(02-09-2016 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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"?

It is pretty clear from what has been released (and not disputed) that a criminal case against her is complete. All of the requisite elements of the crime have been demonstrated, and so far she has asserted no effective defenses. And for the record, to respond to an earlier post of yours, I did post the applicable statutes long ago.

Whether she will in fact be prosecuted, and prosecuted vigorously enough to produce a conviction, is a discretionary decision that will obviously be made based upon political, not national, interests.

She has not been indicted, and certainly not convicted. So she is clearly "not guilty" at this point. But that doesn't mean that she didn't commit crimes. Just like George Zimmerman. The difference is that the evidence to convict her seems clearly to exist, which was never the case with George Zimmerman. At this point, the case against her would appear to be much clearer than the case against George Zimmerman ever was.

(02-08-2016 11:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

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.

I really don't see how you can possibly say that she did not break this law, unless you are operating in full bore Gunga Din mode.

She was an officer of the US, by virtue of that office she came into possession of classified information, she knowingly removed such information to an non-secure server with intent to remove such materials to such server, furthermore she transmitted such information over unencrypted communications links with intent to transmit such information over such circuits. What element of the offense, in your opinion, did she fail to meet?

Whether she intended that the information be compromised, or whether in fact the information was compromised, are not elements of the offense, so arguing them is irrelevant. There are other statutes that would apply in those situations and would invoke harsher penalties, up to and including death. Given that the prison term for this offense does not exceed one year, this would not be a felony offense, but it would still be a crime.

(02-09-2016 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 10:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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"?

It is pretty clear from what has been released (and not disputed) that a criminal case against her is complete. All of the requisite elements of the crime have been demonstrated, and so far she has asserted no effective defenses. And for the record, to respond to an earlier post of yours, I did post the applicable statutes long ago.

Whether she will in fact be prosecuted, and prosecuted vigorously enough to produce a conviction, is a discretionary decision that will obviously be made based upon political, not national, interests.

Obviously, according to you.

(02-09-2016 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  She has not been indicted, and certainly not convicted. So she is clearly "not guilty" at this point. But that doesn't mean that she didn't commit crimes. Just like George Zimmerman. The difference is that the evidence to convict her seems clearly to exist, which was never the case with George Zimmerman. At this point, the case against her would appear to be much clearer than the case against George Zimmerman ever was.

FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Correct. In the Zimmerman case, liberals pre-judged him guilty even though the known evidence showed it to be self-defense.

In Hillary's case, we see the evidence, and simply demand she be prosecuted.

Big difference.

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Of course there is nothing similar. All the evidence needed to convict appears clearly to be present here. It was not in the Zimmerman case.

(02-09-2016 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 11:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

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.

I really don't see how you can possibly say that she did not break this law, unless you are operating in full bore Gunga Din mode.

Oh blow it out your ******* ass. I'm sick of you and the other clowns with your continual assertion that I'm carrying any water for that woman. I don't prefer her to be president. Give it a ******* rest and stick to the damned facts and the argument of the issue and stop worrying what the hell I think about her or who I support.

Now...moving on to our duty here...focusing on the issue and not the poster...

(02-09-2016 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  She was an officer of the US, by virtue of that office she came into possession of classified information, she knowingly removed such information to an non-secure server with intent to remove such materials to such server, furthermore she transmitted such information over unencrypted communications links with intent to transmit such information over such circuits. What element of the offense, in your opinion, did she fail to meet?

Whether she intended that the information be compromised, or whether in fact the information was compromised, are not elements of the offense, so arguing them is irrelevant. There are other statutes that would apply in those situations and would invoke harsher penalties, up to and including death. Given that the prison term for this offense does not exceed one year, this would not be a felony offense, but it would still be a crime.

Couple possibilities. First, who says she did not have the authority? Is there case law on this? Second, again the information was not marked classified at the time and she did not determine with her knowledge and clearances that is classified either. And it was not marked.

And sorry if I missed the other posts with the other applicable case law that you're referring to. As you can imagine, it's damned near impossible to read every thread and every post about this issue going on what seems like a year now.

(02-09-2016 12:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Correct. In the Zimmerman case, liberals pre-judged him guilty even though the known evidence showed it to be self-defense.

In Hillary's case, we see the evidence, and simply demand she be prosecuted.

Big difference.

NOT ALL LIBERALS DID THIS. PLEASE STOP GENERALIZING!

(02-09-2016 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Of course there is nothing similar. All the evidence needed to convict appears clearly to be present here. It was not in the Zimmerman case.

Yes, it appears that way to you. For Zimmerman, I think a conviction could have been achieved if they would have charged him properly.

(02-09-2016 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Correct. In the Zimmerman case, liberals pre-judged him guilty even though the known evidence showed it to be self-defense.

In Hillary's case, we see the evidence, and simply demand she be prosecuted.

Big difference.

NOT ALL LIBERALS DID THIS. PLEASE STOP GENERALIZING!

Link to where a single liberal did not convict Zimmerman before the trial....

(02-09-2016 01:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Correct. In the Zimmerman case, liberals pre-judged him guilty even though the known evidence showed it to be self-defense.

In Hillary's case, we see the evidence, and simply demand she be prosecuted.

Big difference.

NOT ALL LIBERALS DID THIS. PLEASE STOP GENERALIZING!

Link to where a single liberal did not convict Zimmerman before the trial....

I'd like to see this as well.

(02-09-2016 01:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Correct. In the Zimmerman case, liberals pre-judged him guilty even though the known evidence showed it to be self-defense.

In Hillary's case, we see the evidence, and simply demand she be prosecuted.

Big difference.

NOT ALL LIBERALS DID THIS. PLEASE STOP GENERALIZING!

Link to where a single liberal did not convict Zimmerman before the trial....

Good freaking lord...were back to asking for proof that something didn't happen?

For starters, I never convicted him before the trial.

(02-09-2016 01:05 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 01:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:55 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  FWIW - However this started being comparing to the Zimmerman case, that needs to stop. There is nothing at all similar between them.

Correct. In the Zimmerman case, liberals pre-judged him guilty even though the known evidence showed it to be self-defense.

In Hillary's case, we see the evidence, and simply demand she be prosecuted.

Big difference.

NOT ALL LIBERALS DID THIS. PLEASE STOP GENERALIZING!

Link to where a single liberal did not convict Zimmerman before the trial....

I'd like to see this as well.