The Clinton Thread II

[craigdbfan]

I will ask once again....where is the proof of intent? Where is the proof of espionage? Who are is the "3rd party"?

These questions have not even been attempted by anyone...

NO ONE HERE, has said she did nothing wrong, but please explain USING THE LETTER OF THE LAW PLEASE, how you can answer those questions?

As far as "reprimand"....that may very well come.

If you (meaning anyone stating that the facts show she should be prosecuted) can't answer those questions, then there is no problem with someone who knows the law to say you are wrong...

I'm done with this discussion. I leave you with this: You don't understand what you are talking about. You are just so wrong on so many levels and the more you talk, the stupider you sound. You are not a lawyer but you are intent on telling a lawyer how the law works. As a result, you making an idiot of yourself. So I am just done. Have a nice day.

Lex, I like you, I really do. That is why I am being so patient. It cannot be explained any clearer than this. You are making an idiot of yourself. I do not say that to be mean. I say it because you are being stubborn, irrational, unreceptive to fact (not opinion, fact) and making yourself come off as uneducated and stupid. Please, for the sake of your reputation, just stop.

Fair enough but isn't a problem for a member to flat out call another poster an idiot? It wasn't too long that I was a moderator and I'm pretty sure we would infract attacks like that in what has been an otherwise respectful exchange, especially from Lex's part. For all the crap I've gotten for my musings I've never once have talked to another member in that way.

Matt's interpretation of the case has been an interesting and productive read but I hope the staff on here is actually reading some of the language being used by everyone and not just particular posters who share "unpopular" opinions.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

I will ask once again....where is the proof of intent? Where is the proof of espionage? Who are is the "3rd party"?

These questions have not even been attempted by anyone...

NO ONE HERE, has said she did nothing wrong, but please explain USING THE LETTER OF THE LAW PLEASE, how you can answer those questions?

As far as "reprimand"....that may very well come.

If you (meaning anyone stating that the facts show she should be prosecuted) can't answer those questions, then there is no problem with someone who knows the law to say you are wrong...



Seriously? you still have not answered the 3 questions above....and you reply to Matt with something like this?

I've done so multiple times. Multiple. The USA Today article details this.

As I've replied to you earlier, get the term espionage out of your head. The statute she broke is within the espionage act because the actions she took lowered the security of United States interest. There is no need for intent, which Matt finally stated above, concerning the removal and destruction of federal records according to 18 USC 794 (f). The third party is her attorneys and the IT pros that she gave unauthorized access to the classified Federal records.

However, the intent still exists because she was notified via an NDA she signed of the consequences of mishandling classified Federal documents. She did it anyway. She then had the servers wiped, destroyed and granted access to the third party consisting of her attorneys who then proceeded to delete classified Federal records according to the FBI Director Comey.

Have you not seen how Matt has resorted to calling me "kid" and that I'm making a fool of myself, that I have no idea what I'm talking about and other name calling? Why do people usually resort to that in a debate? And you question how I'm responding to him?

 

[Kelly]

I've done so multiple times. Multiple. The USA Today article details this.

As I've replied to you earlier, get the term espionage out of your head. The statute she broke is within the espionage act because the actions she took lowered the security of United States interest. There is no need for intent, which Matt finally stated above, concerning the removal and destruction of federal records according to 18 USC 794 (f). The third party is her attorneys and the IT pros that she gave unauthorized access to the classified Federal records.

However, the intent still exists because she was notified via an NDA she signed of the consequences of mishandling classified Federal documents. She did it anyway. She then had the servers wiped, destroyed and granted access to the third party consisting of her attorneys who then proceeded to delete classified Federal records according to the FBI Director Comey.

Have you not seen how Matt has resorted to calling me "kid" and that I'm making a fool of myself, that I have no idea what I'm talking about and other name calling? Why do people usually resort to that in a debate? And you question how I'm responding to him?

Look, it is obvious you feel strongly in your opinion....but you began this entire debate saying that "the facts show"... that is where you began, and yet have shown any facts proving "intent"....which has to be proven in your case.

I understand that Clinton definitely showed a massive amount of bad judgment, attitude that she is above the law, etc, those things would probably throw out most politicians if they were a crime ....you mention that she showed intent...."intent" to do what? And "what 3rd party"? What was her intent, and what did she intend to "give" to a "3rd party"? And "why" was she giving this information to that "3rd party"? What was her gain from turning over information to this 3rd party?

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Look, it is obvious you feel strongly in your opinion....but you began this entire debate saying that "the facts show"... that is where you began, and yet have shown any facts proving "intent"....which has to be proven in your case.

I understand that Clinton definitely showed a massive amount of bad judgment, attitude that she is above the law, etc, those things would probably throw out most politicians if they were a crime ....you mention that she showed intent...."intent" to do what? And "what 3rd party"? What was her intent, and what did she intend to "give" to a "3rd party"? And "why" was she giving this information to that "3rd party"? What was her gain from turning over information to this 3rd party?

Intent to do what? Remove federal records from US custody.

What 3rd party? Anyone she authorized to access the classified federal records. Her IT pros and attorneys.

What was her intent? To remove federal record from US custody.

What did she intend to "give to a "3rd party"? Classified Federal records.

Why was she giving this information to that "3rd party"? Gross negligence.

What was gained by turning over information to the "3rd party"? Concealment from State Department information governance protocols for the IT Pros. And you tell me what she had to be gained by turning over the information to her attorneys.

Again, she broke the law the moment she took the classified Federal records outside of US Custody. Nothing else matters.

I'm incredibly confused about this as well. I just highlighted the immense disrespect you've received when you've warranted zero of it.

This has been a civil discussion because you've been a gentlemen to not retort back to these blatant or passive attacks on your character as a poster.

Thank you. I apologize to you for how you've been treated in this political section lately too.

 

[Matt]

Intent to do what? Remove federal records from US custody.

That's not what the intent requirement of the Espionage Act is. Its not general intent. You cannot pull any intent out and say it is criminal intent. Again, intent is a legal term, that you clearly do not understand. The Espionage Act lays out SPECIFIC intent requirements. The intent to deliver stolen information to a third party. THAT is the intent requirement of the Espionage Act. Its not just any intent.

What 3rd party? Anyone she authorized to access the classified federal records. Her IT pros and attorneys.

She gave records to her attorneys in the process of litigation, which, again just because you don't like it, is not illegal. We, as a society, promote a public policy of people cooperating with their attorneys and giving them all information so as to best allow them to participate meaningfully in their defense. Clinton is within her legal rights to give anything that could pertain to future litigation to her attorneys. That privilege is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It trumps any statute.

As to her IT people, she did not give them limitless access to the specific files. She gave them access to her servers. The Espionage Act does not cover that.

What was her intent? To remove federal record from US custody.

Doesn't fly, see above.

What did she intend to "give to a "3rd party"? Classified Federal records.

Only if she knowingly and actually delivers them to a third party. That is the intent she would have to have.

Why was she giving this information to that "3rd party"? Gross negligence.

You really have no idea what those words mean.

What was gained by turning over information to the "3rd party"? Concealment from State Department information governance protocols for the IT Pros. And you tell me what she had to be gained by turning over the information to her attorneys.

Again, she broke the law the moment she took the classified Federal records outside of US Custody. Nothing else matters.

No, she didn't. She did not violate a statute. Thus, she did not violate the law. Lots of other things matter. I have dealt with pro se criminal defendants who read at a fourth grade level, which is their highest level of formal education who have a better grasp on the law than you. That is not an exaggeration.

 

[Matt]

Just to point out the absurdity of your circular logic, Lex...you are arguing that Clinton had both intent and gross negligence. Legally, these are mutually exclusive concepts. The very concept of negligence, from a legal perspective, is to create legal recourse for acts that lack intent. If she operated with gross negligence, she had no intent, rather she behaved recklessly without thought to consequence (which by its very nature is an act that lacks intent). If she had intent, she was not acting with gross negligence, but rather deliberately. That is why the statute separates the two concepts. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Just to point out the absurdity of your circular logic, Lex...you are arguing that Clinton had both intent and gross negligence. Legally, these are mutually exclusive concepts. The very concept of negligence, from a legal perspective, is to create legal recourse for acts that lack intent. If she operated with gross negligence, she had no intent, rather she behaved recklessly without thought to consequence (which by its very nature is an act that lacks intent). If she had intent, she was not acting with gross negligence, but rather deliberately. That is why the statute separates the two concepts. They are mutually exclusive.

I'll let you sort out if she is incompetent or corrupt. From the testimony today, it certainly sounded like both.

 

[samsnee]

I'm just curious what Republicans end game is with this? Are they going to get her name off the ballot? If she wins, are they going to say the election doesn't count? Or is the reality is they just wanted to get some good sound bites for attack ads, which they got today?

Anyone?

 

[Kelly]

Fair enough but isn't a problem for a member to flat out call another poster an idiot? It wasn't too long that I was a moderator and I'm pretty sure we would infract attacks like that in what has been an otherwise respectful exchange, especially from Lex's part. For all the crap I've gotten for my musings I've never once have talked to another member in that way.

Matt's interpretation of the case has been an interesting and productive read but I hope the staff on here is actually reading some of the language being used by everyone and not just particular posters who share "unpopular" opinions.

Please report the post...

 

[Matt]

I'll let you sort out if she is incompetent or corrupt. From the testimony today, it certainly sounded like both.

She is both and neither. What she did was certainly incompetent. No one is arguing that. Virtually everyone has admitted the stupidity of the act. But stupidity and incompetence are not legally gross negligence. Gross. Negligence. Is. A. Legal. Term. Of. Art. There is a test for it. You analyze it by looking at people within her professional community and how they behave. Specifically, in this case, it would be Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice as they are the only three SecStates of the digital era that preceded her. They have all admitted to the same thing. LEGALLY (not even a question, this is established law) something cannot be gross negligence if it is common practice in the field. As such, there was no gross negligence. The end.

And since there was no specific intent to deliver the documents to an ACTUAL third party (read, a bad faith actor working for a foreign government or serving as an intermediary of a foreign government) there is no intent.

Ergo, there is no crime.

What she did was lazy, incompetent, and foolish. She did it because she thought the rules do not apply to her. But that does not mean she violated a statute. Therefore, she did not commit a crime.

 

[Kelly]

Anyone?

You are asking us to read the minds of these people....are you crazy?

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Anyone?

The GOP smells blood in the water. The FBI made a judgment call that this level of criminal act (which is a felony), which had very little precedent (I mean how many others are willing to stoop to Clinton levels of deception and corruption), simply wasn't worth it to drag a Presidential candidate through the mud. So the GOP will use this as a tactic to try to get that 6% lead she has cut down.

I'd like people to learn from this. Inside the Beltway already knows. She would have been fired from any government job that she wasn't elected to had she currently held a job.

Apparently, there are a lot of people who don't see a problem with what she did. Apparently, there are a lot of people that let her do what she did. Apparently, mishandling classified records is more rampant than anyone is willing to admit. Even if she was indicted and found guilty, she'd likely only receive a fine.

 

[Matt]

Anyone?

They cannot keep her off the ballot as she was not convicted of a crime (which is the only way they can keep her from taking office). Congress cannot unilaterally change the Constitutional qualifications of the Presidency. So long as she meets those, she is good. Nor can they prevent her from taking office for the same reason. The worst they can do is sternly reprimand her and that means nothing. That is the irony of all of this.

Further, separation of powers prohibits Congress from telling the other branches how to do their jobs. Congress cannot order the DOJ to prosecute, they cannot order the FBI director to recommend prosecution. These are arms of the Executive Branch. They are equals, not subordinate to Congress. Hell, they can't even impeach her once she takes office as her actions predate her presidency (Congress cannot impeach someone for what they did before entering office).

Congress has no recourse here. They can write a report and make recommendations to the Executive, but that's it. Even Paul Ryan's letter urging the DNI to refuse to give her briefings means nothing because they are an executive agency and answer to the President, not Paul Ryan.

Congress has zero recourse.

 

[samsnee]

Right so really this is just another smear job. Just something to pander to the people who already hate Clinton so they can look like they are serving their constituents. What Clinton did was wrong ethically but she wasn't the first nor will she be the last politician on either party to do so and get away it.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Right so really this is just another smear job.

wut

 

[craigdbfan]

Please report the post...

I did, hours ago in fact...

 

[Matt]

Right so really this is just another smear job. Just something to pander to the people who already hate Clinton so they can look like they are serving their constituents. What Clinton did was wrong ethically but she wasn't the first nor will she be the last politician on either party to do so and get away it.

Fun food for thought. If Clinton violated the law (she didn't) with her email scandal, than George W. Bush sure as hell violated the Espionage Act by leaking Valerie Plame's information.

 

[chaseter]

Right so really this is just another smear job. Just something to pander to the people who already hate Clinton so they can look like they are serving their constituents. What Clinton did was wrong ethically but she wasn't the first nor will she be the last politician on either party to do so and get away it.

I'm sure you backed up Bush when he took us into Iraq. He was not prosecuted and the left only wanted to smear him.....riiiiiight?

Clinton knowingly made a huge mistake and walked away just like Bush.

 

[craigdbfan]

@Matt

Then he should have gotten punishment too. All these old, stiff and unethical ****ers should. As if party affiliation means a damn thing.

 

[Matt]

I did, hours ago in fact...

And Kel sent me a warning. As a former staffer (I was one too so I know how this works), you should know that you are not privileged to information about how the staff handles other users.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Fun food for thought. If Clinton violated the law (she didn't) with her email scandal, than George W. Bush sure as hell violated the Espionage Act by leaking Valerie Plame's information.

Prosecute him too. Do you not see why Trump is popular? (HOLY HELL LET ME DECLARE THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT CRAZY MAN). I mean look at the difference in conversation in this thread and his thread.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

And Kel sent me a warning. As a former staffer (I was one too so I know how this works), you should know that you are not privileged to information about how the staff handles other users.

For the record, no harm no foul. :cheers:

 

[childeroland]

Anyone?

Probably to beat her up good and plenty before the general election.

 

[Matt]

Prosecute him too. Do you not see why Trump is popular? (HOLY HELL LET ME DECLARE THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT CRAZY MAN). I mean look at the difference in conversation in this thread and his thread.

....Neither violated the statute.

 

[Kelly]

Ok guys, how about we head on back to the discussion of Hillary Clinton....