For those who think Trump has committed crimes and should be locked up.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

(C) literally by definition marks a portion of a classified document as "confidential" yes, I think a jury would find her guilty.

(C) by definition does not mark a portion of an email as "confidential". The jury is going to see through your claims.
(c) in front of a paragraph out of context that lists a commanders parking space is not going to bolster your argument. Reasonable people are not going to look at that and take your position that it is obvious that mundane things should be instantly seen as being classified when there is no other mark.

I also can't fathom how you can think the SECTATE did not know what she was doing was a felony.

What you can fathom has little meaning in a court of law. It comes down to whether you convince other people of that when they are required to give all benefit of doubt to the defendant.


Can you fathom Trump didn't know he was committing a felony when he directed Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels? What do you think the likelihood is of convincing someone he did know? I put it at about 50/50 but that's because Trump has always argued he knows everything and would now have to argue he didn't know.

[Underdog]

(C) by definition does not mark a portion of an email as "confidential". The jury is going to see through your claims.
(c) in front of a paragraph out of context that lists a commanders parking space is not going to bolster your argument. Reasonable people are not going to look at that and take your position that it is obvious that mundane things should be instantly seen as being classified when there is no other mark.

Holy fuck d00d, I've held clearances you've never heard of.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf

Start at page 16

What you can fathom has little meaning in a court of law. It comes down to whether you convince other people of that when they are required to give all benefit of doubt to the defendant.


Can you fathom Trump didn't know he was committing a felony when he directed Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels? What do you think the likelihood is of convincing someone he did know? I put it at about 50/50 but that's because Trump has always argued he knows everything and would now have to argue he didn't know.

From what I gather the stormy thing is a huge stretch. what is also a huge stretch is the argument that ignorance to the law is an excuse, when you are hillary.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Holy fuck d00d, I've held clearances you've never heard of.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf

Start at page 16

The clearances you have are irrelevant. It comes down to convincing a court based on the law and the facts.
You have failed to do so because you ignore what the law actually says and instead rely on your clearances as having some legal standing. They don't.
The laws that you cited that designate felonies require someone knowingly and willingly violate them. Simply citing that (c) means something is classified doesn't meet the standard set out in the law. No reasonable prosecutor would try to lay out a case relying on that argument because they know it wouldn't pass muster with the court.

From what I gather the stormy thing is a huge stretch. what is also a huge stretch is the argument that ignorance to the law is an excuse, when you are hillary.

You have failed to address whether (c) always designates that something is confidential.
I have raised the doubt that would convince any reasonable person that they can't convict.


Under oath would you be willing to state that (c) always means something is confidential?
Would you be willing to testify that (c) in the laws you cited means that paragraph is confidential?
If (c) doesn't always mean confidential in every instance then we are left with the defendant MUST be given the benefit of the doubt under the law unless you can prove their state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.


The latest news on Trump is that more than one person was in a meeting with Trump, Cohen and people from AMI to discuss the payment to Karen McDougal with the express intent to influence the election.

[kudzu]

Holy fuck d00d, I've held clearances you've never heard of.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf

Start at page 16







From what I gather the stormy thing is a huge stretch. what is also a huge stretch is the argument that ignorance to the law is an excuse, when you are hillary.

You might like to find out the difference between classified and confidential.

[Underdog]

The clearances you have are irrelevant. It comes down to convincing a court based on the law and the facts.
You have failed to do so because you ignore what the law actually says and instead rely on your clearances as having some legal standing. They don't.
The laws that you cited that designate felonies require someone knowingly and willingly violate them. Simply citing that (c) means something is classified doesn't meet the standard set out in the law. No reasonable prosecutor would try to lay out a case relying on that argument because they know it wouldn't pass muster with the court.







You have failed to address whether (c) always designates that something is confidential.
I have raised the doubt that would convince any reasonable person that they can't convict.


Under oath would you be willing to state that (c) always means something is confidential?
Would you be willing to testify that (c) in the laws you cited means that paragraph is confidential?
If (c) doesn't always mean confidential in every instance then we are left with the defendant MUST be given the benefit of the doubt under the law unless you can prove their state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.


The latest news on Trump is that more than one person was in a meeting with Trump, Cohen and people from AMI to discuss the payment to Karen McDougal with the express intent to influence the election.

YOu are simply arguing from arrogant ignorance. I pointed out clearances I've held to demonstrate I am an expert in the matter.

Under oath would you be willing to state that (c) always means something is confidential?
Would you be willing to testify that (c) in the laws you cited means that paragraph is confidential?
If (c) doesn't always mean confidential in every instance then we are left with the defendant MUST be given the benefit of the doubt under the law unless you can prove their state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.

yes, on official gov documents the (C) always denotes "confidential" in classified documents, I would say this under oath.


I literally gave you proof of this, did you not click my .gov links?


https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf

Right there, start on page 16. I gave you in the post you replied to, that which you claimed I have not. If you don't acknowledge this, I will end the conversation and write you off as a mindless nut.

[Underdog]

You might like to find out the difference between classified and confidential.

Really? Confidential is a level of "classification".... derp



Classified consists of confidential, secret, and Top secret. There are also other clearances we can get into but is irrellevant to your claim


If you have a condifential document, it's classified... wait for it.... CONFIDENTIAL. and all the parts considered confidential will have the (C) martking.


You, another one, click the fucking link you quoted in your reply to me. start on page 16. Deliver yourself from abject ignorance.

[mak2]

[QUOTE=Reverend_Hellh0und;2768358]YOu are simply arguing from arrogant ignorance. I pointed out clearances I've held to demonstrate I am an expert in the matter.




