(07-04-2016 05:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Really the only way you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly transmitted classified information is if it's marked classified.

She admits she made mistakes, and she did. But the question of whether criminal charges are warranted is one conservatives just don't or want to understand.

You are a left wing bomb thrower and you don't even get that Hillary is owned by Wall St. and foreign billionaires. It is mind blowing. She would toss some table scraps at liberal causes but protect Big Corporations at all costs.

(07-04-2016 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  They know a jury won't convict her for sending information that wasn't marked classified.

You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

(07-04-2016 08:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  They know a jury won't convict her for sending information that wasn't marked classified.

You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

shhhh he is a "lawyer"...


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

(07-04-2016 08:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  They know a jury won't convict her for sending information that wasn't marked classified.

You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

apparently many media outlets do not......go figure....

we live in a land of lunacy...

....never thought I'd see it in my lifetime displayed in this fashion....

disclaimer: we both grew up with the 'gate....

is why you now understand the bush sect....

(07-04-2016 06:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:   Give it up guys. My 401k disagrees.

FIFY true believer.

Here's what Hillary says to Christian about the laws of the land.

"Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed." ---- HRC

Laws do not apply to "her" though. She and her friends live above "our" laws?

(07-04-2016 04:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You guys are the definition of team over country.

Sorry if We wont play along !

(07-04-2016 05:13 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 05:04 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Stop with the "wasn't marked classified" nonsense. Some were and it JUST DOES NOT EVEN MATTER if none were. And all you partisan hacks know this. But persist in telling what you know are lies.

It absolutely matters, because for it to be a crime she has to transmit classified information KNOWINGLY. If it's not marked classified she might not KNOW it is classified. It's not that difficult a concept. You can say, "Oh well she signed this paper or took this hourlong class about what it means for something to be classified," but that doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew at the time she sent those emails it was classified. And that's how criminal law works. You need to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. You can prove she violated some department protocols, but if you're talking about criminal charges that's a much higher bar because you need to prove intent. And if you're not sure you can meet that bar as a prosecutor, you don't bring charges, because you're wasting resources. The feds have a reputation for only bringing charges if their case is airtight, so of course they would never bring charges here, and the fact it's Hillary the former SOS instead of Hillary the low level deskjockey doesn't matter.

What Petraeus sent was marked classified.

Since WHEN have Liberals EVER WORRIED about WASTING RESOURCES ?

(07-05-2016 04:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 05:13 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 05:04 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Stop with the "wasn't marked classified" nonsense. Some were and it JUST DOES NOT EVEN MATTER if none were. And all you partisan hacks know this. But persist in telling what you know are lies.

It absolutely matters, because for it to be a crime she has to transmit classified information KNOWINGLY. If it's not marked classified she might not KNOW it is classified. It's not that difficult a concept. You can say, "Oh well she signed this paper or took this hourlong class about what it means for something to be classified," but that doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew at the time she sent those emails it was classified. And that's how criminal law works. You need to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. You can prove she violated some department protocols, but if you're talking about criminal charges that's a much higher bar because you need to prove intent. And if you're not sure you can meet that bar as a prosecutor, you don't bring charges, because you're wasting resources. The feds have a reputation for only bringing charges if their case is airtight, so of course they would never bring charges here, and the fact it's Hillary the former SOS instead of Hillary the low level deskjockey doesn't matter.

What Petraeus sent was marked classified.

Since WHEN have Liberals EVER WORRIED about WASTING RESOURCES ?

by the day....it gets blind squirrel nutter buttier.....

it's flat out NOT amazing what the leadershite in this cuntry has becumm....

hell, jon bon jovi is making commercials now about turning back time....

(07-04-2016 07:16 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  What would be the fallout if she was named an unindicted co-conspirator?

Not a damn thing.

(07-04-2016 08:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  They know a jury won't convict her for sending information that wasn't marked classified.

You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

Of course he doesn't.

You people are incorrigible. None of you clowns know anything. You're telling me intent is irrelevant? Intent is ALWAYS relevant in criminal law, with limited exceptions like statutory rape. Any geek off the street who saw Legally Blonde could tell you mens rea is an element.

18 USC 798 says:

"(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—"

KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY. KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY. Get it through your thick heads. And quit telling me intent isn't an element when it's plainly right there in the ******* law.

(07-05-2016 07:06 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 08:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  They know a jury won't convict her for sending information that wasn't marked classified.

You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

Of course he doesn't.

Which part of the statute is that?

(07-05-2016 07:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 07:06 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 08:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  They know a jury won't convict her for sending information that wasn't marked classified.

You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

Of course he doesn't.

Which part of the statute is that?

The part where she knowingly and willingly used her own server and the folks accessing it didn't have proper clearance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-c...ied-2016-1

THat is unless you think the bootlicker managing the server had higher clearances than the investigators.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what...ns-emails/

Quote:Classified information

The emails are full of sections that the State Department decided were improper for release and blanked out, ranging from personal information to national secrets.

In the end, State Department reviewers classified more than 2,000 emails, mostly at the lower “confidential” and “secret” levels. Twenty-two emails were withheld entirely from publication on grounds that they were “top secret.” None of these bore classification markings at the time they were sent and most were written by other officials.

Keep licking those boots gimp.

If true, it's really not a surprise Hillary won't face charges. Yet ANOTHER in a long list of reason for the rise of the likes of Trump and Bernie, etc. THIS is the reason so many folks are pissed at our broken system.

(07-05-2016 07:32 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 07:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 07:06 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 08:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 04:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  They know a jury won't convict her for sending information that wasn't marked classified.

You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

Of course he doesn't.

Which part of the statute is that?

The part where she knowingly and willingly used her own server and the folks accessing it didn't have proper clearance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-c...ied-2016-1

THat is unless you think the bootlicker managing the server had higher clearances than the investigators.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what...ns-emails/

Quote:Classified information

The emails are full of sections that the State Department decided were improper for release and blanked out, ranging from personal information to national secrets.

In the end, State Department reviewers classified more than 2,000 emails, mostly at the lower “confidential” and “secret” levels. Twenty-two emails were withheld entirely from publication on grounds that they were “top secret.” None of these bore classification markings at the time they were sent and most were written by other officials.

Keep licking those boots gimp.

Non-responsive. If you cons are going to play lawyer and make a legal case against her you're going to have to cite the ******* law. I cited for you the statute subsection concerning transmission of classified material. It says you have to knowingly and willfully transmit classified material. It doesn't say you have to knowingly let someone have access to a server that may or may not contain classified material. If you don't know it's classified when you transmit it you're not guilty. That ******* simple. You people are just mad you're not getting your witch hunt.

What's the last sentence you quoted there?

She knows classified material when she sees it. And she willfully transmitted it.

She's guilty as hell. Perhaps just of the misdemeanor charges. But these are largely strict liability claims. She did it. She admits she did it. Intent only applies to some of the statutes.

(07-05-2016 08:28 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 07:32 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 07:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 07:06 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 08:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You realize that failing to mark as classified information that should have been marked as classified is in fact a criminal act, right?

Of course he doesn't.

Which part of the statute is that?

The part where she knowingly and willingly used her own server and the folks accessing it didn't have proper clearance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-c...ied-2016-1

THat is unless you think the bootlicker managing the server had higher clearances than the investigators.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what...ns-emails/

Quote:Classified information

The emails are full of sections that the State Department decided were improper for release and blanked out, ranging from personal information to national secrets.

In the end, State Department reviewers classified more than 2,000 emails, mostly at the lower “confidential” and “secret” levels. Twenty-two emails were withheld entirely from publication on grounds that they were “top secret.” None of these bore classification markings at the time they were sent and most were written by other officials.

Keep licking those boots gimp.

Non-responsive. If you cons are going to play lawyer and make a legal case against her you're going to have to cite the ******* law. I cited for you the statute subsection concerning transmission of classified material. It says you have to knowingly and willfully transmit classified material. It doesn't say you have to knowingly let someone have access to a server that may or may not contain classified material. If you don't know it's classified when you transmit it you're not guilty. That ******* simple. You people are just mad you're not getting your witch hunt.

What's the last sentence you quoted there?

Not a complete list of statutes not being discussed yet, but its a start.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (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, or (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 —

Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

BTW: Oh...you mean wiped like wipe it with a cloth to clean it?

18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(07-05-2016 08:28 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Non-responsive. If you cons are going to play lawyer and make a legal case against her you're going to have to cite the ******* law. I cited for you the statute subsection concerning transmission of classified material. It says you have to knowingly and willfully transmit classified material. It doesn't say you have to knowingly let someone have access to a server that may or may not contain classified material. If you don't know it's classified when you transmit it you're not guilty. That ******* simple. You people are just mad you're not getting your witch hunt.

I'm guessing you've never held a security clearance, nor handled classified information, and therefore you don't comprehend how the terms are defined and used in that context. Before you are allowed to handle classified information you are required to attend training sessions where this is all explained to you. I've read (uncorroborated) reports that Hillary basically blew off her training sessions. If she were to claim that she did not understand the severity of her actions, her failure to complete her training diligently could be used against her, and could possibly demonstrate intent. Anyway, here are relevant portions of the statutes that are on point.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
In part
"(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
...
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Placing the material on an non-secure server and/or transmitting the information in the clear over unencrypted circuits constitutes "otherwise makes available." The "knowingly and willfully" standard is met if she knew or should have known (and as Sec State she should have known) that the material was classified and was being placed into a non-secure environment. It is my understanding from what information has been leaked that the information in question consists largely of intel information, which is normally classified per se regardless of content in order to protect sources. And ten years pretty clearly puts it well into the felony category.

Note that neither intent to deliver the material to a potential enemy, nor actual receipt of any information by a potential enemy, nor any specific markings on the information itself are elements of the crime.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
"(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.
...
© 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."

Placing the information on an non-secure server would constitute removal for the purposes of this statute. Keeping the information on a non-secure server would establish intent to retain at an unauthorized location. Note that the classified information is defined based upon a determination by the government that it requires protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security, not based upon whatever markings are present. The markings don't make it classified or not. The classification gives rise to the need for appropriate markings. This is a less severe violation, and "not more than one year" puts this into the misdemeanor category.

PL 96-456
96th Congress, Act of 15 October 1980 - 94 Stat. 2025, 18 USC APPENDIX, AS AMENDED BY PUB. L. 100-690, TITLE VII, SEC. 7020(G), NOV. 18, 1988, 102 STAT. 4396
Sec. 1. Definitions
(a) ''Classified information'', as used in this Act, means any
information or material that has been determined by the United
States Government pursuant to an Executive order, statute, or
regulation, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure
for reasons of national security and any restricted data, as
defined in paragraph r. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

Note that information is classified based upon a determination by the government that it requires protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security, and that the presence or absence of classification markings is nowhere mentioned in the definition. So your argument in defense of her has to be that as Sec State she had no knowledge that intel information could require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security, regardless of how the information was marked. Good luck with that.

She is probably also in violation of the standards for handling sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information. See a summary at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/sbu.pdf.

She probably won't face charges, but that will be because this administration and the justice department and the attorney general will put team over country, not because she hasn't committed multiple crimes.