BREAKING Lorreta Lynch under investigation!

Sorry, wrong answer. How do you suppose all the classified emails, set to Hillary by State Dept. staff, found it's way to her private server? State Dept. aides were given HRC's email address, by HRC. Comey uncovered numerous communications by staffers warning HRC. Hillary directed staff to remove the State Dept headers and fwd the docs. The memos are public, and so are the altered docs. Thanks, Judicial Watch!

 

Please link to the emails showing that the State Department agency responsible for email management knew about the private server. Please highlight the language showing the agency's knowledge. I am not aware of any such communication.

You are now bizarrely talking about something that has nothing to do with whether State knew about her private server.

Too bad you don't seem to understand them.

 

http://www.google.com/

Good hunting!

 

In addition to that, the White House email servers had to actually input her email address so it would not get blocked and rejected. This was an issue early on that others using her private server ran into. I think it was Cheryl Mills, going from memory or Huma told that to the FBI... Something like that. That means, Obama knew about it because he was communicating with her from the White House to her private server.

EDIT: Found it:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats...nton-private-email?via=desktop&source=copyurl

 

The State Department ABSOLUTELY knew:

Bombshell emails from the State Department show that a top official at the agency suggested to Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, in August 2011 that the then-secretary of state begin using a government email account to protect against unexpected outages of her private email server.
But as the emails show, Abedin pushed back on the suggestion, telling the official, Stephen D. Mull, then the executive secretary of the State Department, that a State-issued Blackberry equipped with a state.gov email address “doesn’t make a lot of sense.”Besides showing that Clinton’s top aides were against the idea of her using a state.gov email account, the emails show for the first time that top State Department officials were aware of Clinton’s private email server arrangement."

Here is the actual link showing the full text and the actual emails, which are available via WikiLeaks as well.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/e...uggestion-that-clinton-use-state-gov-account/

 

Thought so. Concession noted.

 

It's a simple case of collusion. Ms Lynch clearly knew about the illegality of what Ms Clinton was doing, and had leveraged her relationship with the Clintons to obtain the position of AG after Holder. Plant is a good term here. And now? Lots of potential illegality here, not the least of which is conspiracy and obstruction. Let the games begin.

 

First. I'm not a public school teacher who will simply provide you with answers, rather than require you do research. Second. All this was revealed months ago, even MSM covered it. Lastly. PinkFloyd has been kind enough to provide links ... ^^^^^

 

Whatever floats your boat.

The law does not require intent, period.

I keep saying she has gotten away with it thus far. If you get away with murder, that doesn't make you not a murderer. Understand?

 

Depends entirely on what lawyer you ask.

When I asked the best lawyer I know, I was told:

It's like Bill Clinton arguing the definition of is.

 

I expect the fact material is marked "classified" should give a fair indication dissemination to unvetted individuals would be injurious to US interests, no scienter required; you got a document marked "classified". Know you can't share it with anyone not authorized to see it and send it along anyway, you broke the law.

 

That email chain doesn't actually PROVE that the relevant people at State were aware Clinton was operating her own server. They show a guy named Stephen Mull knew she was using a personal email address, and knew she was having issues after the hurricane, so all Mull is doing is suggesting the problem might be with the server that handles her personal email, whatever that server is. It could be using "personal" to distinguish it from a government server. That line could be describing Hillary's private server, but it also could be describing a third-party email service.

Also remember that the issue isn't having a private email address -- it's using it for official business. So merely being aware she had a private email address is not definitive.

The JW deposition of Mull doesn't indicate anything interesting:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v-State-Mull-deposition-01363-1.pdf

Mull was head of something called the Executive Secretariat, responsible for supporting several offices within State in terms of technical support. But he was the senior manager: he didn't generally deal with day-to-day concerns. Those were communicated directly to his staff. He was a staff manager, not an implementer.

His concern around emails and Blackberries would have been "what does the Secretary need", not "is the Secretary following policy". He himself never communicated with Clinton via email, and testified that he was unaware of allegations that she might have used it for official business until news reports broke.

