The Clinton Thread II

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I f***ing love political discourse! I know I come off as a self-righteous know-it-all a**hole a lot of the times but I genuinely like conversing and learning about these matters with all of you. Try to have any kind of discourse on Bookface and more often than not you jsut end up ruining a friendship.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

I'd say that the key difference is that, if I am understanding Nishimura's case properly (and I am, admittedly, not as familiar with it as Clinton's), Nishimura carried the documents out on a physical hard drive/laptop. "Possession" and "removes" are the two key terms of 1924. What does it mean to possess? Actual possession. Same with removal. Actual removal. Nishimura had a physical object with documents on it that he removed. That is the distinguishing fact. The trouble with Clinton's prosecution is, electronic transmission through email is not defined by Congress as a means of removal. Thus, Rule Against Lenity applies.

In addition, there is the knowledge requirement. Nishimura admitted knowledge that he was carrying away classified documents. Clinton did not. Nishimura admitted that he knew that doing so was unauthorized. Clinton did not (which is highly relevant due to the fact that her three predecessor did the same).

There are quite a few distinguishing facts between the two cases. I found this while trying to find the underlying facts of the Nishimura case. It actually breaks down the comparisons to Nishimura (and other cases) quite well.

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...her-baseless-comparison-clinton-emails/211379

Clinton possessed and removed those emails from the State Department the moment they hit her email server.

The difference in the case is that Nishimura admitted to it. I'd venture to say because he wasn't running for President, wasn't a celebrity and could be bullied into admitting fault.

 

[Matt]

Untrue. She gave IT professionals and her attorneys access. Her attorneys then likely hired contract attorneys to sift through the doc pull to identify emails via key word and then had them parsed. All illegal. All with intent. For the FBI Director to say the attorneys deleted those emails without Hillary's permission kills his credibility. It just does.

There is no way to prove that. Firstly, she was entitled to show her attorneys the evidence. That's just how it works. You may not like it, but there are countless other sources of law that allow for that. Criminal defendants get a butt-load of leeway as to what evidence they can show their attorney (even in anticipation of litigation) and face no consequence. The public policy is to encourage people to be forthright with their defense counsel.

Beyond that, even assuming she did tell her attorneys to delete it, there has to be evidence of this to support a prima facie case. Clients have privilege of anything that they tell their attorney. If Clinton says she did not know, she did not know. The only ones who can contradict her are her attorneys. Attorney/client privilege cannot be waived unless it would prevent a future crime that causes actual harm to someone (a client calls me and says "I'm gonna murder so and so at 6:50 PM, for example). Otherwise, Clinton enjoys absolute privilege. The government cannot compel the attorneys to testify. They cannot even ask them the question, by law. So if Clinton says she did not do so, legally she didn't. The end. There is no way to contradict that or build a prima facie case. "She must have" is not evidence in a court of law.

That subsection has nothing regarding intent. She took classified information away from government custody. Period. It says you shall be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years for violating. Then there's the misdemeanor that I haven't even addressed, the one being discussed in the similar case.

I know it doesn't require intent. That's my point. It requires that the classified information be removed through GROSS MISCONDUCT (which is reckless behavior that would shock the conscience of the relevant community). I have explained to you why that standard is not satisfied.

Hence the need for first impression, but no need because Email has already been legally defined and would fit under the statutes definitions. It's not a smart defense to stand on. Of course emails and electronic data apply here.

Matter of first impression
First impression (known as primae impressionis in Latin) is a legal case in which there is no binding authority on the matter presented. Such a case can set forth a completely original issue of law for decision by the courts. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction. In that situation, courts will look to holdings of other jurisdictions for persuasive authority.

In the latter meaning, the case in question cannot be decided through referring to and/or relying on precedent. Since the legal issue under consideration has never been decided by an appeals court and, therefore, there is no precedent for the court to follow, the court uses analogies from prior rulings by appeals courts, refers to commentaries and articles by legal scholars, and applies its own logic. In cases of first impression, the trial judge will often ask both sides' attorneys for legal briefs.[20]

In some situations, a case of first impression may exist in a jurisdiction until a reported appellate court decision is rendered.

First impression does not kick in retroactively.

Furthermore, it does not apply to matters that can be legislated. This is not a matter of first impression as it is not a matter of legal interpretation. First impression is only legal interpretation. Not inadequacy of statutes. This is a political question. A political question BY DEFINITION cannot be a matter of first impression. You do not understand the words you are using. They are legal terms of art. I cannot make that any clearer. Congress has the obligation to add electronic transmission to the statute. The court cannot substitute its judgment for Congress, not even in a case of first impression. Legislative inaction is a form of legislative action. If Congress has not done it, it doesn't apply. A court cannot change that.

I appreciate it. I'm not heated, I try to stay away from personal attacks, and understand what this forum is for. I appreciate you laying out your point of view for me. I obviously don't agree with you but do appreciate and acknowledge that you are more experienced and trained in the matter of law than I.

You are basically arguing that there is no need for anyone to have a security clearance.

No, that's not what I am arguing. Further, this is not a matter of point of view. This is the law. These are facts, not opinions. You are wrong. I am saying for the sake of your own reputation to please stop saying this as you make yourself sound dumb to anyone you interact with and say these things to.

 

[Matt]

Clinton possessed and removed those emails from the State Department the moment they hit her email server.

No, she didn't because the statute does not preclude that. It does preclude physical removal. It is ambiguous as to electronic transmission. Once again, that is a matter for the legislature. Not the court. Congress's inaction is a form of action. The fact that they have not updated a statute is a sign of acquiescence to the statute being enforced without electronic transmission being covered.

This is not something the court can change, especially as a way to retroactively punish a defendant. Criminal defendants enjoy the highest level of Constitutional protection. You know how ties favor the runner in baseball? In the law, ties favor the defendant.

It comes down for the need of notice. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, lack of notice is. Laws must put people on notice as to what they are prohibiting. ANY ambiguous statute is going to be interpreted in a manner that favors defendants.

The difference in the case is that Nishimura admitted to it. I'd venture to say because he wasn't running for President, wasn't a celebrity and could be bullied into admitting fault.

That is a pretty big difference, especially when the statute has so much emphasis on knowledge. Generally, the only way to prove knowledge is either through the act speaking for itself (it doesn't here, take my word on it) or through their own words/actions. No one is testifying that Clinton knew that the emails were classified and that electronic transmission was prohibited (both requirements of the statute). No evidence supports that. The only evidence that could support it are her own words or the words of a witness who said she told them she knew. Since no such witness exists, if she isn't admitting it, its not a legally operable fact.

 

[chaseter]

I'd say that the key difference is that, if I am understanding Nishimura's case properly (and I am, admittedly, not as familiar with it as Clinton's), Nishimura carried the documents out on a physical hard drive/laptop. "Possession" and "removes" are the two key terms of 1924. What does it mean to possess? Actual possession. Same with removal. Actual removal. Nishimura had a physical object with documents on it that he removed. That is the distinguishing fact. The trouble with Clinton's prosecution is, electronic transmission through email is not defined by Congress as a means of removal. Thus, Rule Against Lenity applies.

In addition, there is the knowledge requirement. Nishimura admitted knowledge that he was carrying away classified documents. Clinton did not. Nishimura admitted that he knew that doing so was unauthorized. Clinton did not (which is highly relevant due to the fact that her three predecessor did the same).

There are quite a few distinguishing facts between the two cases. I found this while trying to find the underlying facts of the Nishimura case. It actually breaks down the comparisons to Nishimura (and other cases) quite well.

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...her-baseless-comparison-clinton-emails/211379

Of course Clinton isn't going to admit to anything. Come on.

She possessed classified data from email and knowingly removed said data to an unsecured server/unauthorized location. It does not specify physicality.

If knowingly is the key factor here....why is there a protocol regarding storage and transmission of classified data if everyone can claim ignorance when they break said protocol to then escape prosecution? Why did her employee who setup the server plead the 5th? Why were her emails deleted, erasing evidence? Come on Matt.

 

[Matt]

Of course Clinton isn't going to admit to anything. Come on.

She possessed classified data from email and knowingly removed said data to an unsecured server/unauthorized location.

If knowingly is the key factor here....why is there a protocol regarding storage and transmission of classified data if everyone can claim ignorance when they break said protocol to then escape prosecution? Why did her employee who setup the server plead the 5th? Why were her emails deleted, erasing evidence? Come on Matt.

First of all, taking the Fifth cannot be evidence. Not against the person who invokes the privilege, not against Clinton.

Second, an intrinsic, "she must have known" is not evidence as defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence. I am not saying she did not know. I am saying there is no way to make a prima facie case that she did know. You don't have to like it. But that's the way that the law works. You asked for the difference between the two cases, I gave you it. There was a prima facie case of knowledge in one case, there was not in the other.

 

[chaseter]

Wouldn't deleting emails prior to an investigation be destroying evidence? I understand pleading the 5th...if no wrong doing occurred then there would be no need to plead the 5th.

 

[Matt]

Wouldn't deleting emails prior to an investigation be destroying evidence? I understand pleading the 5th...if no wrong doing occurred then there would be no need to plead the 5th.

A prosecutor so much as implying that the Fifth equals guilt or an admission would not only result in all charges being dismissed with prejudice, it would result in that prosecutor losing their license to practice. If the court even catches a whiff that a juror believes that, the juror will be kicked and if the verdict is already back, it will be overturned. It is basically the cardinal rule of criminal prosecution. Its not valid evidence, therefore it cannot be considered as part of an investigation/recommendation (because it means nothing in a courtroom).

And destruction of evidence is only evidence if it is done in bad faith. I delete emails every day. Some people have systems that automatically delete. Its not intrinsic evidence. Further, when a criminal defendant does it, it cannot be used against them because it would be a form of evidence that tries to use her actions to implicitly suggest self-testimony about state of mind. In essence, its making them testify against themself (which cannot be compelled under the Constitution). For a prosecutor to say, "She says she didn't know, but come on, she deleted the emails *nudge nudge wink wink*"...once again, probably lose their license.

In other words, destruction of the emails could only be used as evidence to show that they were, in fact, in her possession and then destroyed. Nothing more. They cannot be used as evidence that she was complicit in a coverup or knew of wrongdoing.

 

[chaseter]

No one said pleading the 5th equates to guilt in court. It does publicly imply guilt. If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. That's why pleading the 5th 'looks' bad.

As for deleting emails, all Government emails are stored, hence the protocol she ignored/broke/didn't know about (lol).

 

[Kelly]

Having nothing to hide is not why you shouldn't need to plead the 5th.

There are pieces of evidence that a prosecutor may find that actually points to a person, yet that person IS STILL not guilty of the crime they are charged with....OR, it is evidence that the prosecutor believes leads to you committing the crime, yet you didn't do it, you know you didn't do it, but it can damn well put you in jail if the jury believes you did because of "said evidence"

Sometimes even specific evidence can point you to the wrong person, but many prosecutors are looking for "the win", not necessarily "justice" therefore pleading the 5th in that case, even though you truly had nothing to do with the crime is your best bet.

 

[Kelly]

Wouldn't deleting emails prior to an investigation be destroying evidence? I understand pleading the 5th...if no wrong doing occurred then there would be no need to plead the 5th.

When were the emails deemed evidence of a crime?

 

[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?

 

[chaseter]

Having nothing to hide is not why you shouldn't need to plead the 5th.

There are pieces of evidence that a prosecutor may find that actually points to a person, yet that person IS STILL not guilty of the crime they are charged with....OR, it is evidence that the prosecutor believes leads to you committing the crime, yet you didn't do it, you know you didn't do it, but it can damn well put you in jail if the jury believes you did because of "said evidence"

Sometimes even specific evidence can point you to the wrong person, but many prosecutors are looking for "the win", not necessarily "justice" therefore pleading the 5th in that case, even though you truly had nothing to do with the crime is your best bet.

That's true, it's not every single time, as with all assertions. People have testified without pleading the 5th. Not testifying usually implies guilt to the public perspective...especially with people not being investigated. Clinton's team probably advised the person not to testify.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

There is no way to prove that. Firstly, she was entitled to show her attorneys the evidence. That's just how it works. You may not like it, but there are countless other sources of law that allow for that. Criminal defendants get a butt-load of leeway as to what evidence they can show their attorney (even in anticipation of litigation) and face no consequence. The public policy is to encourage people to be forthright with their defense counsel.

She had no authority to turn over classified government documents to her attorneys. She had no authority to give her system admins access to classified government emails. Neither her Attorneys or her IT Pros had clearance to view that data. Given the amount of emails in question, they were likely uploaded to a review tool. The FBI Director had the gall to say the reviewers would only look at the headers. That's not how doc reviews work. He knows that which is why he stumbled over his explanation.j

Beyond that, even assuming she did tell her attorneys to delete it, there has to be evidence of this to support a prima facie case. Clients have privilege of anything that they tell their attorney. If Clinton says she did not know, she did not know. The only ones who can contradict her are her attorneys. Attorney/client privilege cannot be waived unless it would prevent a future crime that causes actual harm to someone (a client calls me and says "I'm gonna murder so and so at 6:50 PM, for example). Otherwise, Clinton enjoys absolute privilege. The government cannot compel the attorneys to testify. They cannot even ask them the question, by law. So if Clinton says she did not do so, legally she didn't. The end. There is no way to contradict that or build a prima facie case. "She must have" is not evidence in a court of law.

It doesn't matter. It's deleted. It doesn't matter who deleted it. It's deleted. Official government data. Poof. They are guilty of destroying classified government data. And since they were not cleared to even access the data...

I know it doesn't require intent. That's my point. It requires that the classified information be removed through GROSS MISCONDUCT (which is reckless behavior that would shock the conscience of the relevant community). I have explained to you why that standard is not satisfied.

So you agree that she's guilty of violating statute 18 USC 793 (f).

First impression does not kick in retroactively.

Furthermore, it does not apply to matters that can be legislated. This is not a matter of first impression as it is not a matter of legal interpretation. First impression is only legal interpretation. Not inadequacy of statutes. This is a political question. A political question BY DEFINITION cannot be a matter of first impression. You do not understand the words you are using. They are legal terms of art. I cannot make that any clearer. Congress has the obligation to add electronic transmission to the statute. The court cannot substitute its judgment for Congress, not even in a case of first impression. Legislative inaction is a form of legislative action. If Congress has not done it, it doesn't apply. A court cannot change that.

Electronic transmission is already considered a legal document. I'm suggesting the first impression for you since you apparently didn't know that.

No, that's not what I am arguing. Further, this is not a matter of point of view. This is the law. These are facts, not opinions. You are wrong. I am saying for the sake of your own reputation to please stop saying this as you make yourself sound dumb to anyone you interact with and say these things to.

Dude, she's guilty of breaking multiple laws and protocols. Either she lied under oath or the FBI Director is lying. If she had a job she'd be fired. If she wasn't the DNC nominee she'd be indicted.

No, she didn't because the statute does not preclude that. It does preclude physical removal. It is ambiguous as to electronic transmission. Once again, that is a matter for the legislature. Not the court. Congress's inaction is a form of action. The fact that they have not updated a statute is a sign of acquiescence to the statute being enforced without electronic transmission being covered.

OUTSIDE.OF.THE.CUSTODY.OF.THE.US.GOVERNMENT

There's nothing ambiguous about the transmission of electronic data. It has been defined as a legal document. Once you send an email, that data is sent to another physical place. Actually, multiple physical places due to the web that is the Internet. The emails physically sat in her basement.

This is not something the court can change, especially as a way to retroactively punish a defendant. Criminal defendants enjoy the highest level of Constitutional protection. You know how ties favor the runner in baseball? In the law, ties favor the defendant.

It doesn't matter. Evidence that the FBI director admitted to Congress today is all you need.

It comes down for the need of notice. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, lack of notice is. Laws must put people on notice as to what they are prohibiting. ANY ambiguous statute is going to be interpreted in a manner that favors defendants.

She signed the NDA notifying her of the consequences of her actions. Twice. Probably three times when she was First Lady. There was no ignorance of law here. There was disrespect of law.

That is a pretty big difference, especially when the statute has so much emphasis on knowledge. Generally, the only way to prove knowledge is either through the act speaking for itself (it doesn't here, take my word on it) or through their own words/actions. No one is testifying that Clinton knew that the emails were classified and that electronic transmission was prohibited (both requirements of the statute). No evidence supports that. The only evidence that could support it are her own words or the words of a witness who said she told them she knew. Since no such witness exists, if she isn't admitting it, its not a legally operable fact.

There were emails between recipients that she sent that made the email classified the moment it was typed. Even the FBI Director said she was extremely negligent in sending these emails. Her own assistants testified in depositions regarding the Clinton Foundation that the purpose of using the personal server was for concealment.

Comey was very evident in his desire to make it appear that the FBI was apolitical. He sure looked political today. He made comments of making sure not to treat her like a celebrity but in doing so, did.

Wouldn't deleting emails prior to an investigation be destroying evidence? I understand pleading the 5th...if no wrong doing occurred then there would be no need to plead the 5th.

Obstruction of justice and destroying classified government data. Both crimes.

When were the emails deemed evidence of a crime?

They were classified US documents.

 

[chaseter]

When were the emails deemed evidence of a crime?

