• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What law do you think HIllary Clinton broke?

ModerateGOP said:
I wrote this last night on FB:

Since the FBI determined not to indict Hillary Clinton today. I think what a lot of my Republicans friends are forgetting is that in most cases it is extremely hard to prove negligence and it is even harder to prove bad intentions.

Also lying isn't a crime, just ask Trump he does it all the time!! Short of being able to read Hillary Clinton's mind, this would never have gone to trial!

That being said, I respect the FBI's decision on this matter so that the case can be properly closed, but there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton lied to us about her mishandling of technology and for me personally as an IT Professional, that is very risky behavior I never want to see in a President! This is the main reason I will not be voting for her.

Simply put it is not a crime to lie and it is incredibly hard to prove lying and what one's intentions were in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Lying to an officer of the law is obstruction of justice.
 
sangha said:
I did not say it has to be direct but my understanding is that it does have to be physical and there has been no harm to any of the things you mentioned, as far as I can tell.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence


Also, where did you get this idea that a criminal prosecution would not require proving intent; only negligence? AFAIK, criminal negligence is limited to manslaughter, vehicular homicide and similar crimes
Click to expand...

18 U.S. Code § 793(f)(1)

...; or

(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.
Click to expand...

Read the law in the link. You'll notice that 18 U.S. Code § 793 (a) through (c) require intent, § 793 (d) discusses willfully giving classified information to a person not lawfully allowed to receive it, and (e) covers people possessing classified information that are not lawfully allowed to posses classified information in the first place - but, it is § 793 (f)(1) that lays out the law and penalties for gross negligence wherein classified information is "... removed from its proper place of custody ..." and does not mention intent.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'll have to find the post in which I listed the law. I never discussed criminal negligence, rather gross negligence.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to your post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...orld-nation-politically-6.html#post1066042673

It mentions "gross negligence" and not simply negligence. I don't know all the details of what Clinton did or did not do to safeguard the info on her server, but it sounds like it would not be gross negligence if she took some level of precaution to protect it.
 
sangha said:
Here is a link to your post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...orld-nation-politically-6.html#post1066042673

It mentions "gross negligence" and not simply negligence. I don't know all the details of what Clinton did or did not do to safeguard the info on her server, but it sounds like it would not be gross negligence if she took some level of precaution to protect it.
Click to expand...
Actually that would make it worse, since providing protection would indicate knowledge, thus, intent.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
sangha said:
Your claim of harm does not seem to fit the legal definition of the term.
Click to expand...
The defining feature of classified information is that it's exposure causes harm.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
mike2810 said:
I can accept the conclusion Hillary was grossly careless in using a private server for her work.

What I cannot accept is her lying about not sending or receiving classified material on that server. Her honesty and trustworthiness took a very big hit with this one. But hey, like any politician, she will state what she thinks people want to hear.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

So if it turns out that none of the emails were marked classified ....does that mean that she didn't lie?


◾Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.

◾Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying ​the department didn’t have​ “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”

◾Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error.

Revisiting Clinton and Classified Information​


So out of 55,000 emails it may boil down to one email that was erroneously marked confidential. So it seems that Hillary may have been telling the truth after all.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Are you saying that the FBI Director was lying? Because he said they were in his press conference to the entire world. Why not admit that the Clinton camp claim was and still is a false fabrication to obscure the truth?

/smh
Click to expand...

Not intentionally.

◾Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.

◾Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying ​the department didn’t have​ “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”

◾Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error.

Revisiting Clinton and Classified Information​


So it may all boil down to one email out of 55,000 that may have been erroneously marked C for confidential.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Read the law in the link. You'll notice that 18 U.S. Code § 793 (a) through (c) require intent, § 793 (d) discusses willfully giving classified information to a person not lawfully allowed to receive it, and (e) covers people possessing classified information that are not lawfully allowed to posses classified information in the first place - but, it is § 793 (f)(1) that lays out the law and penalties for gross negligence wherein classified information is "... removed from its proper place of custody ..." and does not mention intent.
Click to expand...

That's the flaw in your argument right there. Almost everyone she received and sent work related emails to had security clearances and were using a government server that captured and preserved almost all the emails that she sent them and that they sent to her....and none of the emails were marked classified.
 
Its an election year people. An election year "investigation". Now we really must ask ourselves (and attempt to be honest in our answers), "What is the true motivation behind such election year antics.......and what is/was the true desired end result?" Did anyone really expect or want charges to be brought, or was this simply campaign jockeying? We all know the answer.
 
Moot said:
Not intentionally.

◾Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.

◾Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying ​the department didn’t have​ “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”

◾Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error.

