And to those who are so outraged and so sure of themselves that Hillary committed a crime, how asinine are you to think that you have any clue of what really went on?
Subsection (f) of 18 US Code 793 says:
(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
And to those who are so outraged and so sure of themselves that Hillary committed a crime, how asinine are you to think that you have any clue of what really went on?
Subsection (f) of 18 US Code 793 says:
(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
And to those who are so outraged and so sure of themselves that Hillary committed a crime, how asinine are you to think that you have any clue of what really went on?
Subsection (f) of 18 US Code 793 says:
(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.""In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
Just curious, do you really believe she has done nothing wrong?...or a you just a "good 'ol Democrat"?
No doubt, Rush Limbaugh was going insane this morning. I think all these people had themselves really convinced that the witch was going to burn, and now the straw-haired snaggle-toothed burlap clad pea-brained peasants are all standing in the village square with all the faggots they brought, looking at each other with their mouths hanging open.
"On April 23, 2015, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials. He was given a two-year probationary period and a fine of $100,000"
Didn't he also loose his security clearance? Curious if anyone can explain to me why Hillary didn't loose hers.
Petraeus accepted a plea deal, the charges against him were much more serious. He was telling his biographer/lover top secret information that she was not cleared to know. That is a far more serious charge than what Hillary did. There is no evidence that anyone got any top secret info from Hillary's server.
Do you think she was wearing a trench coat & giving lap dances?
No doubt, Rush Limbaugh was going insane this morning. I think all these people had themselves really convinced that the witch was going to burn, and now the straw-haired snaggle-toothed burlap clad pea-brained peasants are all standing in the village square with all the faggots they brought, looking at each other with their mouths hanging open.
"On April 23, 2015, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials. He was given a two-year probationary period and a fine of $100,000"
Didn't he also loose his security clearance? Curious if anyone can explain to me why Hillary didn't loose hers.
Petraeus accepted a plea deal, the charges against him were much more serious. He was telling his biographer/lover top secret information that she was not cleared to know. That is a far more serious charge than what Hillary did. There is no evidence that anyone got any top secret info from Hillary's server.
Do you think she was wearing a trench coat & giving lap dances?
Haha!...But "intentional" or not...she sure as Hell "Mishandled" classified material.
No doubt, Rush Limbaugh was going insane this morning. I think all these people had themselves really convinced that the witch was going to burn, and now the straw-haired snaggle-toothed burlap clad pea-brained peasants are all standing in the village square with all the faggots they brought, looking at each other with their mouths hanging open.
"On April 23, 2015, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials. He was given a two-year probationary period and a fine of $100,000"
Didn't he also loose his security clearance? Curious if anyone can explain to me why Hillary didn't loose hers.
Petraeus accepted a plea deal, the charges against him were much more serious. He was telling his biographer/lover top secret information that she was not cleared to know. That is a far more serious charge than what Hillary did. There is no evidence that anyone got any top secret info from Hillary's server.
Do you think she was wearing a trench coat & giving lap dances?
Haha!...But "intentional" or not...she sure as Hell "Mishandled" classified material.
As did others (Rice and Albright) before her. But it was nowhere near as bad as Petraeus.
And to those who are so outraged and so sure of themselves that Hillary committed a crime, how asinine are you to think that you have any clue of what really went on?
Subsection (f) of 18 US Code 793 says:
(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.""In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
Just curious, do you really believe she has done nothing wrong?...or a you just a "good 'ol Democrat"?
First, I'm not a democrat (nor am I a republican, although the only political party I have ever been registered in is the GOP). Second, I have never said she has done nothing wrong. Like many political scandals, I do think this one has been blown way out of proportion. I think lots of people believe they know what she did or didn't do when they really don't and are just parroting whatever line of discourse on the matter they are hearing that suits their overall political bent. Her supporters will take the FBI recco of no charges as she did nothing wrong, and her detractors will look at the FBI's chastising her for carelessness/sloppiness as an actual indictment. I can see both sides, but have to admit I am mostly ambivalent about Hillary. I am not ambivalent at all about Donald. And I don't intend to vote for either.
The reason I posted a part of the director's statement in response to your posting the statute verbiage is because while I'm pretty sure that the FBI director knows the statute, the actual decision is about way more than that. It is about making a legal case after a wide ranging investigation that covered way more ground than any of us can really understand, because that's how a case is built. After all of it, I am left feeling that there is/was a lackadaisical approach at State when it came to use of email and classified info, it most certainly pre-dated HRC, and in hindsight lots of people probably would have done things differently and that processes and procedures have probably been tightened up since, but at the end of the day the investigation did not yield enough evidence to support recommending that a legal case brought. The rest of it is just political grandstanding.
[Edited on 7/6/2016 by gondicar]
some think creation of a private email server could be ablt to meet the definition of mishandling. It should have been for a jury to decide, but she has friends in high places.
It is about making a legal case after a wide ranging investigation that covered way more ground than any of us can really understand, because that's how a case is built.
Classifications and national security consequences if released to the general public:
Top Secret- exceptionally grave damage to national security.
Secret- serious damage to national security.
Confidential- damage or is prejudicial to national security.
There are also modifiers to these levels of classification.
Take a look at what Clinton is accused of and what types of classified info she had on a non secure server.
some think creation of a private email server could be ablt to meet the definition of mishandling. It should have been for a jury to decide, but she has friends in high places.
That's a fair opinion for some to have, doesn't mean it is right. But if that is how you feel, then you must also support going back and investigating Colin Powell and Condi Rice, yes?
some think creation of a private email server could be ablt to meet the definition of mishandling. It should have been for a jury to decide, but she has friends in high places.
So, Comey and the FBI conducted a sham investigation?
It would certainly appear so.
It is about making a legal case after a wide ranging investigation that covered way more ground than any of us can really understand, because that's how a case is built.
Classifications and national security consequences if released to the general public:
Top Secret- exceptionally grave damage to national security.
Secret- serious damage to national security.
Confidential- damage or is prejudicial to national security.
There are also modifiers to these levels of classification.Take a look at what Clinton is accused of and what types of classified info she had on a non secure server.
I've read the reports and that doesn't change anything about what you quoted from my post, although here's another quote from the same post that I think may apply here...
I do think this one has been blown way out of proportion. I think lots of people believe they know what she did or didn't do when they really don't and are just parroting whatever line of discourse on the matter they are hearing that suits their overall political bent.
[Edited on 7/6/2016 by gondicar]
Somewhere in Oklahoma City there is a conservative Republican, who loves Kevin Durant and believed Clinton would be indicted, who is having a very bad week. 😮 😛 
It just might be the case that whoever is running the show gets special treatment, Republican or Democrat.
Maybe they do to a certain extent, but overall I think all politicians get special treatment when compared to the average Joe like you and me.
Understandable, to a degree, but this involves the Presidency.
Not really. It involves the Secretary of State. Does anyone think any other Secretaries would have been so thoroughly investigated? I think the answer is no, especially since it has been widely reported that loose handling of classified emails has been the norm at State ever since email has come into use. In a way this is event has served a good purpose because it has brought focus to an issue that has been a weak spot in security and it will no doubt not be handled loosely in the future. Our security systems need to be constantly examined, procedures updated, and people trained based upon technological advancements. What happened here was bad, not because criminal activity took place but because sloppy procedures were followed.
some think creation of a private email server could be ablt to meet the definition of mishandling. It should have been for a jury to decide, but she has friends in high places.
So, Comey and the FBI conducted a sham investigation?
It would certainly appear so.
It was a decision based on "FACTS" sorry, BIG V 🙁
I believe she is a criminal being protected by the White House, you do not.
some think creation of a private email server could be ablt to meet the definition of mishandling. It should have been for a jury to decide, but she has friends in high places.
So, Comey and the FBI conducted a sham investigation?
It would certainly appear so.
It was a decision based on "FACTS" sorry, BIG V 🙁
I believe she is a criminal being protected by the White House, you do not.
