The Clinton Thread II

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]350004[/split]

 

[Marx]

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DEBT DOWN TO $6.4 MILLION
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/21/clinton.debt/index.html

Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton had $6.4 million in presidential campaign debt at the end of November, according to a report filed Saturday with the Federal Election Commission.
Hillary Clinton says she hopes to have her campaign debt paid before her possible confirmation as secretary of state.

The amount, though still significant, represents the lowest level of debt the New York senator's failed presidential campaign has reported this year. Clinton's campaign debt reached its peak, $12 million, at the end of June and has gradually fallen since then.

Clinton said she hopes to pay off her debt before her possible confirmation as secretary of state.

Clinton has also officially forgiven the $13.2 million she personally loaned her campaign. Under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, presidential candidates who loan their campaigns money from personal funds may only be paid back if they do so by the national party convention -- in this case, the Democratic National Convention held last August in Denver.

Clinton began November with $985,000 in her campaign account and raised nearly $290,000 by the end of the month. Her campaign paid out $1.2 million, mainly to unpaid vendors, ending the month with $188,000 in the bank.

The $6.4 million in remaining debt is owed to a total of 16 creditors.
The largest unpaid amount is owed to Penn, Schoen & Berland, a political consulting and polling firm that advised Clinton during her presidential bid.

The firm's president, Mark Penn, served as chief strategist to Clinton for most of her campaign until he was forced out of his position in April after revelations that he lobbied for a U.S.-Colombia trade deal on behalf of the Colombian government despite Clinton's opposition to the measure. However, he never left the campaign entirely.

 

[Matt]

her intent was to sit her ass in her living room to conduct state business. She wanted to sip her iced tea by the pool while sending top secret emails. She was conspiring with every single person that willingly sent her top secret discussions to that email address.

i don't believe for a second that she was helping enemy combatants nor was that her intention. her intention was to say "f that law, it's silly" so that she would not be inconvenienced. She's "too big to charge". And she knew it. Everyone knows it. She put lives at risk yet again because she's too arrogant to give a ****. Reeks of noble privilege.

This was once a nation of laws.

Then she hasn't violated the Espionage Act because that is an element of it!

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

then she hasn't violated the espionage act because that is an element of it!

So then what does C,D,E and F mean?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

[Matt]

So then what does C,D,E and F mean?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Every subsection you pointed to have either an intent requirement and/or an ACTUAL third party requirement. You can't cherry pick words from statutes, prove the parts you want and say "AH HA! SHE BROKE THE LAW!"

 

[summerteeth]

She's either a criminal or an irresponsible over privileged moron.

given that she corresponded with individuals whose accounts were compromised and that the server was not secured by government protections, and that she used her email in hostile foreign territories, "It is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's email account."

Seriously? how stupid is this woman? Can anyone name anything that she's done that has been successful in public office? You can blame Bush all you want for the Middle East but she took this job knowing it was her job to help clean it up and all I see is greater turmoil around the world. Failure to reach negotiations with Iraq to secure immunity from Iraqi courts for our troops that lead to the pull out (I still think this was politically motivated) that worsened the ISIS problem. Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Russian reset etc. She's been an absolute failure as Secretary of State.

 

[Kelly]

So, it was solely her responsibility to "clean up" the world? It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to "Carry out the President's foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States."

The Status of Forces Agreement was signed by President Bush....

 

[summerteeth]

So, it was solely her responsibility to "clean up" the world? It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to "Carry out the President's foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States."

Did I say that? no, I said help which implies that she work with others in order to accomplish it, but go ahead and misquote me. So with that said, did she do a good job carrying out her responsibilities?

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Every subsection you pointed to have either an intent requirement and/or an ACTUAL third party requirement. You can't cherry pick words from statutes, prove the parts you want and say "AH HA! SHE BROKE THE LAW!"

You do understand that she is the third party right? Those emails originated in the correct place but were sent to an incorrect place, her personal email address.

(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.

I'll break it down. Clinton.org is the third party here.

1.

(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,

Through gross negligence... check.
Removed from it's proper place of custody... check. From .gov security to clinton.org
Delivered to anyone in violation of trust... check. Again, clinton.org was not trusted
or to be abstracted or destroyed.... check. How many emails did she delete?

2.

(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

Check, Check, Check..

3.

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

SIKE! She's Hillary Clinton. Are you serious? Plus this might leave us with ... [shudders]Trump [/shudders].

 

[Kelly]

Carrying out a bad foreign policy never looks good....

 

[Matt]

You do understand that she is the third party right? Those emails originated in the correct place but were sent to an incorrect place, her personal email address.



I'll break it down. Clinton.org is the third party here.

1.

Through gross negligence... check.
Removed from it's proper place of custody... check. From .gov security to clinton.org
Delivered to anyone in violation of trust... check. Again, clinton.org was not trusted
or to be abstracted or destroyed.... check. How many emails did she delete?

2.

Check, Check, Check..

3.

SIKE! She's Hillary Clinton. Are you serious? Plus this might leave us with ... [shudders]Trump [/shudders].

Well if you read the definitions statute that pertains to the Espionage Act (which is quite large), you'd know that the third party is defined as a foreign actor. Hillary Clinton cannot be the third party in a charge under the Espionage Act as she was both authorized to possess the documents and was not a foreign actor.

Would you like to continue to make a fool of yourself with your silly argument that she is guilty of laws you clearly do not understand or would you like to pivot and start saying how it is a poor reflection of her competence like all other Republicans are currently doing (because they know she did not break the law)?

 

[chaseter]

Knowledge and intent are two different things.

Lack of knowledge is not an excuse regardless of intent. 'I didn't know it was against the law' is not a legal defense. A law was broken, consequences must be faced.

Law doesn't apply to the rich and powerful though.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Well if you read the definitions statute that pertains to the Espionage Act (which is quite large), you'd know that the third party is defined as a foreign actor. Hillary Clinton cannot be the third party in a charge under the Espionage Act as she was both authorized to possess the documents and was not a foreign actor.

Would you like to continue to make a fool of yourself with your silly argument that she is guilty of laws you clearly do not understand or would you like to pivot and start saying how it is a poor reflection of her competence like all other Republicans are currently doing (because they know she did not break the law)?

She was not authorized to remove information from it's proper place of custody. In layman's terms, she wasn't allowed to send classified information outside of the secured network. She knew this when she signed the policy. So there's your intent.

And why the personal attacks? Why the need to say I'm making a fool of myself or say my claims are silly when it's you that doesn't quite understand ? The Director of the FBI is saying the exact same things I've said.

"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.

Here's the rub and what Comey really means:

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges."

Why would Comey and the FBI agree with my silly arguments?

PS, I'm no Republican or Trump supporter.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

As I understand, specifically because email use is fairly new to the government, there is no law specifically stating what servers can be used for what information. Hence, the no law being broken part. Very stupid and lazy on her part, but just like the findings no law was actually broken. obviously, I think going forward these things will be laid out specifically to avoid these types of things in the future.

 

[Kelly]

As I understand, specifically because email use is fairly new to the government, there is no law specifically stating what servers can be used for what information. Hence, the no law being broken part. Very stupid and lazy on her part, but just like the findings no law was actually broken. obviously, I think going forward these things will be laid out specifically to avoid these types of things in the future.

That has already been done....

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

She was always going to get off with a free pass, like she always does.

 

[Kelly]

Did I say that? no, I said help which implies that she work with others in order to accomplish it, but go ahead and misquote me. So with that said, did she do a good job carrying out her responsibilities?

But I know that was your intent....I just know it.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

She was not authorized to remove information from it's proper place of custody. In layman's terms, she wasn't allowed to send classified information outside of the secured network. She knew this when she signed the policy. So there's your intent.

And why the personal attacks? Why the need to say I'm making a fool of myself or say my claims are silly when it's you that doesn't quite understand ? The Director of the FBI is saying the exact same things I've said.



Here's the rub and what Comey really means:



Why would Comey and the FBI agree with my silly arguments?

PS, I'm no Republican or Trump supporter.

You have to prove that she understood using her personal server was not okay for classified information. You can't and neither can they. Therefore no law was broken. As far as most 70 year olds are concerned when it comes to emails they are all "secure".

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

You have to prove that she understood using her personal server was not okay for classified information. You can't and neither can they. Therefore no law was broken. As far as most 70 year olds are concerned when it comes to emails they are all "secure".

She signed the NDA that outlined penalties for mishandling classified information. Here's your proof.

Also, everyone that sent anything classified to her clinton.org email address is guilty of violating the statutes.

As far as most 70 year olds are concerned when it comes to emails they are all "secure".

That's no excuse. Someone should have told her what she is doing is wrong and illegal and even against business protocols such as Sarbanes Oxley and other bills she likely helped pass after Enron and other fiascos. And for the Secretary of State to have a miscalculation on data wars and where we are with them is even more troubling. Someone told her. She ignored them and that's why I can't stand this lady.

This has always been a big deal to me, bigger than most, because I work in Information Assurance and anyone else that does knows what kind of fubar that email server was.

 

[Matt]

Lack of knowledge is not an excuse regardless of intent. 'I didn't know it was against the law' is not a legal defense. A law was broken, consequences must be faced.

Law doesn't apply to the rich and powerful though.

You are describing two different things.

Intent (mens rea) is the intent to commit the underlying act.

Knowledge (as you are referencing it) is understanding that the underlying act is illegal.

A criminal act can exist without the latter. It cannot exist without the former.

She was not authorized to remove information from it's proper place of custody. In layman's terms, she wasn't allowed to send classified information outside of the secured network. She knew this when she signed the policy. So there's your intent.

And why the personal attacks? Why the need to say I'm making a fool of myself or say my claims are silly when it's you that doesn't quite understand ? The Director of the FBI is saying the exact same things I've said.



Here's the rub and what Comey really means:



Why would Comey and the FBI agree with my silly arguments?

PS, I'm no Republican or Trump supporter.

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case because there is no violation of the law. You are conveniently ignoring that point. I am calling you foolish because you are simply outright ignoring the fact that requisite elements of a crime are unsatisfied and throwing around legal terms of art in the layperson sense, thus misconstruing both Comey's words and the text of the statute in question.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

She signed the NDA that outlined penalties for mishandling classified information. Here's your proof.

Also, everyone that sent anything classified to her clinton.org email address is guilty of violating the statutes.



That's no excuse. Someone should have told her what she is doing is wrong and illegal and even against business protocols such as Sarbanes Oxley and other bills she likely helped pass after Enron and other fiascos. And for the Secretary of State to have a miscalculation on data wars and where we are with them is even more troubling. Someone told her. She ignored them and that's why I can't stand this lady.

This has always been a big deal to me, bigger than most, because I work in Information Assurance and anyone else that does knows what kind of fubar that email server was.

Violating an NDA is not a crime.

 

[chaseter]

You are describing two different things.

Intent (mens rea) is the intent to commit the underlying act.

Knowledge (as you are referencing it) is understanding that the underlying act is illegal.

A criminal act can exist without the latter. It cannot exist without the former.

For the last time, intent requires evidence or a confession. Otherwise, it's speculation. Intent cannot be proven in every criminal case. That's why lawyers exist. Intent cannot be proven here. However, when a law is broken, you face the consequences regardless of your knowledge of the law or lack there of of...even if you didn't intend to break the law.

Intent, or mens rea, is used to determine the severity of the punishment when a crime is committed. It doesn't excuse the conviction. Crimes are committed without intent.

It's carelessness, wrecklessness, and general disregard for consequences.

If someone fell asleep in their car driving and hit another car, causing a fatality, should they be prosecuted? They didn't intend to kill.

 

[chaseter]

Violating an NDA is not a crime.

At the very least, it's violating her terms of employment. Which would lead to her termination and disbarred from future employment (government = public office).

At the most, the information falls into enemy hands...which is against the law.

 

[Matt]

For the last time, intent requires evidence or a confession. Otherwise, it's speculation. Intent cannot be proven in every criminal case. That's why lawyers exist. Intent cannot be proven here. However, when a law is broken, you face the consequences regardless of your knowledge of the law or lack there of of...even if you didn't intend to break the law.

Intent, or mens rea, is used to determine the severity of the punishment when a crime is committed. It doesn't excuse the conviction. Crimes are committed without intent.

It's carelessness, wrecklessness, and general disregard for consequences.

If someone fell asleep in their car driving and hit another car, causing a fatality, should they be prosecuted? They didn't intend to kill.

Again, no. They aren't, unless statutorily designated (like manslaughter, which you described) crimes require two key foundations:

Guilty Act (actus reas)
Guilty Mind (mens rea)/INTENT

Mens rea = intent.

No mens rea generally means no crime, but for a few exceptions.

Intent has nothing to do with severity of the crime. What you are describing is mental state (things such as aggravating and mitigating circumstances), which is certainly tied to the state of mind but is distinct from intent. Once again, the first thing they teach you in your 1L crim law class is that there are two parts of a crime:

Guilty Act
Guilty Mind

This is inescapable fact of criminal law. Even in manslaughter cases, there is an intent to act in a reckless manner, but statutes or common law must specifically designate that recklessness = intent (as is the case with manslaughter). Being as what Clinton is being accused does not fall into the category of crimes in which recklessness is sufficient to establish intent, she has not committed a crime. Without intent, there can be no crime. It is really that simple.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

For the last time, intent requires evidence or a confession. Otherwise, it's speculation. Intent cannot be proven in every criminal case. That's why lawyers exist. Intent cannot be proven here. However, when a law is broken, you face the consequences regardless of your knowledge of the law or lack there of of...even if you didn't intend to break the law.

Intent, or mens rea, is used to determine the severity of the punishment when a crime is committed. It doesn't excuse the conviction. Crimes are committed without intent.

It's carelessness, wrecklessness, and general disregard for consequences.

If someone fell asleep in their car driving and hit another car, causing a fatality, should they be prosecuted? They didn't intend to kill.

I like how you're arguing with a lawyer trying to explain to him things he went to 8 years of school and earned a degree for. It's cute.