Revisiting Clinton and Classified Information​


So it may all boil down to one email out of 55,000 that may have been erroneously marked C for confidential.
Click to expand...

First, you just defined Gross Negligence.

Second, there were thousands of emails that were deleted that were government business emails that may have contained classified information.

Third, your argument of reduction to the ridiculous by saying that it boils down to one email is comical and preposterous on its face. Do you honestly think we should all believe that the Secretary of State of the United States of America only had one email in four years of service that contained classified information? You do yourself and your position a disservice by putting forth such an untenable and unrealistic position.
 
Moot said:
That's the flaw in your argument right there. Almost everyone she received and sent work related emails to had security clearances and were using a government server that captured and preserved almost all the emails that she sent them and that they sent to her....and none of the emails were marked classified.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that there is a law that requires classified information to be contained within a classified environment? Why is it required that emails be kept within a secured email system?

How in the world do you feel that you know who has and who does not have the proper security clearance to receive the classified emails? Some of them were classified at TS/SCI, and only a few people are authorized to view classified information within each compartment. Also, just because a person has a TS/SCI clearance for one compartment (sometimes referred to as Code Word Classifications), doesn't mean that they are cleared for TS/SCI information that is classified under a different compartment or under a different code word.

Again, your argument is based on an inaccurate premise that destroys your entire argument. Your argument kills itself.
 
Beaudreaux said:
First, you just defined Gross Negligence.
Click to expand...

First, that is not gross negligence
Second, there were thousands of emails that were deleted that were government business emails that may have contained classified information.
Click to expand...

Speculation

Third, your argument of reduction to the ridiculous by saying that it boils down to one email is comical and preposterous on its face. Do you honestly think we should all believe that the Secretary of State of the United States of America only had one email in four years of service that contained classified information? You do yourself and your position a disservice by putting forth such an untenable and unrealistic position.
Click to expand...

Again, speculative

Now that the investigation is complete, and conclusions reached by people who are professionally qualified to do so, such speculation borders on conspiracy-mongering.

You were doing better when you were sticking to the facts
 
sangha said:
because trying to protect data indicates an intent to not protect data :screwy
Click to expand...

No.

If there is evidence that she tried to protect information because it was classified, then that act in-and-of-itself shows that her action of placing classified information on an unclassified system, outside of the proper channels that would expose the classified information to those that are not authorized to view it, shows intent. Having the knowledge and still choosing to act in a contrary fashion shows intent.
 
Patrickt said:
I'm not sure when it became a crime but people, Republican people, have gone to prison for lying to federal investigators. You know, like saying you had turned over all the emails when you hadn't or saying you didn't email classified documents over you unsecure email server when when you had or that the private server was only so you can use just one digital device when that wasn't true or when you said the unsecured server was only for personal emails when that wasn't true either.

Apparently, lying to investigators is a serious crime if you're not a Clinton but then so is perjury, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That is one of the advantages of being above the law and not having to worry about being treated equally.
 
mak2 said:
Having classified info on a personal server is exactly the same thing as leaving a classified manual laying on your desk unsecured. Intent don't matter, it is there. I have seen it cost young Marines stripes.
Click to expand...

Anyone that has worked with classified material knows what she did would cost you your clearance and your job. We have all seen it first hand. She is clearly above the law and someone is clearly pulling strings. The corruption and special treatment is not only obvious but in your face obvious.
 
sangha said:
Wrong and irrelevant
Click to expand...
You may want to Google up the CAPCO manual before you make a fool of yourself arguing with those who worked with this sort of thing for a living.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
First, that is not gross negligence
Click to expand...
Again, we disagree. Either she knew what she was doing and acted with intent, or she was grossly negligent being that any person in her position would have a legal duty to (simply put rather than listing all her actions) not do what she did.


sangha said:
Speculation
Click to expand...
True. Which is what "may have" in my sentence... indicates.



sangha said:
Again, speculative

Now that the investigation is complete, and conclusions reached by people who are professionally qualified to do so, such speculation borders on conspiracy-mongering.

You were doing better when you were sticking to the facts
Click to expand...
Speculaiton? That is exactly what she did with her ridiculous argument - speculate. Deductive reasoning based on facts in evidence is the basis for what I wrote. Not speculation. The position of Secretary of State, by its very nature, precludes a person from NOT being exposed to classified information, and given that email is the current acceptable format of transmitting such information when time is of the essence and the parties are not in close proximity (such as SecState being overseas on one of her over 100 missions abroad), it is NOT a reasonable assumption that a SecState would NOT receive classified information via email. As I said, to propose such a thing and or as you are doing, to defend such an argument, is comical and preposterous. We have evidence of both classified information being transmitted in the open by Hillary Clinton herself, and of official emails being deleted and not turned over to the government.

