Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin are pictured together for the first time since losing

Thing1 said:
Are you kidding?

The fun part is going to be watching you rightie apologists try to spin for this clown show.
Click to expand...

Hillary didn't lose?

What's going to be funny is watching all you lefties struggle because you don't have a black ass to kiss.
 
Nomad said:
I quoted the 1941 SCOTUS ruling that said intent is a requirement for prosecution under the Espionage Act.
Click to expand...

wouldn't it make more sense to quote the statute she violated?.....the law she violated must be a different law, since it doesn't require intent......
 
Nomad said:
I quoted the 1941 SCOTUS ruling that said intent is a requirement for prosecution under the Espionage Act.

All the rest of your spin is meaningless drivel.

You lose.
Click to expand...
you didn't quote the case, at least you understand the Act ( and subsections) are what's in play here now.
I lose? Oh horrors. a self declared victory on the internet is really going to upset me!.

Hillary lost. checkmate
 
anatta said:
you didn't quote the case, at least you understand the Act ( and subsections) are what's in play here now.
I lose? Oh horrors. a self declared victory on the internet is really going to upset me!.

Hillary lost. checkmate
Click to expand...

Gorin v. United States

But 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. [Footnote 13] 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.

Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. 30, 40 Stat. 217:

"Title 1. Espionage. Section 1. That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with 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, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defense, . . . or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, or stored . . . ; or (b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; . . . shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both."

"Sec. 2. (a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids or induces another to, communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection (a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years, and (b) whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, shall collect, record, publish, or communicate, or attempt to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years."
Click to expand...

Couldn't be more plain or obvious.

Without intent to harm the US or give advantage to another nation, there is no violation of the law.

Suck it up, buttercup.
 
Nomad said:
Moron ^.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....I'm not the guy who has the wrong statute.....

its been posted to this board hundreds of times......not our fault you weren't reading the posts.....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....I'm not the guy who has the wrong statute.....

its been posted to this board hundreds of times......not our fault you weren't reading the posts.....
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.

The statute you're referring to falls under the Espionage Act, which I quoted and which clearly states that criminal intent is required for it to be violated.

Also, Comey relied on legal precedent, which is the standard that all US courts use in determining how to proceed in cases before them. The historical legal precedent in terms of prosecutions under the Espionage Act, as well as the statute you're referencing, is that they have all involved malicious intent to either harm the US or provide advantage to a foreign nation or both.

That was not a factor in Clinton's emails.

In the US we do not prosecute and imprison people for minor procedural mistakes, no matter how badly a bunch of hate-crazed zealot lunatics like you want it to be so.

Now go have yourself a good cry and a box of bon bons.
 
Nomad said:
You're an idiot.

The statute you're referring to falls under the Espionage Act, which I quoted and which clearly states that criminal intent is required for it to be violated.
Click to expand...
sorry, but you are wrong.......the statute I am referring to is the statute which I have linked......it succinctly states that which is required for violation......intent IS required for other sections of the act, but not for the portion which she has violated......but please, don't let me keep you from barking up the wrong tree.......my information was shared so that the rest of our readers may have the same pleasure in laughing at your ignorance that I am enjoying.......I really don't care that you are wrong......it actually augments the experience......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, but you are wrong.......the statute I am referring to is the statute which I have linked......it succinctly states that which is required for violation......intent IS required for other sections of the act, but not for the portion which she has violated......but please, don't let me keep you from barking up the wrong tree.......my information was shared so that the rest of our readers may have the same pleasure in laughing at your ignorance that I am enjoying.......I really don't care that you are wrong......it actually augments the experience......
Click to expand...

Comey's decision to not recommend charges was based not only on the lack of intent, which is required by the Espionage Act, but on LEGAL PRECEDENT as well. The legal precedent for charging, prosecuting and convicting in every known case involving the mishandling of classified information, is that there was always present, an INTENT to harm the US or provide advantage over the US to a foreign government.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton intended to use classified information against the US. Therefore, she committed NO CRIME.

Only rabid, partisan hacks think otherwise.

And for said hacks like you and certain others, to cherry pick one section of the Espionage Act that clearly falls under the same standards as the rest of it, and conveniently misconstrue the definition of the term "gross negligence", is truly emblematic of the kind of underhanded sleaze and dishonesty the right has become so well known for.

But please, don't let me keep you from barking up the wrong tree.......my information was shared so that the rest of our readers may have the same pleasure in laughing at your ignorance that I am enjoying.......I really don't care that you are wrong......it actually augments the experience.

Halfwit.
 
Nomad said:
And for said hacks like you and certain others, to cherry pick one section of the Espionage Act that clearly falls under the same standards as the rest of it
Click to expand...

prosecuting attornies do that all the time.......they "cherry pick" the statute you violated and charge you with it......sucks don't it.......
 
Nomad said:
Fact remains, all of the emails that were "carelessly handled" contained information that was classified at low levels because it was publicly available anyway. Any super secret, high level, national security data that Hillary handled or transmitted herself, was treated with the utmost care and attention to maintaining security.

Congrats on being manipulated and used like a tool, fool.
Click to expand...

From Comey's speech...."Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent..." So you are dead wrong when you state "Any super secret, high level, national security data that Hillary handled or transmitted herself, was treated with the utmost care and attention to maintaining security." It's just laughable....
 
Nomad said:
You're an idiot.

The statute you're referring to falls under the Espionage Act, which I quoted and which clearly states that criminal intent is required for it to be violated.

Also, Comey relied on legal precedent, which is the standard that all US courts use in determining how to proceed in cases before them. The historical legal precedent in terms of prosecutions under the Espionage Act, as well as the statute you're referencing, is that they have all involved malicious intent to either harm the US or provide advantage to a foreign nation or both.

That was not a factor in Clinton's emails.

In the US we do not prosecute and imprison people for minor procedural mistakes, no matter how badly a bunch of hate-crazed zealot lunatics like you want it to be so.

Now go have yourself a good cry and a box of bon bons.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't any investigator have to be looking for intent in their investigation in order to find it? Tell us where the FBI ever investigated anything to do with intent.....
 
j-mac said:
From Comey's speech...."Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent..." So you are dead wrong when you state "Any super secret, high level, national security data that Hillary handled or transmitted herself, was treated with the utmost care and attention to maintaining security." It's just laughable....
Click to expand...

The blabbering bs of your post is what is laughable.
 
j-mac said:
Wouldn't any investigator have to be looking for intent in their investigation in order to find it? Tell us where the FBI ever investigated anything to do with intent.....
Click to expand...

Try making some sense and maybe you'll get a response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top