• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What law do you think HIllary Clinton broke?

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I had this ah-ha moment while posting on another thread. I wonder what law people thought HC had broken for which she could be prosecuted. Surely no one thinks she was guilty of treason. Is it actually against the law to use a private server? Would it have ever come up before? SHOULD there be an actual law in place NOW?
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,323
Reaction score
5,607
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798


U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 798
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

i think this is the applicable law
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
26,666
Reaction score
17,776
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
All of them. What difference, at this point, does it make?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798


U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 798
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

i think this is the applicable law

Wow. Thank you very much! Now Im even MORE cynical about the FBIs recommendation not to move forward.
 

PerfectStorm

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
4,184
Reaction score
5,097
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe this example answers your question.....

Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.



https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials#disablemobile
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,323
Reaction score
5,607
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
did they have enough for a conviction?

i dunno

based upon what i have read, do i think they had enough to indict? yeah....i do

she still may have gotten away with a not guilty verdict....very very possible

but i do believe the justice department should have at least brought it before a grand jury....and got an indictment
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
73,245
Reaction score
41,764
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
did they have enough for a conviction?

i dunno

based upon what i have read, do i think they had enough to indict? yeah....i do

she still may have gotten away with a not guilty verdict....very very possible

but i do believe the justice department should have at least brought it before a grand jury....and got an indictment

There are (at least) two problems with that plan:

1) The POTUS wanted to campaign (and fund raise) for HRC - far better (politically essential?) not to have her under indictment.

2) Once a grand jury, jury or judge is allowed to decide her fate then reversing a "bad" decision would have required a formal pardon. Obama found it best to "suggest" that his appointees not pursue the technical violation of a federal "rule" or "policy" (never call those things laws) - after all, nobody (except those under control of his appointees) can (or need to) prove anything at all.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
28,521
Reaction score
14,724
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Regardless of what security laws are broken, the main issues for me are her character, and personal accountability issues.

Those two traits are missing from that lady.
 

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,555
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I had this ah-ha moment while posting on another thread. I wonder what law people thought HC had broken for which she could be prosecuted. Surely no one thinks she was guilty of treason. Is it actually against the law to use a private server? Would it have ever come up before? SHOULD there be an actual law in place NOW?

I wrote this last night on FB:

Since the FBI determined not to indict Hillary Clinton today. I think what a lot of my Republicans friends are forgetting is that in most cases it is extremely hard to prove negligence and it is even harder to prove bad intentions.

Also lying isn't a crime, just ask Trump he does it all the time!! Short of being able to read Hillary Clinton's mind, this would never have gone to trial!

That being said, I respect the FBI's decision on this matter so that the case can be properly closed, but there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton lied to us about her mishandling of technology and for me personally as an IT Professional, that is very risky behavior I never want to see in a President! This is the main reason I will not be voting for her.

Simply put it is not a crime to lie and it is incredibly hard to prove lying and what one's intentions were in a court of law.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,582
Reaction score
11,947
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can accept the conclusion Hillary was grossly careless in using a private server for her work.

What I cannot accept is her lying about not sending or receiving classified material on that server. Her honesty and trustworthiness took a very big hit with this one. But hey, like any politician, she will state what she thinks people want to hear.:mrgreen:
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798


U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 798
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

i think this is the applicable law

I'm not sure when it became a crime but people, Republican people, have gone to prison for lying to federal investigators. You know, like saying you had turned over all the emails when you hadn't or saying you didn't email classified documents over you unsecure email server when when you had or that the private server was only so you can use just one digital device when that wasn't true or when you said the unsecured server was only for personal emails when that wasn't true either.

Apparently, lying to investigators is a serious crime if you're not a Clinton but then so is perjury, isn't it?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,635
Reaction score
21,914
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I wrote this last night on FB:

Since the FBI determined not to indict Hillary Clinton today. I think what a lot of my Republicans friends are forgetting is that in most cases it is extremely hard to prove negligence and it is even harder to prove bad intentions.

Also lying isn't a crime, just ask Trump he does it all the time!! Short of being able to read Hillary Clinton's mind, this would never have gone to trial!

That being said, I respect the FBI's decision on this matter so that the case can be properly closed, but there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton lied to us about her mishandling of technology and for me personally as an IT Professional, that is very risky behavior I never want to see in a President! This is the main reason I will not be voting for her.

Simply put it is not a crime to lie and it is incredibly hard to prove lying and what one's intentions were in a court of law.

Actually, in regards to Hillary's actions in this case, it is a crime to lie.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
18 U.S. Code § 1001. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

As for the laws? Here is an excellent post explaining it quite well:

Here's the problem mak2, for the law to be broken, there doesn't have to be intent, just the act...
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,961
Reaction score
17,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If there was a technological equivalent and compliment to the Peter Principle, I am confident that that's where you would find Powell, Clinton, and other appointed staff.
 

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,555
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Actually, in regards to Hillary's actions in this case, it is a crime to lie.

18 U.S. Code § 1001. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

As for the laws? Here is an excellent post explaining it quite well:

But it is hard to prove willfully and knowingly. That's what Comey was saying. Simply put we cannot know what is/was in her mind at the time. She lied over time and the message was not a great message that she was sending out, and as time went on it got more and more confusing, but it can never be proven by a jury that she did this on purpose.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,635
Reaction score
21,914
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
But it is hard to prove willfully and knowingly. That's what Comey was saying. Simply put we cannot know what is/was in her mind at the time. She lied over time and the message was not a great message that she was sending out, and as time went on it got more and more confusing, but it can never be proven by a jury that she did this on purpose.

Did you bother to read the cited post I also supplied? I didn't quote Beaudreaux for no good reason.

Clinton willingly and knowingly used a personal server and email account for government business.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not any that would cause any prosecutor to file charges against her.

Check with the head of the FBI.

:lol:
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,635
Reaction score
21,914
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
But that is not a crime and lying about doing so is not either.

Did she destroy the records without forwarding all requisite information/copies to a government record-keeping authority as required by the cited legal authorities?
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
She had 110 classified emails on her computer. She either did or she didn't. IF she did she should be convicted.
did they have enough for a conviction?

i dunno

based upon what i have read, do i think they had enough to indict? yeah....i do

she still may have gotten away with a not guilty verdict....very very possible

but i do believe the justice department should have at least brought it before a grand jury....and got an indictment
 
Top Bottom