Hillary's 'Classified' Smokescreen Hides Real Crime

[hanger4]

A good read concerning "classified" before or after.

"Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”
The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.
The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/

About the author Ronald J. Sievert

https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/rjs255/

[Quicksilver]

http://img.pandawhale.com/135109-bobs-burgers-Im-literally-gras-zocm.gif

[hanger4]

Seriously ??

I had no idea your prosecutorial and national security experience with the DOJ was so extensive.

Do tell Quicksilver ??

[Quicksilver]

No... I'm not making claims.. but YOU are... and I don't think you know what you are talking about... 90% of your posts are wishful thinking and excerpts from the wet dreams of right wing bloggers. anyway... I thought my little cartoon cleaver.. You didn't?

[hanger4]

No... I'm not making claims.. but YOU are... and I don't think you know what you are talking about... 90% of your posts are wishful thinking and excerpts from the wet dreams of right wing bloggers. anyway... I thought my little cartoon cleaver.. You didn't?

You did make claims in that Ronald J. Sievert was grasping at straws and the only way you could make such a claim is to prove your prosecutorial and national security experience with the DOJ was so extensive.

You did not. You attempted to deflect toward me knowing full well I didn't write the OP therefore your "grasping at straws" cartoon is non sequitur.

[michiganFats]

You have to know how the Clintons talk. Hillary didn't say she never sent classified material which is what a normal person would say if they were innocent, she said the material wasn't "marked". See, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is and her focus on the word marked leads me to believe she knew the difference and is most likely guilty and knows it. She thought it was a technicality which would get her off the hook and she miscalculated.

[hanger4]

You have to know how the Clintons talk. Hillary didn't say she never sent classified material which is what a normal person would say if they were innocent, she said the material wasn't "marked". See, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is and her focus on the word marked leads me to believe she knew the difference and is most likely guilty and knows it. She thought it was a technicality which would get her off the hook and she miscalculated.

More often than not HC says "marked classified" and she's correct in that they aren't "mark" classified, they would be marked Confidential, Secret or Top Secret.

[Quicksilver]

Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah.. talk to me when she is indicted and led away in handcuffs.... otherwise... all you are doing is speculating and pontificating.

[hanger4]

Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah.. talk to me when she is indicted and led away in handcuffs.... otherwise... all you are doing is speculating and pontificating.

This is discussion forum, which is something you don't seem to have the ability to do.
Sharing opinions is an adult way of learning and growing. Can you be an adult ??

[Mark III]

This OP falls into the category of "BLA BLA BLA". Both of the laws regarded as applicable to this case require "intent". E-Mails that were not "marked" as classified do not lead to a clear cut assessment of "intent", and no amount of "bla bla bla" about it will change that.

[Mark III]

This is discussion forum, which is something you don't seem to have the ability to do.
Sharing opinions is an adult way of learning and growing. Can you be an adult ??

The first 500 forum threads on this topic were "discussion" , or "learning and growing". But that was many months ago, lol. The next thousand were bla bla bla.

[Tahuyaman]

It's obvious that Hillary Clinton violated the law by mishandling government documents, classified or otherwise. The only question out there is whether or not she will be held accountable.

[hanger4]

This OP falls into the category of "BLA BLA BLA". Both of the laws regarded as applicable to this case require "intent". E-Mails that were not "marked" as classified do not lead to a clear cut assessment of "intent", and no amount of "bla bla bla" about it will change that.

Again the INTENT was setting up a private and secret email server to conduct State Dept business on. As SOS she knew she'd be handling classified information. Her email server off the .gov grid is not a "proper place of custody". Again as SOS she knew

[hanger4]

The first 500 forum threads on this topic were "discussion" , or "learning and growing". But that was many months ago, lol. The next thousand were bla bla bla.

Kind a like your Trump threads.

[Green Arrow]

http://img.pandawhale.com/135109-bobs-burgers-Im-literally-gras-zocm.gif

It looks like a compelling argument to me. Why can't you counter it?

[hanger4]

This OP falls into the category of "BLA BLA BLA". Both of the laws regarded as applicable to this case require "intent". E-Mails that were not "marked" as classified do not lead to a clear cut assessment of "intent", and no amount of "bla bla bla" about it will change that.

The last time you said this you ignored the same answer Mark III I gave in post #13

[Peter1469]

In this threads, someone should just combine all of the bucket brigade's comments in on post.

lol

[Common Sense]

In this threads, someone should just combine all of the bucket brigade's comments in on post.

lol

Maybe if you and Hanger combine all your Hillary threads first.

lol

[hanger4]

Maybe if you and Hanger combine all your Hillary threads first.

lol

And the Trump threads ??

[Safety]

lol

[Cigar]

I think someone has a crush on Hillary Clinton :grin:

[Quicksilver]

Can we get a separate forum for the Hillary posts... That way I don't have to even look in it..

[Peter1469]

Maybe if you and Hanger combine all your Hillary threads first.

lol
We present arguments.

Almost no argument has been made by the bucket brigade.

[Quicksilver]

WTF is the bucket brigade? Do you not get the hint that you and Hanger are :deadhorse2:.. You post so many threads on this topic that people have stopped taking you seriously..

[Common Sense]

We present arguments.

Almost no argument has been made by the bucket brigade.

Maybe if we looked back at the first 20 or 30 threads.

[Peter1469]

WTF is the bucket brigade? Do you not get the hint that you and Hanger are :deadhorse2:.. You post so many threads on this topic that people have stopped taking you seriously..

bucket brigade- the bucket carriers for Hillary. Boot lickers if your prefer.

[Peter1469]

lol

[Quicksilver]

Oh ok.... Now why don't you take your meds and lie down

[hanger4]

Can we get a separate forum for the Hillary posts... That way I don't have to even look in it..
What's the point, you ignore discussion already.

[Peter1469]

Still no substance. Only trollish posts from the bucket carriers.

More troll posts coming 3..., 2..., 1

[hanger4]

Maybe if we looked back at the first 20 or 30 threads.

Next time tell the judge to require the email release all at the same time instead of the drip drip drip of the last 6 to 8 months.

[del]

after forty or fifty threads, it doesn't feel like there's much to discuss

*shrug

[Peter1469]

go hang out in the homo threads.

[michiganFats]

We present arguments.

Almost no argument has been made by the bucket brigade.

Almost? You give them too much credit.

[Common Sense]

go hang out in the homo threads.

Seriously??? Homo threads?

This is the kind of shit our moderators say?

[Peter1469]

Seriously??? Homo threads?

This is the kind of shit our moderators say?

You aren't interested in Hillary threads. Try something more to your taste.

[del]

go hang out in the homo threads.

i tried to post a list of the threads you've started on hillary, but the system rejected it as too long to post.



The following errors occurred with your submission

The text that you have entered is too long (36606 characters). Please shorten it to 15000 characters long.



Okay



:biglaugh:

carry on

[del]

Seriously??? Homo threads?

This is the kind of shit our moderators say?

he's a lawyer.

it's best not to expect too much.

[Common Sense]

You aren't interested in Hillary threads. Try something more to your taste.

Have another drink...

[Peter1469]

i tried to post a list of the threads you've started on hillary, but the system rejected it as too long to post.





:biglaugh:

carry on

I doubt that you tried to post a list of the hillary threads. What do our grandmothers say about people who lie?

[del]

I doubt that you tried to post a list of the hillary threads. What do our grandmothers say about people who lie?

you can doubt all you want, cowboy, but the software wouldn't let me post the list of the 54 threads you've started with hillary's name in the title.

54

:biglaugh:


i'm sure you're an excellent driver

[Peter1469]

you can doubt all you want, cowboy, but the software wouldn't let me post the list of the 54 threads you've started with hillary's name in the title.

54

:biglaugh:


i'm sure you're an excellent driver

I am not buying it. 54 lines is much shorter than one of my last posts.

[domer76]

A good read concerning "classified" before or after.

"Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”
The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.
The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/

About the author Ronald J. Sievert

https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/rjs255/

14480

[Bo-4]

I am not buying it. 54 lines is much shorter than one of my last posts.

54 is the correct number though.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=2349598

[Peter1469]

54 is the correct number though.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=2349598

vBulletin MessageSorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

[Peter1469]

Waiting for substance.

You kids are just playing dodge ball. Why?

Wait, you don't have to answer that...

[Bo-4]

54 is the correct number though.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=2349598

That's weird .. still works for me.

Just to to advanced search sub line containing "hillary" by Peter1469

Only 11 for hanger - you're the champ! :D

[del]

That's weird .. still works for me.

Just to to advanced search sub line containing "hillary" by Peter1469

Only 11 for hanger - you're the champ! :D


the vbulletin search doesn't link for some reason. it's always been that way.

still, 54....

reminds me of that groucho marx line- i like my cigar, but i take it out once in awhile

[Bo-4]

the vbulletin search doesn't link for some reason. it's always been that way.

still, 54....

There's a guy i know in another forum who has Peter beat by a mile. Last i checked he had over 350 OPs with "Hillary" in the subject line.

Quite obsessive!


reminds me of that groucho marx line- i like my cigar, but i take it out once in awhile

For some reason i was thinking that Bill Clinton coined that one. :D

[Quicksilver]

There's a guy i know in another forum who has Peter beat by a mile. Last i checked he had over 350 OPs with "Hillary" in the subject line.

Quite obsessive!



For some reason i was thinking that Bill Clinton coined that one. :D

I know... I think this particular obsession should be in the DSM of Mental Disorders. There's a dufus on another forum I read that started a thread over a year ago and now is up to 404 posts.. mostly his.. It's really quite funny..

But at least he confines his crap to one thread.. which is considerate.. We know which one to avoid.

[Subdermal]

...seems as though the resident leftists are equally obsessed, seeing their obvious compulsion to continue responding to these sort of threads, instead of merely ignoring them.

[Quicksilver]

...seems as though the resident leftists are equally obsessed, seeing their obvious compulsion to continue responding to these sort of threads, instead of merely ignoring them.

Now what fun would that be??

[Peter1469]

52 posts and zero relevant leftist posts....

Hillary, your boots must be shinning bright. :smiley: