Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Criminal Inquiry Recommended in Hillary Email Scandal

Criminal Inquiry Recommended in Hillary Email Scandal

+5
nadalfan
Markle
Sal
2seaoat
polecat
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Sal

Sal

Who forgot to latch the gate?

Old Man Markle has wandered off and gotten lost in the tall grass again.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:She illegally used a private server.

Really?  Would you like to specifically set forth the statute which makes it a crime to have a private server in your home.   I have ran web sites from my server in my home, so please just give the specific cite, and no cut and paste other people's opinion.  Give the statute she has violated which would make her guilty of a crime........using a server.....this has become idiotic, and is going to make Ken Starr look like a genius compared to this wild goose hunt.

She violated the Federal Records Act, FOIA Freedom of Information Act, and NARA National Archives and Records Act

The criminal aspect for the classified information:

Section 1924 of Title 18 of the US Crimes and Criminal Procedures Code

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

(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.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) 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.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Snark Spigot wrote:Who forgot to latch the gate?

Old Man Markle has wandered off and gotten lost in the tall grass again.


I found him in an alley insisting that he was some sort of genie named Carnac. He kept repeating some line about having a bag of Werther's Originals hermetically sealed and kept in a mayonnaise jar underneath his back porch.

Poor Ole' Man Markle.


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



knowingly removes such documents


I thought so.  None of these statues apply where a document is retroactively declared to be classified and a person who had no knowledge of a document being classified at the time of receipt of an email.   Your statute you have cited has absolutely no relevance to any facts or law.   I can cite that Hillary murdered somebody while on a vacation in Florida.  Give you a cite.  Say it again and again.   There is NOT one incident which is criminal.  Patreaus had intent and knowledge of documents which were marked classified and allowed another to view the same.   This is a whitewater witch hunt plain and simple, and this will have no impact on Hillary.  The idea that private server use is illegal is laughable.  The idea without a scintilla of intent or proof that she is guilty of a crime is hysterical.  The idea that the committee on Benghazi can subpoena SOS Kerry, but not Hillary's server is too funny.   The purpose is to delay for nine months to try to damage the candidate with innuendo where they cannot win on the issues or beat her candidacy.   It is the raising of the white flag by Republicans to reflect the obvious.....they stand for nothing.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:knowingly removes such documents


I thought so.  None of these statues apply where a document is retroactively declared to be classified and a person who had no knowledge of a document being classified at the time of receipt of an email.   Your statute you have cited has absolutely no relevance to any facts or law.   I can cite that Hillary murdered somebody while on a vacation in Florida.  Give you a cite.  Say it again and again.   There is NOT one incident which is criminal.  Patreaus had intent and knowledge of documents which were marked classified and allowed another to view the same.   This is a whitewater witch hunt plain and simple, and this will have no impact on Hillary.  The idea that private server use is illegal is laughable.  The idea without a scintilla of intent or proof that she is guilty of a crime is hysterical.  The idea that the committee on Benghazi can subpoena SOS Kerry, but not Hillary's server is too funny.   The purpose is to delay for nine months to try to damage the candidate with innuendo where they cannot win on the issues or beat her candidacy.   It is the raising of the white flag by Republicans to reflect the obvious.....they stand for nothing.

Lol... you are obviously desperate to not believe. The IG quotes are right here in this thread.

Of the only thirty emails they were allowed access to four were classified at the time they were received and sent.

Now close your eyes... put your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalalalala.

2seaoat



Absolutely untrue.  There has not been One document where she had actual intent to hold a classified document in violation of the law.  NONE.   You keep referencing documents which were subsequently classified.  NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.   I do not have to stick my fingers in my ear.....even though some think by repeating something multiple times makes it true.......reread the statute, and understand the statute and what constitutes a violation of the law.  If Hillary had broken the law, two years ago the facts of the documents and intent would be before a grand jury.   There is nothing here, and I am surprised that you are parroting something which is not a violation of the law.  Why did the committee not issue a subpoena for the server two years ago which I clearly posted they could.  Nobody is confused about the purpose of this non criminal investigation.....it is a political witch hunt which as usual most intelligent people will put into context.   This is exactly what is happening.....again.

Guest


Guest

The inspectors general for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Intelligence Community issued a joint written statement late Friday afternoon asserting that emails that Hillary Clinton had on her personal email account while she was Secretary of State,and that she kept on a personal server after she left the government,“contained classified information when they were generated,” “remain classified today” and “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

“As I advised in my 25 June 2015 notification,the 30,000 emails in question are purported to have been copied to a thumb drive in the possession of former Secretary Clinton’s personal counsel,Williams and Connelly attorney David Kendall,” IG McCullough said. “As my office’s limited sampling identified four emails containing classified IC information,I referred this mater to counterintelligence officials at State and within the IC,the National Counterintelligence and Security Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

"This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system," McCullough said in a joint statement on Friday along with his equivalent at the State Department, Steve Linick.

“The four emails,which have not been released through the State FOIA process,did not contain classification marking and/or dissemination controls,” State Department Inspector General Steve Linick and Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough,III,said in their joint statement released late Friday afternoon.

“These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather,these emails contained classified information when they were generated and,according to IC classification officials,that information remains classified today,” the inspectors general said.

“This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,”

Guest


Guest

Lol... ignore the inconvenient... as usual. What I wonder is who was the "senior white house official" that leaked it.

Got a plan b yet?

2seaoat



No plan B needed.  The transmissions were not criminal acts.  Yes, the issue of the classification of those documents after the fact is still in play, but the retrenchment of the NY times and your sourcing that this was criminal is simply not correct.   There is a simple resolution.....take it to a grand jury.....do not even do it Furgeson style.....do it legitimately.....you have nothing criminal here.  The criminal intent necessary to be a crime under the statute is IMPOSSIBLE to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because Hillary has already clearly stated that she was unaware of ANY classified documents in her emails.  The reports I have heard contrary to the original sourcing you have provided is that these documents were posted classified after the fact.   Sorry, I thought this was about Benghazi, it is not.  It is about creating innuendo of wrong doing from nothing.  Having a personal server was not a crime.  Having email communications without actual knowledge of a classified documents is not a crime, nor has Hillary ever been accused of transferring classified material to third parties.  You have nothing.  It will remain nothing........

Guest


Guest

You need to read the applicable law again... there is no pass for ignorance. The classification codes for how information is deemed sensitive specifically states "marked or unmarked. Your desperation is obvious... but it's not making much sense.

She violated the Federal Records Act, FOIA Freedom of Information Act, and NARA National Archives and Records Act

The criminal aspect for the classified information:

Section 1924 of Title 18 of the US Crimes and Criminal Procedures Code

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

(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.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) 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.

But don't worry... I have NO confidence that justice will be served under this administration.

2seaoat



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 do not have to do a thing.  She did not break the law, and saying it over and over again does not change the facts of this case or the law as it would be applied.

If Hillary Clinton took those same emails off the government server and transferred them to a thumb drive, she would be in violation of the law.  She has violated no law and you should know better than participating in this charade.

Guest


Guest

Weak sauce... she knew she was conducting her official capacity and the nature of such on her private server.

She had even sent memorandum to her employees and rebuked one for the same. Obama also ordered it.

2seaoat



Weak sauce... she knew she was conducting her official capacity and the nature of such on her private server.

She had even sent memorandum to her employees and rebuked one for the same. Obama also ordered it.

Again, there is nothing weak about understanding that no criminal law has been violated.  Your post however made my argument quite nicely, and much more succinctly than I ever could post.

Sal

Sal

No one has ever accused you of being succinct, Oat.

But, you're correct.

There's nothing here, and random internet guy is being predictably useful.

2seaoat



There never was a criminal referral, and anybody who understands what constitutes a crime knew this from the beginning of the NY times bungling with faulty wrong factually improper sources......"we got it wrong because our very good sources got it wrong"   There was no criminal referral, nor is one going to happen, but somebody sure jumped on the improbable fake stuff which is printed because after all.......this is about Bhengazi.....yep, and I will say it three times to make it the truth.

Guest


Guest

Completely implausible that the secretary of state neither "received or sent" classified info from her email account.

The ig statements prove that not to be the case.

We already know for a fact that she didn't turn over all work emails... as the blumenthal testimony proved. Which violates the acts I've listed that were designed to ensure transparency and accountability from govt for we the people. The national archivist should've demanded the server immediately. Why you excuse this sort of activity can only be political. Get a clue comrade.

Guest


Guest

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillarys-former-spokesman-turns-over-20-boxes-of-emails-120791.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/judge-explodes-over-hillary-email-delays-120804.html

Guest


Guest

Two month email gap while libya desolved into the chaos that hillary and powers had endorsed...ya right.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/072915-764119-two-months-of-hillary-clinton-emails-are-missing.htm

Guest


Guest

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/01/the-hillary-email-scandal-just-saw-its-most-significant-legal-development-to-date/

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/01/the-hillary-email-scandal-just-saw-its-most-significant-legal-development-to-date/

I caught just a snippet of Rush's show yesterday, and he was blabbering something about Huma Abedin, and hinting that she and Hillary were lesbians or something, and I thought, "Now, why the fuck is he talking about Huma Abedin??", and then I was mercifully out of earshot.

And, here you are with the Daily Caller version of what's up.

Thanks for keeping us up to date on what's news in the oxygen deprived atmosphere of the right wing insanity bubble, random internet guy.

Gawd knows, I wouldn't want that job.

This thread is really picking up steam, now.

Guest


Guest

If they attest unger oath that all official emails were turned over... they are instantly in contempt.

Blumenthal was compelled to turn over his relevant emails and several were not included in hillary's batch.

All it takes is one. Got a plan b yet?

2seaoat



geeeez.......the thread title is wrong and nobody seems to understand the criminal threshold and what would be required to charge somebody for a crime.  There was NO crime.....not even close.  However, if you keep creating false threads and saying it enough......we may still have room for dessert.....Benghazi with whipped cream and a cherry on top.  Gomer is a splendid specimen.  He actually makes Butchmeup look smart.  South Carolina should be proud.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:If they attest unger oath that all official emails were turned over... they are instantly in contempt.

Blumenthal was compelled to turn over his relevant emails and several were not included in hillary's batch.

All it takes is one. Got a plan b yet?

The first sentence of your Daily Caller column is a complete fabrication.

It doesn't get any better from there.

Guest


Guest

Even the latest email batch released friday were heavily redacted and labeled sensitive, confidential, and classified.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/31/hillary-clinton-emails-released-by-state-departmen/?1

The Obama administration slapped a secret designation Friday on a number of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state, raising more questions about whether her controversial email arrangement led to classified information being left unsecured.

A new tranche of Clinton emails, released by the State Department under a court order to impose transparency on the Obama administration, contains dozens of documents with information redacted and labeled either “confidential” or “sensitive.”

Sal

Sal

Another bombshell?

lol

Anyone with the sense that gawd gave a goose would let this thread quietly slip away until there is an actual development of some sort should that ever happen.

You can't keep posting utter bullshit and expect to be taken seriously.

Or maybe you can.

FAUX News and Rush Limbaugh still have plenty of consumers of stupid.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Criminal Inquiry Recommended in Hillary Email Scandal

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum