Ok, I just read the indictment. Here's what I learned: Trump is f.*****

T. A. Gardner said:
She received at least 110 classified e-mails marked as such, up to Top Secret in classification at the time they were sent. She also received somewhere upwards of 2,000+ that were in part either classified at the time or were later classified. She broke the law.



18 U.S. Code § 1924 Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

This last one is a slam dunk in Hillary's case. She knowingly used an unsecure server and clearly received over a long period of time documents that she knew, or should have known were classified and did nothing about it. That is gross negligence, and chargeable. As SoS, she was privy to classified information and held a security clearance. So, she would have known if something were classified or not upon looking at it as it would be clearly marked such. In at least 110 cases, the document(s) was so marked as the FBI determined. In another over 2,000 cases, there were indicators it was classified. It wasn't one time, but many over a period of years.

She is guilty as fuck.
Click to expand...
It's almost like you have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old.

(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 five years, 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.
Click to expand...
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, w
Click to expand...

Arguing Hillary set up the server with the intent to hide classified documents makes as much sense as arguing Trump had the bathroom built at Mara-Lago with the intent to hide classified documents. We must start with the assumption that was not her intent and then you must prove it was beyond a reasonable doubt. Your argument is silly and not supported by evidence and no reasonable jury would find it convincing enough to find anyone guilty.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Arguing Hillary set up the server with the intent to hide classified documents makes as much sense as arguing Trump had the bathroom built at Mara-Lago with the intent to hide classified documents. We must start with the assumption that was not her intent and then you must prove it was beyond a reasonable doubt. Your argument is silly and not supported by evidence and no reasonable jury would find it convincing enough to find anyone guilty.
Click to expand...

She set it up with the intention of avoiding the federal records act and keeping her government business obscured. That should be obvious to anyone. She didn't give a shit about following rules and laws on classified information. She insisted on using an unsecure Blackberry too, even though she was repeatedly told by SoS IT security types it was and was even dangerous to do.

The Hildabeast doesn't get her own set of laws. She broke a number of them, and then skated, just like Democrats seem to do every time something like this comes up. Same with Wasserman-Schultz and the Awan brothers scandal. She's another that should go to jail for this sort of shit.
 
He's got a hand picked judge that he appointed himself,
and he's got Clarence Thomas' seat, assuming the Uncle Tom will retire soon, to offer her if he's acquitted and re-elected.

This guys doesn't need to be tried.
There are more secure ways to get rid of people.

The right is out of control.
People in the south don't get arrested for shooting black people through doors.
And the people on the left are too gutless to solve extreme problems with extreme solutions.

America is in mid-process of becoming a third world nation, and sadly,
that's what most Americans deserve.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
He's got a hand picked judge that he appointed himself,
and he's got Clarence Thomas' seat, assuming the Uncle Tom will retire soon, to offer her if he's acquitted and re-elected.

This guys doesn't need to be tried.
There are more secure ways to get rid of people.

The right is out of control.
People in the south don't get arrested for shooting black people through doors.
And the people on the left are too gutless to solve extreme problems with extreme solutions.

America is in mid-process of becoming a third world nation, and sadly,
that's what most Americans deserve.
Click to expand...
You’re starting to sound like Hawkeye, but sober.
 
Phantasmal said:
You’re starting to sound like Hawkeye, but sober.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know. I've got the hawk on ignore.

This judge was already overturned once in a ruling on these matters preceding the indictment, trying to stop it..
Now they're giving her the actual case,
and nobody is even talking about it.

If she isn't forced to recuse, she'll accept a motion to dismiss right after the prosecution makes its case.
We won't even hear from the defense.
They'll be just walking out of there, laughing.

Try to have a clue about what's going on, Phan.
This is important.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
She received at least 110 classified e-mails marked as such, up to Top Secret in classification at the time they were sent. She also received somewhere upwards of 2,000+ that were in part either classified at the time or were later classified. She broke the law.



