Oh Hillary, "You've got Jail."

Still waiting for your response to msg 837

Well what changed and your evidence of it? The only thing that changed was the inspectors were locked out and Saddam left to his own devices. So why would you assert that change was for the good vis-a-vis WMD?

What is your proof he was wrong? UNSCOM was in the process of gathering and DESTORYING WMD when they were kicked out in 1998. What happened to the ones that were left?

Correct, it didn't work and it was not a preemptive war, it was a continuation of hostilities after Saddam violated the cease fire agreement.

What fresh intelligence proved Saddam was in compliance with the cease-fire and had not active WMD or the proscribed items need to rearm?

It just wasn't about us and Saddam had already done LOTS of aggressive somethings which was why he was under a cease fire, under sanctions, under no-fly zones and a blockade. Acts of war against him already.

 

"one of the most vocal and unequivocal supporters to that war."
...are u kidding me? how can u say this with a straight face...
oh I forgot, u don't have to cause we can't SEE ur face

lmbo at my own joke!
(giggle)

 

Since you make this statement, would you also be making the same statement regarding Obama since he did not go to Congress for the bombing, overthrow and assassination of Gaddafi? Then Obama financing terrorist groups, shipping weapons to al Qaeda, its affiliates, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood through Qatar and Turkey. Isn't that the cause of the death of the Ambassador, and three others. Not to mention that this has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, Christians, Yazidis, Kurds and Iraqis. Shouldn't criminal investigations into Obama's decisions go forward related to the above, including Fast and Furious, the IRS, Veterans Administration?

 

Let an attorney lawsplain it to you:

"Here, if it is determined that by “gross negligence” she permitted information “relating to the national defense” (as opposed to the more formal “classified” definition) “to be removed from its proper place of custody”, then she could be facing up to 10 years behind bars.

Reading this as a layperson one might think this could be an easier crime to prove. Not so.


Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody? ” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.


In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:

“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”


​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.

Furthermore, ”gross negligence” as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as:

“A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”


​

As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal:

“Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”


​

That is another critical point here. This Espionage Law clearly was never intended to address a Secretary of State using — foolishly or even improperly to maintain her privacy — a personal email server to send and receive emails. Inevitably, this novel use of the law would leave a political stink.

Efforts to compare this situation to other cases that have been prosecuted also fail on the facts."

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/tru...houldnt-be-charged-based-on-what-we-know-now/

 

Are you denying it with a straight face? You did not listen to her speech before the ATUMF vote? You did not listen to her speech before the Code Pink group just before that vote?

YES, she was one of the most vocal and uneqivical supporters of the war against Saddam and they use our military to remove him and his government.

So you are not supporting her for President then are you?

 

The bad faith and intentional is one thing, she is facing the gross negligence in which she clearly engaged, then there are the emails SHE created with classified information included in them, then there is her willful and purposeful refusal to use a secure system that was offered to her. Then there is her instructing underlings to remove classified information off the secure servers and send it to her on unsecured servers.

Let me esplain it from an expert in classified information and SCI and SCIF handling of such information. My Marine Captain Son who works with the NSA at NSA in such communications, she should be sitting in a federal prison right now for what she did with classified information and her handling of it. And believe me he has been THOROUGHLY schooled in such legal matters

 

MMC is a sharp guy, and he's absolutely correct about Canks.

 

I did respond sweetie, but I see why u didn't think I did. I replied to MMC who said "u called it!" meaning that the post u reposted here from 3/3 was what he thought too. I was trying to answer both of u with the same post.

I didn't go line by line like u did. I don't know that I disagreed with anything u said. but, u ARE getting pretty far into the weeds here AND r holding people to the fine detail of their statements,
...so before I comment on that level of detail, and I'd have to think about how u might misconstrue my points.

BUT, the following was my precious response:

"lol
...and there IS a reason for that!!!!!
and even u guys see it, if u would only admit!!!

if u gave Hillary, half as much leeway as u give George Bush,
.....this thread wouldn't even exist.

it's extremely hypocritical to give GW and anyone from Republican Party a pass, no matter what they do, how many lives their mistakes take, or how many tax payer dollars they squander....
and yet u persecute with great vigor and extraordinary passion JUST THE SUSPICION of wrong doing from the other side, and ESPECIALLY Hillary.

it's laughable really. To have no shame, when u are being so blatantly bias in ur attitudes and hateful in ur speech,
...lays waste to all ur arguments

Take some advice from the good book;
Mathew 7:3
"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

 

Though there are no public declarations, this isn't difficult to figure out with recent events.

The DoJ gave immunity from prosecution to Hillary's IT Tech for his testimony, 5 or 6 months AFTER he declared the 5th. If they were simply curious then they would have given immunity months ago.

It's not exactly obvious to most people, but giving "immunity" at this late date shows they intend to go forward with criminal action. The DoJ doesn't give immunity unless they intend to move forward to prosecute someone. It's about time with the mountain of evidence they have already.

