Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by CaptUSMCNole, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:07 AM.
Only unless he had to find Syria on a map.
The classified emails on Clinton’s server is clear evidence that a crime was committed by someone. The analogy I would use is this: A large building has just burned down after being set on fire by several people caught on video committing the crime. The people on the video all worked in the building. The question the police/FBI have: Is this just arson or insurance fraud by the building owner, who is going through a very public bankruptcy? The police/FBI start with the people on the video and say we have you for arson, so unless you have something to tell us, that is what you’re going to be charged with. Then wait and see if they can provide proof they were told to start the fire. If they can, then they are charged with lesser crimes and forced to provide evidence against the person who told them to commit the illegal act. If not, they are charged with arson
The FBI had the senders of the classified emails for mishandling of classified information. They never charged any of them.
None is which has anything to do with any applicable statute or case construction, all of which you just ignore. The facts are that she used a private email server odor DOS business on which a minute number of emails were marked with a “c” or had classified information and she sent those emails to authorized recipients. So,for that within sections 793 or 798, based on the statutory language and court constructions, including that of the Supreme Court. Your statement is an opinion that has nothing to do with what the law is.
You think Trump can find Syria on a map? If you ask him to do that, he'll probably tell you that he didn't spill his Lucky Charms on the map.
Duchen is right for the millionth time in the thread. Nole friend, please listen to Duchen.
Multiple republican appointed FISA judges said it was.
He probably didn't know it during the election but he knows where it is now.
I have him on ignore since he doesn't actually know what he is talking about when it comes to classified information.
The IC IG is conducting an investigation into this case. It will be interesting to see what information is in that report.
He's right on the law and the procedure. You don't pursue a case that you can't win. When the law isn't in your favor, you move on. Bad prosecutors prosecute cases they can't win for political reasons. It's an abuse of the office.
So you don't think the FBI could have provided enough evidence to gain a conviction in the Clinton case when it comes to the senders of the classified information under any circumstance?
No one seriously does.
You have to be able to prove intent. The DOJ didn't even feel comfortable proving that with Hillary.
First, it is not agreed that intent needs to be proven when it comes to the gross negligence charge. That was the way the Lynch DOJ chose to interrupt the statue. A lot of other lawyers disagreed with that decision. The government did not see it as requirement when it came to Thomas Drake's case at NSA, as the government even argued in his case that it did not have to prove intent.
Second, you don't think the FBI could prove intent when it comes to the sender of the emails with marked classified information in them?
We all know about the never Trumpers, that really means nothing these days. You can see the animus towards Trump in today's congress, and with the last congress too.
I don't mind being put on ignore by a "Nole" on these boards. Probably some people can learn why a legal argument over whether conduct is criminal requires reference to the statutory language and court constructions and why you cannot ignore what the Supreme Court says a law means. So, instead of referencing the Espoinage Act's use of a term of art-- National Defense Secrets as defined by the Defense Secrets Act-- you get: a) the uninformed, untrained legal opinion of someone who thinks that the Espionage Act covers all classified information, whether it meets the definition in the Defense Secrets Act (as the Supreme Court says it has to); b) argues that all classified information is covered by the Espionage Act and Defense Secrets Act, even though classified information can be outside of the definition of a national defense secret as defined by the Defense Secrets Act; c) ignores that a separate statute addresses classified information because the definitions are not synonymous and that statute does not cover the use of a private e-mail server to send e-mails to authorized recipients; and d) argues for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act regardless of whether the information is defined as a national defense secret.
It is the content of the e-mail, and whether it meets the test of a national defense secret-- that determined whether the offense is prosecutable before you get into specific intent, which is another test, too.
Maybe someone who is interested will learn from these posts why the DOJ prosecutors did not want to prosecute. '
Nole does not want to learn because it is not about whether HRC should be prosecuted.
It is about the distraction from the Mueller investigation, which has a lot scheduled this week. that is why the Ohr and Page transcripts were not released.
8 hearings on Benghazi to yell at Hilary Clinton, who like everyone else at State and in the IC, had no idea that Ambassador Stevens would go there on 9-11 when he was told to stay in Tripoli.
She makes a good boogey person because she did something she was not supposed to do with her DOS e-mails which created a security risk-- but is not criminal.
Everyone is out to get poor Donnie. The only people who can fairly judge him are Don, Jr. and Ivanka apparently.
Judge? Judge him for WHAT CRIME?
Rate him I will. Let's see... under 4% unemployment rate, nice.
lowest AA, woman and Hispanic unemployment rate in history, nice. We are the largest producer of oil on Earth and soon to be the biggest exporter of oil too, that brings in billions of dollars into our economy, nice. our economy is doing well, nice. And we're getting out of wars too.
Tell me what part of his job that effects you and your life that you do NOT like?
What part of his job is negatively effecting your life?
When did Donald Trump get into the oil business? The unemployment and oil trends started long before Trump was elected.
I know it was like 3 years ago, but prior to the final Clinton announcement, are you not the person who said you'd accept Comey's recommendation, because you thought Comey was an honest man? Maybe it wasn't you ... but I think it was.
Oh, I don't know, knowing, willing serial and systemic real estate fraud? Allegedly.