This last one is a slam dunk in Hillary's case. She knowingly used an unsecure server and clearly received over a long period of time documents that she knew, or should have known were classified and did nothing about it. That is gross negligence, and chargeable. As SoS, she was privy to classified information and held a security clearance. So, she would have known if something were classified or not upon looking at it as it would be clearly marked such. In at least 110 cases, the document(s) was so marked as the FBI determined. In another over 2,000 cases, there were indicators it was classified. It wasn't one time, but many over a period of years.

She is guilty as fuck.
Click to expand...

Now let's deal with the lies you are telling.
There were not 110 emails marked as classified.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...laim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/
Comey said: “From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.”
Click to expand...
There were not 110 emails marked as classified. There were 110 emails that contained classified information at the time they were sent. We know that most of them were not sent by Clinton but she may have forwarded some.

Now lets get to the 2000 emails.
Separately, he said 2,000 additional emails were “up-classified” so redactions could be made to make them suitable for public disclosure.
Click to expand...
All 2,000 were later up-classified.

In reality, there were 3 emails that contained anything the could be considered a marking that showed them classified.
In his news conference, Comey said “three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.” At the time, he said one was marked “secret” and two “confidential,” but at a congressional hearing two days later, he said all were marked “confidential,” the lowest form of classification. Moreover, he acknowledged that markings — a (C) — were contained in the body of the text and, contrary to standard practice, there was no header at the top alerting someone that this was classified material. He told lawmakers that without a header, it was “a reasonable inference” that this material was not classified.
Click to expand...
Based on the lies you are telling here and the easy way it is to show you are telling lies, no jury would convict on your evidence.

But let's go further...
By presenting the IG report into evidence for the defense, it pretty much makes the presumption of innocence impossible to overcome.
“There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information,”
Click to expand...
the Justice IG report said. “The emails in question were sent to other government officials in furtherance of the senders’ official duties. There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized systems.”
Click to expand...


Without evidence, you can't convict anyone.

When it comes to Trump, he will have the same presumption of innocence. The question is whether the evidence will be enough to convince a jury.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
She received at least 110 classified e-mails marked as such, up to Top Secret in classification at the time they were sent. She also received somewhere upwards of 2,000+ that were in part either classified at the time or were later classified. She broke the law.



18 U.S. Code § 1924 Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

This last one is a slam dunk in Hillary's case. She knowingly used an unsecure server and clearly received over a long period of time documents that she knew, or should have known were classified and did nothing about it. That is gross negligence, and chargeable. As SoS, she was privy to classified information and held a security clearance. So, she would have known if something were classified or not upon looking at it as it would be clearly marked such. In at least 110 cases, the document(s) was so marked as the FBI determined. In another over 2,000 cases, there were indicators it was classified. It wasn't one time, but many over a period of years.

She is guilty as fuck.
Click to expand...
Will STFU about this?

You are entitled to whatever whacky and stupid belief you want to hold, but your beliefs mean nothing beside those of the FBI and the Prosecutors who looked extensively at this and considered everything you point to and determined your poinsts were not sufficient.





Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System


..Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...

...Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past....

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....
Click to expand...
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I wouldn't know. I've got the hawk on ignore.

This judge was already overturned once in a ruling on these matters preceding the indictment, trying to stop it..
Now they're giving her the actual case,
and nobody is even talking about it.

If she isn't forced to recuse, she'll accept a motion to dismiss right after the prosecution makes its case.
We won't even hear from the defense.
They'll be just walking out of there, laughing.

Try to have a clue about what's going on, Phan.
This is important.
Click to expand...
I do have a clue what is going on, so you can buzz off. I’m just not a pessimist like yourself.
 
QP! said:
Will STFU about this?

You are entitled to whatever whacky and stupid belief you want to hold, but your beliefs mean nothing beside those of the FBI and the Prosecutors who looked extensively at this and considered everything you point to and determined your poinsts were not sufficient.
Click to expand...

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Now let's deal with the lies you are telling.
There were not 110 emails marked as classified.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...laim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/

There were not 110 emails marked as classified. There were 110 emails that contained classified information at the time they were sent. We know that most of them were not sent by Clinton but she may have forwarded some.

Now lets get to the 2000 emails.

All 2,000 were later up-classified.

In reality, there were 3 emails that contained anything the could be considered a marking that showed them classified.