Are you speaking in general or directly to Clinton's case? In relation to Clinton, they weren't deemed evidence because they were deleted. Government emails can be retrieved because they are permanently stored and then used as evidence if needed. Government officials can't delete incriminating emails unless they use a home made server built by IT techs they hire themselves. Shockingly convenient...

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

FBI Director Testifies Before Congress About Recommendation Not to Charge Hillary Clinton



http://gawker.com/fbi-director-testifies-before-congress-about-recommenda-1783274613

Sounds very familiar... I do like Lex's argument though; "I've got a bunch of people who don't understand the law asking questions to a lawyer getting the same answers but because we are both equally ignorant in the law and ask the same questions we must be right!"

It's eerily similar to the "I'm not a scientist" BS the GOP likes to spout when they also talk about the things they know nothing about but want to seem like they do.

That was a pretty horrible article you linked. How about one from the USA Today that's not so partisan.


Comey faces grilling by House panel over Clinton emails

WASHINGTON — FBI Director James Comey staunchly defended his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of private email servers while secretary of State Thursday, telling a House panel that the decision was based on an “apolitical’’ review of nearly a century of case law.

In his first public remarks since announcing the recommendation Tuesday, Comey told a politically divided House Oversight and Government Reform Committee over the course of more than four hours of intense questioning that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee did not lie to FBI agents, did not break the law and that the decision not to proceed with criminal charges was the unanimous assessment of a group of investigators and analysts whom the director described as an “all-star team’’ assembled by the Justice Department.

“There is no way anybody would bring a case against John Doe or Hillary Clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts,’’ Comey told lawmakers, referring to a review of past prosecutions.

Comey's appearance before the committee comes two days after he announced his recommendation regarding Clinton and her aides, while also saying there was evidence there were "extremely careless" in their handling of classified information. Attorney General Loretta Lynch formally closed the inquiry Wednesday.

Yet Comey's recommendation was met with considerable skepticism by committee Republicans.

“We’re mystified and confused by the fact pattern you laid out and the conclusion you reached,’’ Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Comey, adding that any other “average Joe’’ facing the same scrutiny would likely be in ”handcuffs.”

Comey sidestepped direct questions over whether Clinton's carelessness should disqualify her from future access to classified information, but indicated that any government employee who had similarly handled secret government information would be subject to a rigorous security review to determine "suitability.''

Asked whether similar management of classified information would expose an FBI employee to possible termination, Comey said, "Yes.''

Several times during the hotly partisan session, Comey pushed back against suggestions that the inquiry's outcome was influenced by political forces allied with Clinton. At the same time, however, Republicans may have been provided new fodder for attacks on Clinton's upcoming general election campaign.

In one exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., Comey acknowledged that Clinton’s previous public assertions about her management of classified information did not square with the FBI’s conclusions.

Rather than the one device Clinton had repeatedly said she used to receive and transmit information, Comey said the former secretary used “multiple” devices. The director also said that at least three communications were marked as classified when she handled them, a finding at direct odds with Clinton’s previous characterizations that no information marked classified was moved through her system.

Under questioning by Chaffetz, Comey also acknowledged that Clinton likely provided classified information to members of her legal team who did not have required security clearances.

Republican members signaled that they had no intention of letting the matter fade into the archives of closed cases. Some, including Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., signaled that they would seek a Justice Department perjury investigation into testimony Clinton provided to a House committee during a now-completed review of the secretary's role in the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. During that sworn testimony, Clinton also maintained that she did not send or receive information marked as classified on her private email servers.

Comey said FBI agents did not review Clinton's testimony in that matter, saying that Congress would have to issue a specific referral on the matter to trigger such a review.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-committee-clinton-emails-chaffetz/86793176/

 

[Matt]

She had no authority to turn over classified government documents to her attorneys. She had no authority to give her system admins access to classified government emails. Neither her Attorneys or her IT Pros had clearance to view that data. Given the amount of emails in question, they were likely uploaded to a review tool. The FBI Director had the gall to say the reviewers would only look at the headers. That's not how doc reviews work. He knows that which is why he stumbled over his explanation.j




It doesn't matter. It's deleted. It doesn't matter who deleted it. It's deleted. Official government data. Poof. They are guilty of destroying classified government data. And since they were not cleared to even access the data...




So you agree that she's guilty of violating statute 18 USC 793 (f).



Electronic transmission is already considered a legal document. I'm suggesting the first impression for you since you apparently didn't know that.




