The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

Here is a great opinion piece from the Washington Post

The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

By David Ignatius Opinion writer August 27

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information. snip

H/T MMfA

cpwill · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
Here is a great opinion piece from the Washington Post

The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

By David Ignatius Opinion writer August 27

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information. snip

H/T MMfA

So, this argument basically boils down to:

"A guy who defends people from this charge for a living says that yeah, it's illegal, but everybody does it, so, whatever".

Okedoke. Good luck making that stick.

But it's nice to see MMFA basically come around to what I've been saying - that she broke the law, that she put our nations most closely guarded secrets and national security at risk, and that she did so for purposes of personal convenience.

Anywho, anyone wondering what Hillary is up against:

18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1924

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

cpwill said:
So, this argument basically boils down to:

"A guy who defends people from this charge for a living says that yeah, it's illegal, but everybody does it, so, whatever".

Okedoke. Good luck making that stick.

But it's nice to see MMFA basically come around to what I've been saying - that she broke the law, that she put our nations most closely guarded secrets and national security at risk, and that she did so for purposes of personal convenience.

Anywho, anyone wondering what Hillary is up against:

18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1924

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Media Matters says the case against her is overstated. You should read the whole article, it's quite good, I know you don't see it that way, but it is.

cpwill · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
Media Matters says the case against her is overstated.

No, this editorial claims that her breaking the law is not a big deal because other people have also broken this law.

You should read the whole article, it's quite good, I know you don't see it that way, but it is.

I did read the whole article. Which is why I was able to laughingly point out to you in the other thread how their description of the availability of classified communications architecture is woefully outdated

We have SIPR Blackberries for LtCol's running around, but nothing for a SECSTATE? :lol:

WCH · Aug 29, 2015

We'll see what Obama's FBI says.

eohrnberger · Aug 29, 2015

cpwill said:
So, this argument basically boils down to:

"A guy who defends people from this charge for a living says that yeah, it's illegal, but everybody does it, so, whatever".

Okedoke. Good luck making that stick.

But it's nice to see MMFA basically come around to what I've been saying - that she broke the law, that she put our nations most closely guarded secrets and national security at risk, and that she did so for purposes of personal convenience.

Anywho, anyone wondering what Hillary is up against:

18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1924

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

So all the previous MediaMatters articles / posts where they claimed the Hillary didn't break any laws were what? BOGUS!

By extension, you'd have to consider all MediaMatter's other posts just as bogus.

I'm glad that's now settled.

cpwill · Aug 29, 2015

WCH said:
We'll see what Obama's FBI says.

Didn't you hear? The Obama Administration is now part of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

cpwill said:
No, this editorial claims that her breaking the law is not a big deal because other people have also broken this law.

I did read the whole article. Which is why I was able to laughingly point out to you in the other thread how their description of the availability of classified communications architecture is woefully outdated We have SIPR Blackberries for LtCol's running around, but nothing for a SECSTATE? :lol:

The article didnt say Hillary was okay because other people have done it. The article stated other people have done what Hillary is alleged to have done and were not prosecuted. That's clearly not a defense. Her defense is that she didn't know there was classified on her server which is true and believable to the public.

WCH · Aug 29, 2015

cpwill said:
Didn't you hear? The Obama Administration is now part of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy

I know! Everyone hates Hillary.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

eohrnberger said:
So all the previous MediaMatters articles / posts where they claimed the Hillary didn't break any laws were what? BOGUS!

By extension, you'd have to consider all MediaMatter's other posts just as bogus.

I'm glad that's now settled.

You don't understand Media Matters they, never said Hillary was innocent of charges. They are journalists and would never write something they cant back up. That what real journalist do. In fact they most always don't call people liars, unless they can prove the person is trying to deceive. On this story they were nipping at edges with something they can prove.

eohrnberger · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
You don't understand Media Matters they, never said Hillary was innocent of charges. They are journalists and would never write something they cant back up. That what real journalist do. In fact they most always don't call people liars, unless they can prove the person is trying to deceive. On this story they were nipping at edges with something they can prove.

I thought you agreed that Media Matters isn't a news site. What are they doing staffing a non-news site with journalists?

Media Matters isn't a news site. The people that write stuff for Media Matters aren't journalists either. They are political hacks.

jet57 · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
Here is a great opinion piece from the Washington Post

The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

By David Ignatius Opinion writer August 27

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information. snip

H/T MMfA

It's like Sean Hannity said: "The Stop Hillary Express". That's all this is and the right-wing has scheduled the hearings in Oct - just before the election - they're going to throw her in the water - if she floats; she's a witch. If she drowns; she was innocent.

The Republicans are wetting their pants over her and are scared to death.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

eohrnberger said:
I thought you agreed that Media Matters isn't a news site. What are they doing staffing a non-news site with journalists?

What? You think jounalist are only at news sites. How stupid is that?

Media Matters isn't a news site. The people that write stuff for Media Matters aren't journalists either. They are political hacks.

You don't read their stuff, so your attack on them is baseless.

BmanMcfly · Aug 29, 2015

eohrnberger said:
I thought you agreed that Media Matters isn't a news site. What are they doing staffing a non-news site with journalists?

Media Matters isn't a news site. The people that write stuff for Media Matters aren't journalists either. They are political hacks.

Ya, isn't media matters more or less the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party?

Fletch · Aug 29, 2015

jet57 said:
It's like Sean Hannity said: "The Stop Hillary Express". That's all this is and the right-wing has scheduled the hearings in Oct - just before the election - they're going to throw her in the water - if she floats; she's a witch. If she drowns; she was innocent.

The Republicans are wetting their pants over her and are scared to death.

The election is in 2016...

eohrnberger · Aug 29, 2015

BmanMcfly said:
Ya, isn't media matters more or less the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party?

Pretty much, not matter how often or how hard Pete says there not.

There's what Pete says, and then there's reality, never the twain shall meet, at least as far as Media Matters is concerned.

NonoBadDog · Aug 29, 2015

cpwill said:
So, this argument basically boils down to:

"A guy who defends people from this charge for a living says that yeah, it's illegal, but everybody does it, so, whatever".

Okedoke. Good luck making that stick.

But it's nice to see MMFA basically come around to what I've been saying - that she broke the law, that she put our nations most closely guarded secrets and national security at risk, and that she did so for purposes of personal convenience.

Anywho, anyone wondering what Hillary is up against:

18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1924

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

People have sex with sheep but when was the last time someone was arrested for it? Okay, they are a little sick but everyone does it. Same way with this server, everyone transmits top secret docs through hotmail.

eohrnberger · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
What? You think jounalist are only at news sites. How stupid is that?

You don't read their stuff, so your attack on them is baseless.

OK then, liberal journalists debase any and all journalistic integrity to write for a political attack web site. Got it.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

eohrnberger said:
OK then, liberal journalists debase any and all journalistic integrity to write for a political attack web site. Got it.

No you don't, journalism can be political for any spot in the political spectrum. I realise you won't believe this, but Media Matters is not an attack website they do esentually what fact checkers do except they don't normally check what the left does. They inform the left on what the right is saying. That's what the Conservative Media Research Center does.

LetsGoBrandon · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
The article didnt say Hillary was okay because other people have done it. The article stated other people have done what Hillary is alleged to have done and were not prosecuted. That's clearly not a defense. Her defense is that she didn't know there was classified on her server which is true and believable to the public.

Not knowing is not a viable excuse, Peter. And it would be a lie anyway. Anyone smart enough to be secretary of state understands that virtually all of her emails having to do with official government business as secretary of state are classified somewhere between confidential, secret, or top secret. Or are you saying the woman is a moron?

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

ObamacareFail said:
Not knowing is not a viable excuse, Peter. And it would be a lie anyway. Anyone smart enough to be secretary of state understands that virtually all of her emails having to do with official government business as secretary of state are classified somewhere between confidential, secret, or top secret. Or are you saying the woman is a moron?

Nope I'm not saying that at all. Where do you get your information from, Hollywood movies?

eohrnberger · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
No you don't, journalism can be political for any spot in the political spectrum.

Doesn't journalistic integrity include more than just one sided presentations? Like both sides of the story?

pbrauer said:
I realise you won't believe this, but Media Matters is not an attack website they do esentually what fact checkers do except they don't normally check what the left does.

So now if I'm to believe what you are asserting, it is journalistic integrity to only present one side of an issue? That it is journalistic integrity to only report negatives on your political opposition?

I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot more like propaganda rather than journalistic integrity to me, very much like what Pravda did back in the day.

pbrauer said:
They inform the left on what the right is saying. That's what the Conservative Media Research Center does.

I'm not the one that's asserting anything about Media Research Center. You, however, are asserting things about Media Matters, and I don't think that you have a strong foundation for that position. My suspicion that it's a bad case of confirmation bias that you've got there.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

eohrnberger said:
Doesn't journalistic integrity include more than just one sided presentations? Like both sides of the story?

So now if I'm to believe what you are asserting, it is journalistic integrity to only present one side of an issue? That it is journalistic integrity to only report negatives on your political opposition?

I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot more like propaganda rather than journalistic integrity to me, very much like what Pravda did back in the day.

I'm not the one that's asserting anything about Media Research Center. You, however, are asserting things about Media Matters, and I don't think that you have a strong foundation for that position. My suspicion that it's a bad case of confirmation bias that you've got there.

If someone says X and it's supposed to be Y, Media Matters will write them up giving links to why Y is correct.

eohrnberger · Aug 29, 2015

pbrauer said:
If someone says X and it's supposed to be Y, Media Matters will write them up giving links to why Y is correct.

So let's put this in extended context, shall we?

If a Democrats says X and it's supposed to be Y, Media Matters is silent and writes up nothing.
If a Republican says X and it's supposed to be Y, Media Matters writes up attacks on them, giving why they think Y is correct.

Yup. Got it. It's a political attack site. Thanks for helping me bring that to light.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2015

eohrnberger said:
So let's put this in extended context, shall we?

If a Democrats says X and it's supposed to be Y, Media Matters is silent and writes up nothing.
If a Republican says X and it's supposed to be Y, Media Matters writes up attacks on them, giving why they think Y is correct.

Yup. Got it. It's a political attack site. Thanks for helping me bring that to light.

Call it whatever you want I really don't care. But I must tell Hillary won't be charged with anything.

The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

pbrauer

cpwill

pbrauer

cpwill

WCH

Believer

eohrnberger

cpwill

pbrauer

WCH

Believer

pbrauer

eohrnberger

jet57

pbrauer

BmanMcfly

Fletch

eohrnberger

NonoBadDog

Hates Kittens

eohrnberger

pbrauer

LetsGoBrandon

pbrauer

eohrnberger

pbrauer

eohrnberger

pbrauer