Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[xbb]

Hey!

What about the PASTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/09/04/her-oh-st-moment-clinton-email-server-wiped-after-her-subpoena/#more-63756

Hillary Clinton and her staff’s utter bumbling of State Department emails has now been revealed to have included a transfer to GMail and a lost laptop and thumb drive — meaning a good portion of national security secrets could very well still be floating around with nary a shred of security to protect them.

Following Clinton’s resignation from the State Department in February 2013, as Zero Hedge reports, one of her closest aides, Monica Hanley, set about archiving emails which had resided on the personal server created by IT staffer Bryan Pagliano with assistance from Bill Clinton’s aide, Justin Cooper.

Hanley — working “from her personal residence” — and Cooper managed to successfully transfer the email archive from that server to an Apple MacBook with a copy saved to a thumb drive, according to documents from the FBI investigation, which were released Friday.

From there, the already makeshift plan began to fall apart in perhaps the worst display of incompetence from State Department employees.

“The two copies of the Clinton e-mail archive (one on the Archive laptop and one on the thumb drive) were intended to be stored in Clinton’s Chappaqua and Whitehaven residences; however Hanley explained this did not occur as Hanley forgot to provide the Archive laptop and the thumb drive to Clinton’s staff following the creation of the archive,” FBI documents state, with all emphasis added.

 

[Que]

You didn't have to type that much. "I don't know" would have been enough.

You said nothing about the law which is what I am interested in. To be honest, I'm not sure how to even g00gle-fu that as a case myself.

Why would I say I don't know, when I actually do know, have specifically researched and read the relevant statutes and explained precisely in the past which statutes (identifying the subsections) this sort of violation entails?

You actually don't care, I realize, and it's kinda cute, your feigning this new-found fascination with the field of law.

In past non-productive arguments with one of the usual adminstration-cannot-possibly-be-wrong posters over Lois Learner, I exhaustively covered this.

It started, for me, with the obvious. Richard Nixon could have simply refused to turn over the tapes, or claimed they were taped over if it was legal to do what Learner, and now Hillary have done.

Challenged with the obtuse brigade about which law specificaly was broken, I researched it, and presented it to no valid rebuttal other than, as now, "nuh, uh" and "the administration cleared itself so no law was violated."

In Hillary's case there are additional violations of other statutes not relevant to Learner that the FBI specifically alleges such violations fit the relevant statutes and that the violations occured. Specifically, the crime of removing sensitive information from a secure system. Just doing that is a crime regardless of whether it is negligence or willful regardless of whether you want to transfer that information to third parties are not just simply having it in your possession is a crime.

The political decision by the FBI to not even refer it to prosecuters for consideration might be appropriate or not but does not in anyway diminsh the fact that a violation of a statute did occur, as the FBI admitted.

. . .and now you know.

And no, I am not looking all that up, yet again, because we both know you would neither have the interest, nor the requisite foundation to understand such a dissertation.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We need to learn a lot more about Cheryl Mills...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You will find this interesting, I ran across a link to it on HotAir.com and it links to the original article, but I think this is probably a pretty good synopsis:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/yes-donald-trump-has-a-path-to-270-electoral-votes/article/2004099/

 

[xbb]

in 2008, when NIGGER Holder wrested control of the DOJ, he issued a memo that ALL FBI interviews MUST be under oath and recorded, GimpCunt wasn't under oath and it wasn't recorded, WHY?

Under OATH and penalty of perjury, GimpCunt signed a State dept paper saying she attended briefings on security for communications, she told FBI she didn't recall, WHY?

She destroyed phones with a HAMMER, WHY?

The email erasures started AFTER the NY Times released the story and AFTER subpenas went out, WHY?

She told all she had ONE device, FBI says at least 13, and they cant be found, WHY?

She said the 30K emails erased were about wedding plans and yoga, the FBI found 15K work emails ERASED....

365 days times 4 yrs is 1460 days, times 24 per day is 35, 040......she deleted 30K PERSONAL emails?.........that means TEN PERCENT of her hrs were spent on WEDDING PLANS and YOGA? REALLY?

 

[xbb]

The second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” And the form also notes that classified information is not always so marked, but is still regulated by the agreement.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Why was Cheryl Mills, the architect of the email culling allowed to be in the room?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ease up bb...