Based on the lies you are telling here and the easy way it is to show you are telling lies, no jury would convict on your evidence.

But let's go further...
By presenting the IG report into evidence for the defense, it pretty much makes the presumption of innocence impossible to overcome.



Without evidence, you can't convict anyone.

When it comes to Trump, he will have the same presumption of innocence. The question is whether the evidence will be enough to convince a jury.
Click to expand...


You two sound just like the Trump defenders here. They're both criminals and both deserve indictment. Let a jury and a judge decide on their guilt or innocence.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
She set it up with the intention of avoiding the federal records act and keeping her government business obscured. That should be obvious to anyone. She didn't give a shit about following rules and laws on classified information. She insisted on using an unsecure Blackberry too, even though she was repeatedly told by SoS IT security types it was and was even dangerous to do.

The Hildabeast doesn't get her own set of laws. She broke a number of them, and then skated, just like Democrats seem to do every time something like this comes up. Same with Wasserman-Schultz and the Awan brothers scandal. She's another that should go to jail for this sort of shit.
Click to expand...

LOL.. Congratulations. Your argument doesn't prove she took any classified documents. It only proves she used a server. Funny thing about the laws you cited. They require she KNOWINGLY and WITH INTENT take or retain classified documents. All you are doing is arguing that Trump's building a bathroom proves his intent to take classified documents. No thinking person would accept your argument as proof she knowingly and with intent did anything with a classified document.

Hillary doesn't get her own set of laws. She gets the same ones everyone else does. You are the one attempting to create new laws for Hillary while ignoring the actual laws that apply to everyone.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You two sound just like the Trump defenders here. They're both criminals and both deserve indictment. Let a jury and a judge decide on their guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

You lie about evidence and that makes Hillary guilty? ROFLMAO. The reason a judge and jury didn't decide about Hillary is because when Comey looked at the actual evidence that would be allowed in a courtroom and the law he knew there was no way she would be found guilty. We saw with Durham what wishful thinking and RW conspiracies will get you for convictions. It gets not guilty verdicts in a very short time as well as a jury asking why the prosecution was wasting their time.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You two sound just like the Trump defenders here. They're both criminals and both deserve indictment. Let a jury and a judge decide on their guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

Stop being so incredibly stupid. You read the below and say 'just bring the case anyway and let a judge and jury decide' is stupid to the point of pathetic.


Judges and juries only get to adjudicate crimes if the FBI or police and Prosecutors believe a crime was done and they can prove it in court.

As i just posted to you "... our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case..."



Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System


..Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...

...Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past....

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....
Click to expand...



That you keep reading it and saying 'ya but who cares... just bring the case anyway...' show how hopeless you are on this topic.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You lie about evidence and that makes Hillary guilty? ROFLMAO. The reason a judge and jury didn't decide about Hillary is because when Comey looked at the actual evidence that would be allowed in a courtroom and the law he knew there was no way she would be found guilty. We saw with Durham what wishful thinking and RW conspiracies will get you for convictions. It gets not guilty verdicts in a very short time as well as a jury asking why the prosecution was wasting their time.
Click to expand...
You nailed it.

T.A saw Durham just bring BS case after BS case to court that he knew were garbage out of wishful thinking that he would get a biased jury that would see him win anyway. And he basically got laughed out of court.

If T.A was the AG, and his lead investigators (FBI or Prosecutor) came to him and said '... we investigated thoroughly and can see no way to bring or win this case and don't think any prosecutor would do that' he would say 'just bring it anyway and let the judge and jury decide'.

T.A. believes because he would act stupidly, that everyone else should too.
 
QP! said:
You nailed it.

T.A saw Durham just bring BS case after BS case to court that he knew were garbage out of wishful thinking that he would get a biased jury that would see him win anyway. And he basically got laughed out of court.

If T.A was the AG, and his lead investigators (FBI or Prosecutor) came to him and said '... we investigated thoroughly and can see no way to bring or win this case and don't think any prosecutor would do that' he would say 'just bring it anyway and let the judge and jury decide'.

T.A. believes because he would act stupidly, that everyone else should too.
Click to expand...
Durham found a crime, but it wasn’t investigated gated by Barr or him, because it concerned Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top