[quote]Under oath would you be willing to state that (c) always means something is confidential?
Would you be willing to testify that (c) in the laws you cited means that paragraph is confidential?
If (c) doesn't always mean confidential in every instance then we are left with the defendant MUST be given the benefit of the doubt under the law unless you can prove their state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.

yes, on official gov documents the (C) always denotes "confidential" in classified documents, I would say this under oath.


I literally gave you proof of this, did you not click my .gov links?


https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf

Right there, start on page 16. I gave you in the post you replied to, that which you claimed I have not. If you don't acknowledge this, I will end the conversation and write you off as a mindless nut.

I agree with you I think on every point except the name calling. I don't think Clinton was worthy of having a security clearance due to her handling of classified material. In the 80's a L/Cpl I knew lost a stripe for leaving out a classified document in a binder on his desk overnight. Hillary did the computer equivalent.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

YOu are simply arguing from arrogant ignorance. I pointed out clearances I've held to demonstrate I am an expert in the matter.

I am arguing the law. If anyone is arguing from ignorance, it is you. You can't convict someone without showing the crime. Your repeated attempts to claim you know about classified documents doesn't prove anything as to the facts of what was on Hillary's server or the markings on those emails.

Asking an authorized person to remove a classification is not a felony. Someone can be fired for doing so or lose their security clearance but they can't be prosecuted.
Receiving emails that someone else copied from classified information and didn't properly mark is not a felony.

yes, on official gov documents the (C) always denotes "confidential" in classified documents, I would say this under oath.

Thanks for proving Hillary didn't commit a crime. An email is not an official government document. You didn't answer the question as I asked. Does (c) in every document denote "confidential"?

I literally gave you proof of this, did you not click my .gov links?

Your document would prove that there was no way to know that the email contained classified information since the requirement on classified documents is that all unclassified paragraphs be marked with (U) and there be a header with an overall classification as well as an originating classifier and the date classification ends.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a340216.pdf

Right there, start on page 16. I gave you in the post you replied to, that which you claimed I have not. If you don't acknowledge this, I will end the conversation and write you off as a mindless nut.

Perhaps you should read the rest of your document. The person sending the emails would be the one responsible for putting the proper classification markings on a document. Their failure to give a header, classify each paragraph and include their name as the classifying person is not a crime by Hillary Clinton.

Of course, I must be a mindless nut because I don't agree with you but instead follow the actual law. The law requires you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. You can't even lay out a logical case from beginning to end. You jump from email to removing the header on a fax to your own experiences without ever tying them together to show how they break a specific law.

Let me repeat. There is no way you can convince an unbiased person beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony was committed.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I agree with you I think on every point except the name calling. I don't think Clinton was worthy of having a security clearance due to her handling of classified material. In the 80's a L/Cpl I knew lost a stripe for leaving out a classified document in a binder on his desk overnight. Hillary did the computer equivalent.

I wonder why your L/Cpl only lost a stripe and wasn't charged with a felony. I have stated repeatedly that Hillary could lose her job or her clearance over this just as your L/Cpl could have. Felonies require more than what she did.

[Lightbringer]

I wonder why your L/Cpl only lost a stripe and wasn't charged with a felony. I have stated repeatedly that Hillary could lose her job or her clearance over this just as your L/Cpl could have. Felonies require more than what she did.

No, they don't. Reckless disregard.

[Frank Apisa]

Investigation after investigation after investigation...

...and she is still walking around free.

That is because there is no case against her.

But these people just cannot let it go.

So...my guess is she laughs herself to sleep each night knowing that the people who hate her most...are among the most frustrated people on the planet.

[Nordberg]

Hillary was investigated numerous times by RePUBLICANs. If she had done anything she would have been prosecuted. However, Trump paid off settlements, like Trump university and settled lawsuits many times. He is the court proven crook.

[Nordberg]

The email server thing again? And that's the "multiple felonies"?

But Trump does not have a server. He tweets the world business every day. Hillary was investigated by REPUBLICANS 12 times. They had the power in their hands and found her guilty of nothing. That should be informative to those with firing neurons. But to Trumpies, she got away with crimes. Must have fooled those righty Repubs over and over.

Trump has been a lawbreaker criminal with no respect for the rules. It should be fun when the Dem House investigates him like the Reds did to Hillary. Wonder who will come out cleaner? Well, since Hillary was found innocent, this should be easy.

[kudzu]

[QUOTE=mak2;2768375][QUOTE=Reverend_Hellh0und;2768358]YOu are simply arguing from arrogant ignorance. I pointed out clearances I've held to demonstrate I am an expert in the matter.

Under oath would you be willing to state that (c) always means something is confidential?
Would you be willing to testify that (c) in the laws you cited means that paragraph is confidential?
If (c) doesn't always mean confidential in every instance then we are left with the defendant MUST be given the benefit of the doubt under the law unless you can prove their state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.


I agree with you I think on every point except the name calling. I don't think Clinton was worthy of having a security clearance due to her handling of classified material. In the 80's a L/Cpl I knew lost a stripe for leaving out a classified document in a binder on his desk overnight. Hillary did the computer equivalent.

Not for civilians.. Totally different.

[kudzu]

Hillary was investigated numerous times by RePUBLICANs. If she had done anything she would have been prosecuted. However, Trump paid off settlements, like Trump university and settled lawsuits many times. He is the court proven crook.

And then there was the money laundering thing at Trump's casinos in NJ..