Hillary is still blowing it off as a "security review" but the FBI doesn't do reviews, they investigate and prosecute crimes. She's evidently counting on getting a pass.

News article, 'Since last September, “in public statements and testimony, the Bureau has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server,” (James) Baker wrote to the State Department.

“The FBI has not, however, publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such proceedings.

“Thus … we remain unable [to] provide [details about the case] without adversely affecting on-going LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS,” he concluded.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268688-fbi-confirms-probe-clinton-probe-is-ongoing

Fox News will have Hillary in a Detroit Town Hall Monday. I hope they ask her again if she's worried. The low dem voter turnout is already being influenced by the process, so she is also destroying other local dem candidates' donations, potential election loss, etc. etc. The dems should be in revolt soon I think!

If Hillary had an ounce of integrity then she would have stepped down.

Steve

 

Castro Brother: Hillary's Been Cleared By Justice Department

Rep. Joaquin Castro, the twin brother of HUD secretary Julian Castro, claimed this morning on CNN that Hillary Clinton had been cleared by the Justice Department: "It's been settled by the Congress," Castro said, talking nonsensically. "You know, the Congress has looked into it, the Justice Department has looked into it, and they've cleared her."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001429

Lolz this guy sounds about as well informed as the typical democrat on this matter.

More Canks collateral damage.

- - - Updated - - -

The answers she gives will be in all the headlines next week.

 

1. Classified retroactively.

2. The document Hillary Clinton asked aids to send to her by non-classified means was her talking points memo for public dissemination. Hardly a breach of security.

3. An analysis of classified information laws shows it takes intentional disclosure to get an indictment. -Law Journal

4. Her server was legal, and by all accounts more secure than the State dept. -- which *was* hacked.

5. Let's say she *does* get indicted, in your picture peachy world. The chance of a jury of her peers unanimously finding her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt she is guilty of violating that espionage law? Ha! The word you'd be looking for is: Nil.

 

The rightwing lunatics are still beating this dead horse?

Do something constructive, and more viable.

How is the Loch Ness Monster?

 

They did give him immunity months ago.

 

That's false. If lefties didn't have their head in the sand then this would be over.

Steve

 

ok, no problem...

while I DO NOT agree with anything u said, and think only an extreme conspiracy theorist would even entertain what u r suggesting....

I don't think Obama did anything wrong in choosing his plan of action in the Middle East. u have to admit it's a d*mn hard problem, with no clear solution.
...i do not think HE has done anything wrong OR criminal in ANY of the cases u mention!

...but, I don't see a problem looking into it.
if he's as innocent of wrong doing as I think he is, he would b vindicated and MAYBE all this lane brained conspiracy talk would finally stop!

 

"Washington (CNN)Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department staffer who helped set up Hillary Clinton's private email server, began his cooperation with the FBI and the Justice Department under an immunity deal late last year after initially rebuffing investigators, according to a U.S. law enforcement official."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-bryan-pagliano/

 

No-not classified retroactively-she SIGNED AGREEMENTS that state classified material is classified material, regardless of how its marked at the time. Things like the subject matter and source MAKE it classified-no markings needed.

LATER, Obama signed a law requiring new materials to be marked classified.

 

enjoy ur speculations
endulge urself in invisioning all ur hopes and dreams coming true.
spit fire at paper targets

until she's charged, this is all masterbation and self gratification.

 

why, you immediately say the guy is misinformed, because it doesn't mirror what u expected to happen? it's obvious u hadn't checked to see if he was correct before u responded.

that is the definition of "closed minded" my friend

 

Wee since the BENGHAZI non-scandal is dead in the water, the tin foil hat crowd desperately needed another non-scandal to latch onto.

 

(giggle)
yup!!!

 

Yes, later marked classified, and there are disagreements between agencies between what should even be classified. That's a lot of what's happening here.

The fact also remains, things can happen *later* - and event in the world, a world leader's statement, a conflict, that can make information that was benign and clearly not classifiable - at the time - become classified later, when requests for public viewing happen.

Weird how some people don't understand this simple concept.

Also, agencies have been known to overclassifiy information that is splattered all over the media, and is widely circulated public information - like the drone program, for ex. but any mention of it, even if it's a newspaper article, it get classified.

You should know this by now.


Now how about you give my question #5 a go? What are the chances of a jury of her peers unanimously finding her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating that espionage law?

 

That's the biased media attempting to soothe your fears. "Late last year" doesn't tell us when he was given immunity. He declared the 5th in September of 2015. So there was a lag time before DoJ decided they wanted to hear what he had to say.

Are you people so dense that it has to be spelled out to you? Donations and potential election loss are affecting the entire democrat party because of Hillary's desire for power!

Steve

 

wrong, wrong, wrong

u guys ALWAYS attack the person debating u, when u can't hold up ur end if the debate!
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!!!!
...pretty lame if u ask me

but,
soooo stereotypical!!!
(laughing sadly)

 

When you get caught -- blame the media. That's the ticket.