Dude, she's guilty of breaking multiple laws and protocols. Either she lied under oath or the FBI Director is lying. If she had a job she'd be fired. If she wasn't the DNC nominee she'd be indicted.




OUTSIDE.OF.THE.CUSTODY.OF.THE.US.GOVERNMENT

There's nothing ambiguous about the transmission of electronic data. It has been defined as a legal document. Once you send an email, that data is sent to another physical place. Actually, multiple physical places due to the web that is the Internet. The emails physically sat in her basement.



It doesn't matter. Evidence that the FBI director admitted to Congress today is all you need.



She signed the NDA notifying her of the consequences of her actions. Twice. Probably three times when she was First Lady. There was no ignorance of law here. There was disrespect of law.



There were emails between recipients that she sent that made the email classified the moment it was typed. Even the FBI Director said she was extremely negligent in sending these emails. Her own assistants testified in depositions regarding the Clinton Foundation that the purpose of using the personal server was for concealment.

Comey was very evident in his desire to make it appear that the FBI was apolitical. He sure looked political today. He made comments of making sure not to treat her like a celebrity but in doing so, did.



Obstruction of justice and destroying classified government data. Both crimes.



They were classified US documents.

I'm done. You've worn me out. If someone else wants to explain to him why he's wrong, have at it. Like Kel said, you can't teach the unwilling.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

I'm done. You've worn me out. If someone else wants to explain to him why he's wrong, have at it. Like Kel said, you can't teach the unwilling.

You do seem unwilling.

Oh, here's the definition of a federal record for your record.

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/federal.html#record

 

[craigdbfan]

Lex has not been unwilling at all. I've read through both of your posts and it just seems Matt is trying to pass a really reaching form of interpretation from Comey in this whole investigation as fact when it's Comey who's quite honestly bending legal interpretation to an incorrigible place.

I'm surprised we didn't just see a pretzel in Comey's place at the hearing.

 

[Matt]

You do seem unwilling.

Oh, here's the definition of a federal record for your record.

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/federal.html#record

Any a time a statute specifically lists something that identifies, the statute's definition trumps any other statute (unless specifically cited to it). Record as defined by your link differs from the record as defined by the Espionage Act, which would differ from record defined by the Stored Communications Act, which would differ from record defined by any other statute and so on and so forth. But I am done with this conversation kid. You're wrong. About everything. You're using words you do not understand to argue with someone who has gone through 7 years of school to obtain my very specialized knowledge. You are totally and unequivocally wrong. But I am done arguing with you. Have a lovely day. Enjoy your blissful ignorance.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

https://***********/wikileaks/status/751174977743970308

WikiLeaksVerified account
‏@wikileaks
@FBI Dear James--always check WikiLeaks. Our cables show that Clinton sent and recv'd tens of thousands of cables with "(C)" & "(S)" marks.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Any a time a statute specifically lists something that identifies, the statute's definition trumps any other statute (unless specifically cited to it). Record as defined by your link differs from the record as defined by the Espionage Act, which would differ from record defined by the Stored Communications Act, which would differ from record defined by any other statute and so on and so forth. But I am done with this conversation kid. You're wrong. About everything. You're using words you do not understand to argue with someone who has gone through 7 years of school to obtain my very specialized knowledge. You are totally and unequivocally wrong. But I am done arguing with you. Have a lovely day. Enjoy your blissful ignorance.

I'm wrong about everything. EVERYTHING!!! Water is wet. LIES!!!

 

[craigdbfan]

Those missing/scrubed e-mails are going to pop up in the near future and it won't be pretty for Crooked.

 

[craigdbfan]

I also don't understand why anyone can even claim someone to be "wrong" in this case when interpretation has been played around with so liberally by the FBI director.

Subverting existing law to set a dangerous precedent for the future. The lack of disciplinary action and consequences for Clinton's actions is what bothers people. Take the criminal probe out of this and she should still face some sort of reprimand but instead slides away scotch free (except not really as I firmly believe this has damaged those trust numbers she needed to improve so badly).

 

[Kelly]

I also don't understand why anyone can even claim someone to be "wrong" in this case when interpretation has been played around with so liberally by the FBI director.

Subverting existing law to set a dangerous precedent for the future. The lack of disciplinary action and consequences for Clinton's actions is what bothers people. Take the criminal probe out of this and she should still face some sort of reprimand but instead slides away scotch free (except not really as I firmly believe this has damaged those trust numbers she needed to improve so badly).

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 wrong about everything. EVERYTHING!!! Water is wet. LIES!!!

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