?
02-09-2016 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.