I'm not a lawyer either, but did get an "A" in Business Law in junior college. I think the key word here is "authorized". You see, murder is illegal...unless it is authorized. And whatever Hillary has done, it has been authorized, either while it was happening, and/or post facto. She has been authorized to have been grossly negligent.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Comey Clears Hillary
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
I'm not a lawyer either, but did get an "A" in Business Law in junior college. I think the key word here is "authorized". You see, murder is illegal...unless it is authorized. And whatever Hillary has done, it has been authorized, either while it was happening, and/or post facto. She has been authorized to have been grossly negligent.
Wow with this line of reasoning you got your "A" grade? Which community college did you attend again?
I'm not a lawyer either, but did get an "A" in Business Law in junior college. I think the key word here is "authorized". You see, murder is illegal...unless it is authorized. And whatever Hillary has done, it has been authorized, either while it was happening, and/or post facto. She has been authorized to have been grossly negligent.
Wow with this line of reasoning you got your "A" grade? Which community college did you attend again?
What then is your definition of authorized? I doubt its what you think it is.
my opinion? It is that whether authorized or not is completely irrelevant in this context. All that matters is that she had no intent and that it was not like she was carrying top secret information with her on an unencrypted USB stick. The public is hugely mislead by some interested parties that suggest that hackers already obtained information off her email server which is simply not proven at all. That email server was behind a firewall and protected but obviously did it fail the security standards by large margin, which nobody is debating. How secure that firewall was/is is everyone's guess which is why only those truly in the know are able to judge how much she exposed herself to theft. Certainly do you nor I know in the end how secure or insecure that setup really was. At least not at this point. And I know there hundreds if not thousands of websites on the net that claim otherwise. Yet none of them are based on facts and verifiable information.
What then is your definition of authorized? I doubt its what you think it is.
my opinion? It is that whether authorized or not is completely irrelevant in this context. All that matters is that she had no intent and that it was not like she was carrying top secret information with her on an unencrypted USB stick. The public is hugely mislead by some interested parties that suggest that hackers already obtained information off her email server which is simply not proven at all. That email server was behind a firewall and protected but obviously did it fail the security standards by large margin, which nobody is debating. How secure that firewall was/is is everyone's guess which is why only those truly in the know are able to judge how much she exposed herself to theft. Certainly do you nor I know in the end how secure or insecure that setup really was. At least not at this point. And I know there hundreds if not thousands of websites on the net that claim otherwise. Yet none of them are based on facts and verifiable information.
When you say that all that matters is there is no intent, you demonstrate how authority is given as an example. You have given her authority to have, at least, been grossly negligent, which is the same as extremely careless, which is also against the law as much as intent. By disregarding the carelessness, she has been authorized to do so by the FBI, and will also be authorized by the DOJ post facto. While it was happening, she was authorized by the President, and anyone else high up who knew. She could carry top secret docs on an unencrypted usb if she was authorized to do so. She could do this too, because she was authorized. As for who knows, who hacked, who didn't hack, i'll be interested to see some of the hacked emails that have been turned over to Julian Assange.
What we know, apparently, is she had multiple servers at home, sounds like consecutively. Some deleted were recovered. But the whole point of such a set up is to be able to fully control who sees what, and involved the ability to actually destroy. Are you saying she could not have destroyed anything? Now, this is not like an un-encrypted usb in pocket, but from that location and that circumstance, she was in a position to sell information to foreign nations, or multinational companies. Doesn't even have to send the data; just provide enough info for the interested party to hack the information out. The FBI says they can't tell how many hackers may have gained access.
my opinion? It is that whether authorized or not is completely irrelevant in this context.
Oh, look at what else i found on the internet. Not sure if it is the proof you need though because this report is from a partisan source
:
it must be true, it's the internet.
Oh, look at what else i found on the internet. Not sure if it is the proof you need though because this report is from a partisan source
:
it must be true, it's the internet.
The report is on the internet from a partisan source, but the cognitive dissonance is demonstrated by contradicting statements made by Comey and Clinton who gave statements while not on the internet. You said you liked facts, or at least your statements to be backed up. In this report, the partisan (Trump) makes no statements of his own. He just lets two of the main players in this scenario make their own contradicting statements. So, what, or whose facts are not backed up by their statements here, Comey's or Clinton's?
thanks at least for admitting that there are no facts on the open table that would warrant an indictment of Clinton. That is all I wanted to establish.
The report is on the internet from a partisan source, but the cognitive dissonance is demonstrated by contradicting statements made by Comey and Clinton who gave statements while not on the internet. You said you liked facts, or at least your statements to be backed up. In this report, the partisan (Trump) makes no statements of his own. He just lets two of the main players in this scenario make their own contradicting statements. So, what, or whose facts are not backed up by their statements here, Comey's or Clinton's?
thanks at least for admitting that there are no facts on the open table that would warrant an indictment of Clinton. That is all I wanted to establish.
You obviously did not listen to Comey, the FBI Director. Any first year law student could get a conviction on those facts.