Everything Is Always Watergate: Clinton Email Edition

[pbrauer]

If it was on her server and was heavily redacted by the State Department before being released as they have done recently, then that information was/is classified.

It was knowingly housed off premise by Ms. Clinton and that is a crime.

Why are you questioning this?

She knew it was there. The location was not authorized. The documents contain classified information.

She hit the ball and touched 'em all. A home run of illegality.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It's All Politics : NPR

<snip>
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
<snip>

I've read articles that refute most of what is in your NPR report. You're sounding like a lawyer because you know what laws apply. Are you a lawyer or just a partisan hack?

You say classified emails where on her server, if that is true and she knew about them, how would she get them off her server on a day-to-day basis. Also, if the emails were deleted, they don't go away, internal links are erased, but the data still stays there until a program is used to erase the data.

Edit:

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday none of the information censored in Monday's release was identified as classified when the emails were sent or received by Clinton, noting the redactions were made subsequently and only prior to the release of the emails under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[pbrauer]

Clinton, aides stressed protecting State Dept info in email - US News

 

[humbolt]

Well if you were able to divine this truth from the depths of your considerable imagination, please do share it with the FBI because they have yet to file any actual charges!!

There's no imagination involved. It's just the law. I do have a considerable imagination, but I'm not employing it here. I'm simply stating the relevant law. Do you want the Federal Statutes? I'd be glad to link you to them if you need to see them in black and white. Besides, who says the FBI won't be filing charges? You? Heh. I didn't know you had contacts there. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't, but consider that they work for the WH these days. I suspect the WH will be satisfied that Hillary's ambitions are destroyed and probably won't go any further than assuring that outcome.

 

[code1211]

I've read articles that refute most of what is in your NPR report. You're sounding like a lawyer because you know what laws apply. Are you a lawyer or just a partisan hack?

You say classified emails where on her server, if that is true and she knew about them, how would she get them off her server on a day-to-day basis. Also, if the emails were deleted, they don't go away, internal links are erased, but the data still stays there until a program is used to erase the data.

Edit:

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Monday none of the information censored in Monday's release was identified as classified when the emails were sent or received by Clinton, noting the redactions were made subsequently and only prior to the release of the emails under the Freedom of Information Act.

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It's All Politics : NPR

<snip>
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
<snip>

 

[bubbabgone]

You obviously need better legal council.

The state is obligated to prove that you did something wrong without your own sworn testimony. If they can't do that, then they have no reason to believe you did anything wrong.

Look, they have been on this witch hunt and they have a taste for blood.

Trying to steer clear of being sucked into prison because of some petty partisan grudge is totally understandable.

What's your vision of the Congressional testimony scenario that could cause such a sucking if there was nothing improper and he simply tells the truth?

 

[pbrauer]

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It's All Politics : NPR

<snip>
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
<snip>

Does that apply to computers? It looks to me like it was speaking about paper documents.

 

[Absentglare]

There's no imagination involved. It's just the law. I do have a considerable imagination, but I'm not employing it here. I'm simply stating the relevant law. Do you want the Federal Statutes? I'd be glad to link you to them if you need to see them in black and white. Besides, who says the FBI won't be filing charges? You? Heh. I didn't know you had contacts there. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't, but consider that they work for the WH these days. I suspect the WH will be satisfied that Hillary's ambitions are destroyed and probably won't go any further than assuring that outcome.

You're assuming she's guilty when they haven't even filed charges yet. I'll wait even longer than that, i'll wait until they actually find her guilty in court to conclude that she's guilty.

But you are right- the only reason this is being brought up is because other people don't want her in the white house. Congratulations on playing a role in their prejudicial political attacks.

What's your vision of the Congressional testimony scenario that could cause such a sucking if there was nothing improper and he simply tells the truth?

Pleading the fifth does not imply guilt.

If CEOs avoid jail time by using it, i don't see what's wrong with some poor, innocent IT professional from using it. What do you think he is guilty of ? Some sort of bizarre Clinton spy conspiracy?

The problem is that even just telling the truth candidly, you can stumble over yourself, or provide some circumstantial evidence that is then used to initiate a new, unrelated investigation into you. Now, let's assume it looks bad but it turns out you're innocent, now you have to spend a ****load of money and time to defend yourself and, even if you win in court, it can ruin your reputation. This may sound far fetched, but it's exactly what has happened (so far) with Hillary. She was accused of a bunch of bogus nonsense about Benghazi that all turned out fruitless. But in the process of digging, they found this quasi-legal mishandling of classified information. Why put yourself through that for no reason ? The law says you don't have to.

There are plenty of explanations that are wayyyy better than mine- pleading the fifth does not implicate a suspect.

 

[code1211]

Does that apply to computers? It looks to me like it was speaking about paper documents.

Classified information sounds to me like it could be any format. Does anyone STILL use paper documents?

It would seem to include paper docs, but e-docs are also very useful tools to both save and convey information, classified or non-classified.

Edward Snowden took about 1.7 million documents. these were taken electronically. these were still documents and they still had information.

To my knowledge, the Obama Administration has yet to excuse this as not in line with the letter of the law. In truth, Snowden has been charged with espionage. Almost all of the 1.7 million docs were electronic.

Of course, we already know that the Obama Justice department enforces law situationally. They can consider it a crime when Snowden does it and just an oversight when Hillary does it.

Snowden and his ilk are why the rules regarding the handling of classified materials exist.

How Many Docs Did Snowden Take? - Business Insider

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html

 

[humbolt]

=Absentglare;1064994845]You're assuming she's guilty when they haven't even filed charges yet. I'll wait even longer than that, i'll wait until they actually find her guilty in court to conclude that she's guilty.

But you are right- the only reason this is being brought up is because other people don't want her in the white house. Congratulations on playing a role in their prejudicial political attacks.

Stating the law is not prejudicial. It's simply a statement of fact. That you can't accept it is your problem. What charges may or may not accrue as a result do not change the fact that she has broken the law in a serious manner. You might ask yourself exactly why people don't want her in the WH. The preceding, while not indicative of WH concerns, might have something to do with it. The WH has it's own agenda, and given their proclivities, they probably have nothing to do with legality. Legality has never been a primary concern of theirs. Political issues do seem to absorb them nearly entirely.

 

[pbrauer]

Classified information sounds to me like it could be any format. Does anyone STILL use paper documents?

It would seem to include paper docs, but e-docs are also very useful tools to both save and convey information, classified or non-classified.

Edward Snowden took about 1.7 million documents. these were taken electronically. these were still documents and they still had information.

To my knowledge, the Obama Administration has yet to excuse this as not in line with the letter of the law. In truth, Snowden has been charged with espionage. Almost all of the 1.7 million docs were electronic.

Of course, we already know that the Obama Justice department enforces law situationally. They can consider it a crime when Snowden does it and just an oversight when Hillary does it.

Snowden and his ilk are why the rules regarding the handling of classified materials exist.

How Many Docs Did Snowden Take? - Business Insider

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html

You are really getting desperate, Snowden Stole those documents. Hillary didn't steal anything.

 

[Jack Hays]

FYI, Taking the fifth doesn't imply guilt.

Apparently Jack thinks due process doesn't apply to democrats.

Of course it doesn't imply guilt.

 

[Fenton]

You are really getting desperate, Snowden Stole those documents. Hillary didn't steal anything.

Saw this earlier. Clinton's Press Secretary not doing her or her supporters any favors..

" I dont know what wiped means " ??



:lamo

 

[NonoBadDog]

Saw this earlier. Clinton's Press Secretary not doing her or her supporters any favors..

" I dont know what wiped means " ??



:lamo

People watched that and went, "What!!! really?!!!!!"

 

[bubbabgone]

You're assuming she's guilty when they haven't even filed charges yet. I'll wait even longer than that, i'll wait until they actually find her guilty in court to conclude that she's guilty.

But you are right- the only reason this is being brought up is because other people don't want her in the white house. Congratulations on playing a role in their prejudicial political attacks.



Pleading the fifth does not imply guilt.

If CEOs avoid jail time by using it,

i don't see what's wrong with some poor, innocent IT professional from using it.

What do you think he is guilty of ? Some sort of bizarre Clinton spy conspiracy?

The problem is that even just telling the truth candidly, you can stumble over yourself, or provide some circumstantial evidence that is then used to initiate a new, unrelated investigation into you. Now, let's assume it looks bad but it turns out you're innocent, now you have to spend a ****load of money and time to defend yourself and, even if you win in court, it can ruin your reputation. This may sound far fetched,

but it's exactly what has happened (so far) with Hillary. She was accused of a bunch of bogus nonsense about Benghazi that all turned out fruitless.

But in the process of digging, they found this quasi-legal mishandling of classified information.

Why put yourself through that for no reason ? The law says you don't have to.

There are plenty of explanations that are wayyyy better than mine- pleading the fifth does not implicate a suspect.

I understand he was paid by taxpayers for his work on Hillary's personal server. Is that a conflict? If he was taxpayer funded then the server & contents can really be considered Government product so should Hillary have deleted any emails at all? As for his innocence he could say he was only following orders. That defense has been used before, you might recall.

1) What was she accused of about Benghazi? Lying about the video? That's a piece of ripe fruit. Questions about arms and Libyan rebels and questions about security at the Consulate? That's fruit ... it's just not ripe yet.
2) Quasi mishandling of classified emails? That certainly comes from a tree that's bearing fruit every day ... very productive, it is.

But my question was what truth you can imagine he would say in his testimony that would undeservedly incriminate himself. You were kinda vague.

 

[Absentglare]

Stating the law is not prejudicial. It's simply a statement of fact. That you can't accept it is your problem. What charges may or may not accrue as a result do not change the fact that she has broken the law in a serious manner. You might ask yourself exactly why people don't want her in the WH. The preceding, while not indicative of WH concerns, might have something to do with it. The WH has it's own agenda, and given their proclivities, they probably have nothing to do with legality. Legality has never been a primary concern of theirs. Political issues do seem to absorb them nearly entirely.

Presuming Hillary's guilt based on unfounded allegations from "unnamed sources" is absolutely prejudice. That's textbook prejudice, making a judgement without reference to facts.

I don't even like Hillary, i'm just not prejudiced against her, unlike her more vocal, unhinged critics.

I understand he was paid by taxpayers for his work on Hillary's personal server. Is that a conflict? If he was taxpayer funded then the server & contents can really be considered Government product so should Hillary have deleted any emails at all? As for his innocence he could say he was only following orders. That defense has been used before, you might recall.

1) What was she accused of about Benghazi? Lying about the video? That's a piece of ripe fruit. Questions about arms and Libyan rebels and questions about security at the Consulate? That's fruit ... it's just not ripe yet.
2) Quasi mishandling of classified emails? That certainly comes from a tree that's bearing fruit every day ... very productive, it is.

But my question was what truth you can imagine he would say in his testimony that would undeservedly incriminate himself. You were kinda vague.

Oh? If i'm employed by the government, and i do my friend a favor in my spare time, the government owns the favor ?

Or are you saying the server itself was government funded ? Then she wasn't using a private server, she was using a government server? That's your argument...?

Don't try to compare some IT worker to Hitler's lieutenants...

1) Wrong on both counts.
2) Wrong again.

It doesn't matter what i think he might say to incriminate himself. He has the right to remain silent. Maybe you think this is such a serious scenario that said right should be revoked, if so, you'd fit right in with Stalin's Russia. Here, we believe in freedom. That means it's the burden of the government to demonstrate a crime, rather than detaining and harassing a law-abiding citizen until they confess to some crime.

 

[humbolt]

Presuming Hillary's guilt based on unfounded allegations from "unnamed sources" is absolutely prejudice. That's textbook prejudice, making a judgement without reference to facts.

I don't even like Hillary, i'm just not prejudiced against her, unlike her more vocal, unhinged critics.

The fact that top secret information passed through her server has already been established by the IG, so that allegation is well-founded and incontrovertible. Furthermore, that classification was established at another agency. Explain the prejudice of the IG in his finding of fact.

 

[Absentglare]

The fact that top secret information passed through her server has already been established by the IG, so that allegation is well-founded and incontrovertible. Furthermore, that classification was established at another agency. Explain the prejudice of the IG in his finding of fact.

They aren't being prejudiced.

The prejudice is where you blame Hillary and condemn her for imaginary crimes. She's the one you want to hurt. It doesn't matter if someone else f-ed up and put classified information on an unclassified network, what matters is that you don't like Hillary so you blame her in reckless defiance of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[humbolt]

They aren't being prejudiced.

The prejudice is where you blame Hillary and condemn her for imaginary crimes. She's the one you want to hurt. It doesn't matter if someone else f-ed up and put classified information on an unclassified network, what matters is that you don't like Hillary so you blame her in reckless defiance of innocent until proven guilty.

So the fact that highly classified information is on her unsecured server, that server set up by her for such things, is not her fault. You're really lost in la-la land on this. If she was standing over a body riddled with bullet holes and a smoking gun in her hand, powder residue on that hand, you'd be asking her who shot the sucker.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Presuming Hillary's guilt based on unfounded allegations from "unnamed sources" is absolutely prejudice. That's textbook prejudice, making a judgement without reference to facts.

I don't even like Hillary, i'm just not prejudiced against her, unlike her more vocal, unhinged critics.



Oh? If i'm employed by the government, and i do my friend a favor in my spare time, the government owns the favor ?

Or are you saying the server itself was government funded ? Then she wasn't using a private server, she was using a government server? That's your argument...?

Don't try to compare some IT worker to Hitler's lieutenants...

1) Wrong on both counts.
2) Wrong again.

It doesn't matter what i think he might say to incriminate himself. He has the right to remain silent. Maybe you think this is such a serious scenario that said right should be revoked, if so, you'd fit right in with Stalin's Russia. Here, we believe in freedom. That means it's the burden of the government to demonstrate a crime, rather than detaining and harassing a law-abiding citizen until they confess to some crime.

Now that's outright bull ****, with a helping of manure.

You have claimed prejudice of everyone else, dragged in third and forth parties who were also "said" to have done similiar offenses as proof of how Hilary is being raked over the coals.

With mounting evidence she has been far from truthful, mountain evidence that thousands of secure emails may have been at risk, all you can harp about is "Powell did it too" but have offered not one shred of proof that he did.

Meanwhile, now with proof she lied, with her aids bailing out on her, you say EVERYONE ELSE is biased?

Based on your defenses she should be jailed this instant.

This puffy, partisan weasling is why Trump is in the lead and why so much slime is sticking to her and her minions

 

[bubbabgone]

Presuming Hillary's guilt based on unfounded allegations from "unnamed sources" is absolutely prejudice. That's textbook prejudice, making a judgement without reference to facts.

I don't even like Hillary, i'm just not prejudiced against her, unlike her more vocal, unhinged critics.



Oh?

(1) If i'm employed by the government, and i do my friend a favor in my spare time,

the government owns the favor ?

(2)Or are you saying the server itself was government funded ? Then she wasn't using a private server, she was using a government server? That's your argument...?

Don't try to compare some IT worker to Hitler's lieutenants...

(3)
1) Wrong on both counts.
2) Wrong again.

It doesn't matter what i think he might say to incriminate himself. He has the right to remain silent. Maybe you think this is such a serious scenario that said right should be revoked, if so, you'd fit right in with Stalin's Russia. Here, we believe in freedom. That means it's the burden of the government to demonstrate a crime, rather than detaining and harassing a law-abiding citizen until they confess to some crime.

(1) Oh that's a knee-slapper.
(2) If the server was used for government business as she intended then, yes, she had a responsibility to turn it over to the Government. There's really no doubt about that.
(3) Then in your mind what WAS she accused of?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Of course it doesn't imply guilt.

"On the advice of counsel, I decline to comment under the provisions under the fifth amendment, on grounds it may tend to incriminate me."

No evidence of guilt, just self incrimination

 

[Absentglare]

So the fact that highly classified information is on her unsecured server, that server set up by her for such things, is not her fault. You're really lost in la-la land on this. If she was standing over a body riddled with bullet holes and a smoking gun in her hand, powder residue on that hand, you'd be asking her who shot the sucker.

If you're not concerned at all with how that information came to be there, then you're the one lost in la-la land.

If Snowden emailed me some classified document, while completely uninvited to do so by me, that was not labeled classified in any way, would i rightly be thrown in prison ? Absolutely not...

Now that's outright bull ****, with a helping of manure.

You have claimed prejudice of everyone else, dragged in third and forth parties who were also "said" to have done similiar offenses as proof of how Hilary is being raked over the coals.

With mounting evidence she has been far from truthful, mountain evidence that thousands of secure emails may have been at risk, all you can harp about is "Powell did it too" but have offered not one shred of proof that he did.

Meanwhile, now with proof she lied, with her aids bailing out on her, you say EVERYONE ELSE is biased?

Based on your defenses she should be jailed this instant.

This puffy, partisan weasling is why Trump is in the lead and why so much slime is sticking to her and her minions

I bring up Colin Powell and the republican administration because they have actually done the same things. I offer this lack of outrage directed at your political messiahs as proof of your prejudice.

They used unofficial emails to conduct official business. They likely had some classified information in their emails, just as Hillary did. Your overly inclusive definitions of what constitutes "classified" information nearly guarantees this.

(1) Oh that's a knee-slapper.
(2) If the server was used for government business as she intended then, yes, she had a responsibility to turn it over to the Government. There's really no doubt about that.
(3) Then in your mind what WAS she accused of?

(1) then do you hold the previous republican administration responsible for the destruction of some 22 million emails ?

(2) no, no she didn't. The records act simply requires that she submitted records. She had provided the state department with hard copies of her official emails. That's all that's required.

(3) being a democrat that republicans want to demonize.

 

[code1211]

You are really getting desperate, Snowden Stole those documents. Hillary didn't steal anything.

Perhaps you should consider that she took the emails issued to the Secretary of State, and agent of the US government, from the intended storage facility to her personal storage facility.

She was stealing from the USA. So was Snowden.

There is no difference if you are an impartial observer.

I think it can be argued that Snowden was pursuing a noble goal while Hillary was pursuing her own selfish, personal profit at the expense of history, the citizenry and ethical behavior.

Snowden was at least a believer in something greater than himself.

I'm not sure that Hillary recognizes such a thing.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Perhaps you should consider that she took the emails issued to the Secretary of State, and agent of the US government, from the intended storage facility to her personal storage facility.

She was stealing from the USA. So was Snowden.

There is no difference if you are an impartial observer.

I think it can be argued that Snowden was pursuing a noble goal while Hillary was pursuing her own selfish, personal profit at the expense of history, the citizenry and ethical behavior.

Snowden was at least a believer in something greater than himself.

I'm not sure that Hillary recognizes such a thing.

Excellent post!

 

[humbolt]

If you're not concerned at all with how that information came to be there, then you're the one lost in la-la land.

If Snowden emailed me some classified document, while completely uninvited to do so by me, that was not labeled classified in any way, would i rightly be thrown in prison ? Absolutely not...

Sorry. If Clinton had operated a secure server for such information in accordance with government policy, the issue would be moot. I mentioned this earlier and it went right by you because you're a Clinton/democrat supporter before you're an American supporter, which explains why the violation of national security policy doesn't bother you one damn bit. You put politics before the national interest just like Hillary and the democrat players at the national level have demonstrated repeatedly.