Evidence - facts.
 
shrubnose said:
If you would just wait until November rolls around you'd see Trump get his butt handed to him.

:lol:
Click to expand...

No one is questioning how corrupt our government is and the fact that certain people are above the law.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No.

If there is evidence that she tried to protect information because it was classified, then that act in-and-of-itself shows that her action of placing classified information on an unclassified system, outside of the proper channels that would expose the classified information to those that are not authorized to view it, shows intent. Having the knowledge and still choosing to act in a contrary fashion shows intent.
Click to expand...

No matter how you try to bury it in an avalanche of words, it makes no sense to argue that her attempt to protect data demonstrates an intent to not protect data
 
mak2 said:
Having classified info on a personal server is exactly the same thing as leaving a classified manual laying on your desk unsecured. Intent don't matter, it is there. I have seen it cost young Marines stripes.
Click to expand...
When you say, "cost young Marines stripes", does that mean they were charged with a crime and prosecuted by the American justice system?

I think this is the disconnect people are having with what Comey said and what they think he said. Comey said, many times, that what Hillary did wouldn't be above punishment. He said, over and over, that if any other person had done it in the FBI, they would be subject to a disciplinary review and a range of penalties could be imposed. He NEVER said someone who did what Clinton didn't shouldn't be disciplined. What he merely said is that what Clinton did does not rise to the level of being only the second person in 100 years to be charged with a violation of the particular US Code, that Hillary shouldn't be treated differently, just because she's the presumptive nominee.

That's the part people don't seem to understand, including the lawmakers on the committee who questioned Comey. They keep thinking that because Hillary wasn't charged, she couldn't be punished. That's not what Comey said. However, as Comey said, how would you punish someone who is no longer employed by the department who would impose discipline? In other words, if Clinton was still part of the State Department, there's a very good chance she could/would have been punished. But she doesn't work with the State Department anymore, so how are you going to punish her?

Unless "cost...stripes" means being charged with a crime, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing discipline imposed by a group with being charged with crime. Comey never said what Hillary did was right, nor was it appropriate. He merely has said it did not raise to the level for her to be the second person tried in 100 years over this particular US Code.

MickeyW said:
And yet, the FBI rewrote the law. But they can't get her for lying under oath like they did Billy boy....they didn't put her under oath. Clever, these top cops.
Click to expand...
No offense, but that's just downright false. Lying to the FBI is against the law. Whether she was "under oath" means nothing. If she lied to the FBI, she could/would be charged with obstruction of justice.

If you had watched the hearing, you'd know this.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
No matter how you try to bury it in an avalanche of words, it makes no sense to argue that her attempt to protect data demonstrates an intent to not protect data
Click to expand...

That isn't the argument, and you're more than smart enough o know that. The argument is regarding intent, which you and others say did not exist, yet if she also did as you say and take steps to protect the information then she was aware of her duty to act to protect the data yet exposed the data to harm regardless of that knowledge, which shows intent.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Again, we disagree. Either she knew what she was doing and acted with intent, or she was grossly negligent being that any person in her position would have a legal duty to (simply put rather than listing all her actions) not do what she did.
Click to expand...

Again, it is nonsense to argue that actions to protect data demonstrate an intent to not protect data or is evidence of gross negligence


True. Which is what "may have" in my sentence... indicates.
Click to expand...

"May have" is a dodge indicating that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you. In spite of a thorough investigation by the FBI finding no criminal activity, you're making an argument that is much like the child who asks "Why?" after every answer you give him.

You "may have" committed espionage. I "may have" helped Al Queda blow up the WTC. There's no end to "may have"



Speculaiton? That is exactly what she did with her ridiculous argument - speculate.
Click to expand...
I am not going to defend Moot's post.
Deductive reasoning based on facts in evidence is the basis for what I wrote. Not speculation. The position of Secretary of State, by its very nature, precludes a person from NOT being exposed to classified information, and given that email is the current acceptable format of transmitting such information when time is of the essence and the parties are not in close proximity (such as SecState being overseas on one of her over 100 missions abroad), it is NOT a reasonable assumption that a SecState would NOT receive classified information via email. As I said, to propose such a thing and or as you are doing, to defend such an argument, is comical and preposterous. We have evidence of both classified information being transmitted in the open by Hillary Clinton herself, and of official emails being deleted and not turned over to the government.

Evidence - facts.
Click to expand...

No, the only way to determine the # of emails with classified info she received on her server(s) is to examine the emails. The FBI has done this and they have determined the facts, as best as possible. What you're doing is something less than that. You're engaging in speculation
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom