I would like to thank the folks who voted to 'Leave' the EU

[Good1]

Can I ask you a serious question? Who has proven really how secure/insecure her server setup was? I mean where is the proof of all the facts? Which router did she use? Behind which firewall was the server? Was any encryption in play? In which network was the server situated. Can you answer those questions? Are they fully answered and the answers are supported by credible sources?

So thanks for admitting that you don't know whether she broke the law in regards to intentionally disseminating classified information, or other information regarding illicit use of a foundation (The Clinton Foundation), as a way to take large donations from ANYBODY, including foreign heads of state, and multinational corps.

She put her communications in a position to where YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW...a few inches away from leaving an unencrypted usb on the doorstep of a foreign embassy, or slipped under the table at a multinational boardroom meeting.

 

[jem]

cringeworthy to those whose complete lack of comprehension beyond leftist lies causes them to deny bush, reagan, kennedy and melon tax cuts were followed by tax revenue increases.

by that way, posting random put downs on threads when the target has not been posting for a week or two is a very douchey leftist thing to do. So for you it, its expected.

...is a bit like jem talking science or economics: cringeworthy.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

So for you it, its expected.

So why bring it up?

 

[jem]

you are the lefty internet douche (scorpion) on the back of the turtle trying to cross the river for content.

So why bring it up?

 

[conduit]

It was not intentional and not even grossly negligent. That has been established. You can always surrender your passport if you cant respect the highest organs and bodies of government in your country anymore.

So thanks for admitting that you don't know whether she broke the law in regards to intentionally disseminating classified information, or other information regarding illicit use of a foundation (The Clinton Foundation), as a way to take large donations from ANYBODY, including foreign heads of state, and multinational corps.

She put her communications in a position to where YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW...a few inches away from leaving an unencrypted usb on the doorstep of a foreign embassy, or slipped under the table at a multinational boardroom meeting.

 

[jem]

lets be clear...
she was guilty but she is not being prosecuted.

did you read what comey said...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law-we-just-dont-really-care/


Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.

…only to later say this.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system…

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

The key words in that second bolded section by the way are “any reasonable person.” As any 1L student could tell you, the “reasonable person” standard is the exact test used by American judges and juries to determine whether or not someone is guilty of gross negligence. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Comey literally laid out the exact argument law enforcement would have made for prosecuting Clinton. I also predict the FBI press team will receive dozens of questions in the coming months asking why “extremely careless” and “grossly negligent” aren’t the exact same thing given that, you know, they’re the exact same thing.

It was not intentional and not even grossly negligent. That has been established. You can always surrender your passport if you cant respect the highest organs and bodies of government in your country anymore.

 

[Wallet]

lets be clear...
she was guilty but she is not being prosecuted.

did you read what comey said...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law-we-just-dont-really-care/


Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.

…only to later say this.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system…

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

The key words in that second bolded section by the way are “any reasonable person.” As any 1L student could tell you, the “reasonable person” standard is the exact test used by American judges and juries to determine whether or not someone is guilty of gross negligence. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Comey literally laid out the exact argument law enforcement would have made for prosecuting Clinton. I also predict the FBI press team will receive dozens of questions in the coming months asking why “extremely careless” and “grossly negligent” aren’t the exact same thing given that, you know, they’re the exact same thing.

You're arguing with a sock puppet. Every election they come out of the woodwork like roaches.

It wasn't intentional? What, she created her own server by accident? She knew exactly what she was doing and knew it was against the law.

 

[conduit]

you still don't get it?

There is a legal difference between grossly negligent vs extremely careless.

lets be clear...
she was guilty but she is not being prosecuted.

did you read what comey said...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law-we-just-dont-really-care/


Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.

…only to later say this.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system…

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

The key words in that second bolded section by the way are “any reasonable person.” As any 1L student could tell you, the “reasonable person” standard is the exact test used by American judges and juries to determine whether or not someone is guilty of gross negligence. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Comey literally laid out the exact argument law enforcement would have made for prosecuting Clinton. I also predict the FBI press team will receive dozens of questions in the coming months asking why “extremely careless” and “grossly negligent” aren’t the exact same thing given that, you know, they’re the exact same thing.

 

[conduit]

the "intentional" in the report aims at intentionally aiding the distribution of classified material. Clinton intentionally set up her email server but not with the intention to distribute or to expose classified material. If you do not understand that basic difference then there is no point in arguing. Yes she was careless but not to the degree that would categorize her actions as being "grossly negligent".

And yes, let's all admit that there could be other GAs that might have argued differently. But this particular GA did not see the actions of HC as being grossly negligent. Every lawyer and every judge in the country, whether on the left or right sight of the bench admits that a point can be made for either "grossly negligent" or just "extremely careless". At some point you need to accept that a majority voted Democrats into power and your constitution stipulates who nominates federal and supreme court justices, who staffs the FBI and other governmental bodies. At some point you need to accept that a majority choose Democratic powers and not Republican powers to be at the steering wheel this time around. All else will only show that you are anti-democratic.

You're arguing with a sock puppet. Every election they come out of the woodwork like roaches.

It wasn't intentional? What, she created her own server by accident? She knew exactly what she was doing and knew it was against the law.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

you are the lefty internet douche (scorpion) on the back of the turtle trying to cross the river for content.

And would you be the reptile in this story?

You think you're clever, but you're just a slippery reptile.