That's totally reasonable, considering there are no actual facts that support it.
some think creation of a private email server could be ablt to meet the definition of mishandling. It should have been for a jury to decide, but she has friends in high places.
So, Comey and the FBI conducted a sham investigation?
It would certainly appear so.
It was a decision based on "FACTS" sorry, BIG V 🙁
I believe she is a criminal being protected by the White House, you do not.
Do you think that Condeleeza Rice was a criminal as well?
some think creation of a private email server could be ablt to meet the definition of mishandling. It should have been for a jury to decide, but she has friends in high places.
So, Comey and the FBI conducted a sham investigation?
It would certainly appear so.
Do you believe Comey is in cahoots with the Clintons, Lynch, and Obama?
Thank God for all the legal and political experts on this site who know more than the FBI and government lawyers. The outrage is silly, silly because it's so selective. No outrage when people on the right did it, but outraged since Hillary did it. How can you not see the ridiculousness of it all? They are all corrupt! Why pick and choose which corrupt politician is ok? Protection from the WH? Please. Not only are you all legal experts, but now you also believe in a vast FBI conspiracy theory.....right. It's not bias...no, it can't be that.
And to those who are so outraged and so sure of themselves that Hillary committed a crime, how asinine are you to think that you have any clue of what really went on?
Subsection (f) of 18 US Code 793 says:
(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
For whatever it's worth, in 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:
“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.
The whole speech by the FBI director was pretty weird. First, he lays out a perfect case for
the mishandling of classified information, then walked it all back by declining to do anything about
it. In this particular case lack of intent mattered, negligence didn't.
There's no way Hillary was ever in any danger. It would have been too disruptive to the
electoral process and the Director has the remainder of his career to worry about. Even if
she would have been found guilty, Obama would have pardoned her.
There's no way Hillary was ever in any danger.
i agree
It would have been too disruptive to the
electoral process and the Director has the remainder of his career to worry about.not sure what that means
Even if she would have been found guilty, Obama would have pardoned her.
speculation/opinion
is new investigation of the investigators that starts tomorrow. this will be even more interesting i think.
i have said before...why aren't conservatives pissed off at theirs leaders many times in last couple years. i have come to understand that they are very upset with their leaders......is it a party looking for supporters or supporters looking for leaders? i told someone...my ex....5 yrs ago that next 16 years will be a democratic president.....with the shape of the GOP and conservatism.....i think now it will be much longer.
the Dems have a similar problem but not as pronounced. the hard left is not as strong as the hard right that has torn the GOP apart............yet.
besides our own country's political issues......this seems to be happening all over the world. it is a strange thing. so many people want so many diverse things and have no tolerance for compromise.
need to find me a small lakeside home and grow some weed and disconnect as i grow old.....LOL....screw em all
Except for Boyton and the democrats, this is how the world views our FBI:
Boyton and the Democrats! good band name.
Goober has polled the rest of the world to see how they feel about a domestic investigation agency. Interesting.
Can someone explain how destroying subpaeoned evidence (wiping out all emails) did not rise to the level of a crime?
Ask George Bush and Karl Rove......
Can someone explain how destroying subpaeoned evidence (wiping out all emails) did not rise to the level of a crime?
I am not a lawyer or any other kind of legal expert. But I would suggest you pose that question to the FBI. Do you have evidence that the emails were destroyed? Do you have evidence that they were destroyed to avoid the subpeona? you seem to have a lot of information that bobody else has.
Can someone explain how destroying subpaeoned evidence (wiping out all emails) did not rise to the level of a crime?
i can not....investigate the investigators
Can someone explain how destroying subpaeoned evidence (wiping out all emails) did not rise to the level of a crime?
Where in the statement does it say that subpaeoned evidence was wiped out to hinder the investigation? It says some emails were deleted over the years. It also said that the software was removed but did not remove the email content. But nowhere do I see that subpaeoned evidences whipped out. Can you point out where it says that evidence was whipped out?