It was a "brain cloud." A real medical condition.

 

[Disgustipated]

Why would I say I don't know, when I actually do know, have specifically researched and read the relevant statutes and explained precisely in the past which statutes (identifying the subsections) this sort of violation entails?

You actually don't care, I realize, and it's kinda cute, your feigning this new-found fascination with the field of law.

In past non-productive arguments with one of the usual adminstration-cannot-possibly-be-wrong posters over Lois Learner, I exhaustively covered this.

It started, for me, with the obvious. Richard Nixon could have simply refused to turn over the tapes, or claimed they were taped over if it was legal to do what Learner, and now Hillary have done.

Challenged with the obtuse brigade about which law specificaly was broken, I researched it, and presented it to no valid rebuttal other than, as now, "nuh, uh" and "the administration cleared itself so no law was violated."

In Hillary's case there are additional violations of other statutes not relevant to Learner that the FBI specifically alleges such violations fit the relevant statutes and that the violations occured. Specifically, the crime of removing sensitive information from a secure system. Just doing that is a crime regardless of whether it is negligence or willful regardless of whether you want to transfer that information to third parties are not just simply having it in your possession is a crime.

The political decision by the FBI to not even refer it to prosecuters for consideration might be appropriate or not but does not in anyway diminsh the fact that a violation of a statute did occur, as the FBI admitted.

. . .and now you know.

And no, I am not looking all that up, yet again, because we both know you would neither have the interest, nor the requisite foundation to understand such a dissertation.

You poor wounded little birdie.

I am actually very interested but between all your bluster, you still only proved you don't know the law that was broken and a case to refer to.
"She did bad things" isn't gonna cut it in federal court.
You keep saying, "crime, violation, etc" but nothing particular to this or the specific cases that we can study.

THAT'S what I'm looking for and will try to find.

Just because I think you're a cunt doesn't mean I won't let you do most of the work for me.

 

[Adre]

"Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" (actus reus) must – with certain exceptions – be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens rea).[4]

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime."


And for these reasons carelessness, mistakes, and ill advised decisions frequently do not rise to the level of crimes. Unless of course you have a pathological hatred for the person in question, in which case she must be locked up.

 

[toubab]

"Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" (actus reus) must – with certain exceptions – be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens rea).[4]

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime."


And for these reasons carelessness, mistakes, and ill advised decisions frequently do not rise to the level of crimes. Unless of course you have a pathological hatred for the person in question, in which case she must be locked up.

Gross negligence in handling classified materials is a crime. It is not necessary for the government to prove intent.

 

[Adre]

Gross negligence in handling classified materials is a crime. It is not necessary for the government to prove intent.

I'm trying to decide whose opinion I have more faith in, 2bob's or James Comey's?

 

[toubab]

I'm trying to decide whose opinion I have more faith in, 2bob's or James Comey's?

In this case, you should trust my opinion. Comey chose not to recommend charges, not because there was no violation of law, but because he did not wish to do so, under the circumstances. Political circumstances, I would suggest, but that's just my opinion.

As I recall, the law making gross negligence in the handling of classified materials a crime dates back to WWI.

 

[Adre]

Gross negligence in handling classified materials is a crime. It is not necessary for the government to prove intent.

"There is no principle of criminal law more important than intent. Because we grant the government authority to take away our liberties if we do an act (or, in some instances, fail to act) defined by law as a crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we knew what we were doing and that what we were doing was unlawful."


-Washington Legal Foundation

Thanks, but I'll take this informed opinion over yours.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” And the form also notes that classified information is not always so marked, but is still regulated by the agreement.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

See? This is why we keep asking you to provide links. Good job, BB!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Hey!

What about the PASTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/09/04/her-oh-st-moment-clinton-email-server-wiped-after-her-subpoena/#more-63756

Hillary Clinton and her staff’s utter bumbling of State Department emails has now been revealed to have included a transfer to GMail and a lost laptop and thumb drive — meaning a good portion of national security secrets could very well still be floating around with nary a shred of security to protect them.

Following Clinton’s resignation from the State Department in February 2013, as Zero Hedge reports, one of her closest aides, Monica Hanley, set about archiving emails which had resided on the personal server created by IT staffer Bryan Pagliano with assistance from Bill Clinton’s aide, Justin Cooper.

Hanley — working “from her personal residence” — and Cooper managed to successfully transfer the email archive from that server to an Apple MacBook with a copy saved to a thumb drive, according to documents from the FBI investigation, which were released Friday.

From there, the already makeshift plan began to fall apart in perhaps the worst display of incompetence from State Department employees.

“The two copies of the Clinton e-mail archive (one on the Archive laptop and one on the thumb drive) were intended to be stored in Clinton’s Chappaqua and Whitehaven residences; however Hanley explained this did not occur as Hanley forgot to provide the Archive laptop and the thumb drive to Clinton’s staff following the creation of the archive,” FBI documents state, with all emphasis added.

I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to post from articles here without a cite.

 

[toubab]

"There is no principle of criminal law more important than intent. Because we grant the government authority to take away our liberties if we do an act (or, in some instances, fail to act) defined by law as a crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we knew what we were doing and that what we were doing was unlawful."


-Washington Legal Foundation

Thanks, but I'll take this informed opinion over yours.

Military personnel have been prosecuted and convicted under the 1917 law I cited for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. There was at least one case I know of where a post conviction appeal was made on the basis of lack of intent, and the court rejected that argument.

The government prosecutes whom it wishes to prosecute, and turns a blind eye to those it does not wish to prosecute. It's nothing new.

 

[Que]

"Usually, to be classified as a crime, the "act of doing something criminal" (actus reus) must – with certain exceptions – be accompanied by the "intention to do something criminal" (mens rea).[4]

While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime."


And for these reasons carelessness, mistakes, and ill advised decisions frequently do not rise to the level of crimes. Unless of course you have a pathological hatred for the person in question, in which case she must be locked up.

Or, you could actually read tge statute and apply the law. Intent sometimes is a factor in knowing which of several related statutes or subsections to charge but intent is definately not required to find youself in violation.

Some specifically address negligent, obviously not willful acts. By definition, anybody guilty of manslaughter did not intend to kill the person. So intent is not in any way a litmus test for whether or not a crime of any sort has been commited.

Some statutes specifically state that the intent of the person violating the statute is not a relevant criterion. At least one of the laws that she violated is such a law. The reason such language is added to statutes is because in certain instances it is impossible to prove intent without being able to read the person's mind. Other statutes have such language included simply because it is in the public interest to encourage people to exercise all due care, and attaching penalties to thoughtless acts is thought to "encourage the others."

There are numerous Federal Regulations all of which have the force of Law and ignorance of such regulations is never a viable defense.

 

[Disgustipated]

"I know of" seems to be a trending phrase amongst all the federal law historians on the Lit.

 

[Que]

I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to post from articles here without a cite.

You did not state a specific Literotica law that he broke and the Literotica investigators have not reported for prosecution to the appropriate authorities so therefore no crime was committed.

When and if you do post the law of Literotica that applies you still have not even begun to address intent you cannot prove what he had in mind when he posted that therefore no crime has been committed.

 

[Que]

"I know of" seems to be a trending phrase amongst all the federal law historians on the Lit.

I can understand where it can be frustrating for you to not know of a lot of things that are commonly known in having a discussion about a subject you know nothing about.

 

[Que]

"There is no principle of criminal law more important than intent. Because we grant the government authority to take away our liberties if we do an act (or, in some instances, fail to act) defined by law as a crime, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we knew what we were doing and that what we were doing was unlawful."


-Washington Legal Foundation

Thanks, but I'll take this informed opinion over yours.

Good luck in court with your, "But your honor, I was ignorant of the law, and therefore incapable of forming the requisite intent when I violated the cited subsection of law" defense.

 

[Disgustipated]

I can understand where it can be frustrating for you to not know of a lot of things that are commonly known in having a discussion about a subject you know nothing about.

How can you be such a condescending twat when you've offered nothing but theories on Nixon? Fuck outta, dumpster boi.

 

[toubab]

"I know of" seems to be a trending phrase amongst all the federal law historians on the Lit.

I looked it up:

United States v. McGuinness

1992