He specifically mentions that there was never any discussion within the Executive Secretariat about Clinton's use of a private email address.

He also notes that he doesn't know people's actual email addresses because, like most modern email systems, you start typing in the person's name, and THAT is what you see -- not their email address.

And that he never saw Clinton use a Blackberry, that she didn't even have a computer in her office, that he never discussed her use of email or devices with her staff. He doesn't remember the email you linked to, showing such a discussion.

Unless you want to simply accuse him of lying under oath, it's obvious that he didn't give much thought to Clinton's email setup. He mostly dealt with ensuring she had secure telephone connections when she traveled.

 

Yay for completely unverifiable personal anecdote.

Besides, nothing in the post you quoted is "opinion" that would differ from lawyer to lawyer. Here are the points I made:

• Someone saying "reckless disregard" or "extreme carelessness" outside a legal proceeding is not automatically saying "this meets the legal standard of gross negligence."
• "Policies" are not the same thing as "laws".

Neither one is an opinion. They are simply facts.

 

Yes it does. The White House also knew because they had to "White List" her new email address so they could pass through the email servers and get to their intended destinations. The Secret Service also knew.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new...-hack-attempts-on-clinton-server-in-one-year/

I don't know why you keeping arguing this line because you have been refuted with evidence, including emails from the State Department to the Clintons actual private server that prove they knew. Also, it makes no sense that the State Department didn't know.

The State Department knew, the President knew, the Secret Service knew and the American people are knew. It's not like the hacked emails are a big mystery now. We can read everything and point to numerous occasions and details that proves these departments knew. Even the FBI investigation points to the fact that the State Department knew.

Also, her private IT guy, Bryan Pagliano, worked for the State Department. Of course they knew.

 

The problem here is that this whole scandal has tended to involve anti-Clinton types making huge assumptions based on vague emails, coupling it with wishful thinking and misunderstanding the relevant law.

I'm not saying that what Clinton did was fine; it wasn't. I'm saying it doesn't appear to have been ILLEGAL.

For example, you claim that your link shows "The Secret Service knew". Well, no, actually, it doesn't. All it shows is that an aide to Bill Clinton forwarded an email chain to the Secret Service. We have no information on what happened to it after that. Who, if anybody, read it? What, if anything, did they do about it? The mere fact that an email was sent to an email address at a government agency does not prove that that agency "knew" about anything.

The State Department is a huge place. What does it mean to say "The State Department knew"? You can't just show that some random person at State knew about it: you have to show that people with the relevant responsibility knew about it.

And remember, the issue isn't "did people at State know Clinton used a personal email address." It's "Did people at State know Clinton was using a personal email address FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS."

And if they did, did they say anything? If they knew and said nothing, how is that Clinton's fault?

If the relevant people at State knew about it, told Clinton to knock it off, and she ignored them, that's something. Still not "breaking the law", necessarily, but definitely "knowingly violating government policies". The problem is that chain of evidence doesn't seem to exist.

Take this email from Mull. It's not even about classified information, so it's irrelevant to that particular aspect of Clinton's email practices. What it's relevant to is data practices: did Clinton's use of a private email address violate FOIA and archiving laws?

Simply using a private email address for official business isn't a violation of those laws. A violation would be failing to ensure that such official communications were available to FOIA requests, and eventually to the government archives. And even then, it is only generally prosecutable if there is INTENT to evade those laws.

Clinton's use of a private email address clearly resulted in some emails not being found by FOIA requests. The archiving thing is a little murkier: she didn't turn them over when she stepped down, but she didn't delete them immediately, either -- and when the server was eventually wiped, it didn't prevent her emails from being recovered. So the archives were eventually able to get ahold of them.

But was that intent? As Clinton points out, any email containing "official business" almost always was sent to someone in the government, so it could be captured that way. Not 100%, which is why some emails fell through the cracks; those emails were essentially hidden from FOIA requests.

That's bad, but is it criminal? Especially because once those emails were recovered, they didn't show anything earth-shattering? It's hard to come up with a rationale for why Clinton would try to keep such mundane emails hidden from sight. Suggesting there was no intent to do so.

To summarize, here are the issues that come up again and again when trying to claim Clinton broke the law:

• You have to define what it means to say something like "The State Department knew";
• You have to figure out what sort of knowledge we're talking about:
  • Simply knowing she had a private email address?
  • Knowing it was hosted on a private server?
  • Knowing she was using it for official business?
  • Thinking she might be using it to send/receive classified information?
• Then you have to show that her actions were intentional or grossly negligent. Which means finding the chain of communication to Clinton telling her to knock it off,

And only THEN do you have the possibility of proving she broke the law.

Again, none of this EXCUSES what Clinton did. But absent more evidence, there's not enough proof to say her actions were ILLEGAL.

Pagliano was working for her in a private capacity. That is not proof that "the State Department" knew.

 

Not me. The relevant detail was the mass deletion conducted by Hitlary insiders and hardware destruction afterwards. This doesn't put her in jail but it didn't put her in the WH either.

Clinton scumbaggery is unbounded.

 

What were the words of the email?

 

She's soon to be subpoenaed....and she won't be the lest one, either...

 

Sigh. A Secret Service agent working for Bill Clinton did IT work on the private server and gave sworn testimony to the FBI about it.

So now the criteria is that everyone in the State Department has to know or it doesn't count? Not sure the cleaning crew was actually aware.

Literally, The entire IT Department, located on the 7th floor of the State Department knew and 2 IT staffers approached John Bentel (The Director of S/ES-IRM) asking him if he knew about the "highly unusual" use of her email and the private server. You don't think the Security Chief Eric Boswell knew? Of course he did.

Do you even understand IT Departments and their functions and how integrated they are? Someone like Hilary Clinton would have been high profile and the subject of many meetings and discussions of her email practices.

You need to start using common sense in your analysis of Clinton and her private email server. Since she used a private email address and domain how was she communicating with others inside the State Department? How was she getting emails from them? She rejected an official address with .gov. The only one she ever got was never used and only linked to her Outlook Calendar.

Yea, it's intent. Without a doubt. 100%, intent. No grey area whatsoever. She even had a staff set it up and maintained IT support to keep the private server running complete with Administration, upgrades and moving the server from locations in New York to New Jersey. She used it for business purposes and to communicate with people inside the State Department and inside the White House as well as others.

Yes, no issue with intent at all. None. Zero.

Yea. It is. The handling of Secret, Top Secret and other classified documents is literally taken so seriously that they have Federal Laws and regulations set in place to cover those that do not follow Government procedures. Many people have been sent to Leavenworth for far less than what she did. So, yea, it's criminal that someone in her position and someone of her stature would have such gross negligence in handling this type of information. Even openly sharing it with those that had security clearance whatsoever.

She broke the law. Period. Everyone that matters knows it. Politics is the reason why she is not being prosecuted. She was protected on many levels. The two that matter the most: DOJ and POTUS

Yes, it is. He was working for the State Department at the same time he was working for Hillary Clinton in a private capacity. In addition, people working underneath him in the State Department knew she had this "unusual" arrangement and approached him and the Director about it. It was causing problems and they were not sure how to handle it. This was not really a big secret and the FBI findings and reports reveal this. Her use and blatant disregard were so callous that even when Cheryl Mills was approached about these issues and possible consequences, they blew it off.

Let me ask you a few questions:

1) Have you ever maintained an Exchange farm?
2) Have you ever worked in maintain and backing up servers or done DR work in email systems, including back up and recovery or archiving?
3) Have you ever worked for the United States Government and ever held a Secret clearance or above?

I am guessing "no" to all of these, because if you did, it would be crystal clear to you about the broken laws and the brevity of what she did and who knew.

 

Yay. Does that mean "the Secret Service" as an agency knew?

No, I'm saying this is a vague term that doesn't mean anything without further clarification.

Okay, that's better. That is specific.

Next question: Did he do anything about it?

Okay. Did they do anything about it?

For this to come back to Clinton, there has to be some record of people telling her "you can't do this." And not in a namby-pamby way, either. Otherwise it's on the people who should have said something, but didn't.

Clinton was old school. She said -- and witnesses back her up -- that she preferred hard copy. She did most of her work through paper, not email.

I have no doubt that a lot of people at State knew she was using a private email account. Some of them would have known she at least occasionally used it for official business. OTOH, most people wouldn't have paid any attention to that, either unaware of the issue or assuming Clinton had permission to do it.

And again, whether "State" knew or not is kind of irrelevant, if they didn't tell Clinton to stop it.

Intent to set up a private server is NOT intent to expose classified information or avoid FOIA laws.

We have seen the text of all the relevant laws. They require either intent or gross negligence.

This appears to be untrue. Comey noted the standards of evidence and motive that has guided previous prosecutions, and why Clinton's actions did not meet those standards.

The law is not always applied evenly, and I would be unsurprised to find that Private Joe Snuffy got ramrodded for something that a top administration official walks away from.

But please: name all the people who went to jail for "far less" than what she did. Every example I've seen thus far was not "far less" than what she did: it was worse.

Again, the whole classified information thing turns around intent and knowledge. You assert she did it knowingly; the FBI said they couldn't prove it.

No one has produced a smoking gun to prove that. You keep asserting it, but you do so without the evidence that would be needed to prosecute her.

Nope. But claiming secret inside knowledge isn't very helpful on an anonymous forum. I can only go by the law, the evidence I see, and what non-anonymous credible sources say. I think Clinton did some stuff she shouldn't; there just doesn't appear to be enough evidence to prove it was illegal.

 

Blah Blah Blah. It's intent to do harm to the Nation or the national defense. You use the term "intent" recklessly and carelessly to fit your own false narrative. Lol we've debated this over and over but your blinding hatred of Hillary creates an impenetrable bubble in your mind that shields you from the truth.

 

Exactly. You have no knowledge of anything relating to the systems in play, classification or even work inside the United States Government. You haven't done any real research and consistently ask questions you can look up and research yourself. Even when give evidence, you frequently distort it or outright refuse the validity.

So why would anyone take you seriously?

 

Lol I've already countered your arguments but apparently you're are afraid to respond. You just keep citing codes over and over again. You have no idea how "intent" is used in espionage cases. If you did your narrative would crumble. "Intent" means intent to do harm to the nation or our national defense. Other espionage courts use this standard andThe Supreme Court rewrote the rules in that as far as carelessness or neglect are concerned there has to be "intent" to harm the nation. But once again you fear this because it doesn't fit your fictional narrative. Comey accurately stated that the evidence was not copious but thin with only a handful of Emails marked classified out of 30,000. That's why courts use intent. Here's one you can't stomach; government agencies disagree on whether the same document should be labeled classified or not. There are turf wars. It's for this very reason that intent to harm the nation must be included along with neglect. Once again this unhinges your fictional narrative. And again to fit your false narrative you have to completely ignore the Supreme Court ruling that rewrote the rules in espionage cases But a blissful ignorance is your domain..

Lol read this if you dare:


"Groll misunderstands what courts mean by “bad faith” in the context of an espionage prosecution — which is probably why he neither links to nor cites a past case that equated “bad faith” with the intent to harm the US. The key decision is Gorin v. United States, 312 US 19 (1941), in which the petitioners argued that the “connected with the national defense” requirement in what is now 18 USC 793(a) was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that any potential vagueness was cured by the mens rea requirement in the Espionage Act, which required the defendant to act with bad faith (emphasis mine):


Notice: the Gorin Court did not limit “bad faith” to obtaining national-defense information with the “intent” to injure the United States; it also considered bad faith obtaining national-defense information while having “reason to believe” that the information could be used to injure the US. Those are very different mental states.

Nor is Gorin an outlier. No court in the 70 years since the Supreme Court’s decision has held that the Espionage Act requires the defendant to obtain (or receive, or transmit, etc.) national-defense information with the intent to injure the US. And that is not surprising: all of the various subsections of 19 USC 793 make clear that is enough for a defendant to have “reason to believe” information could be used to injure the US. That much more easily satisfied mens rea requirement appears in 793(a), 793(b) (“with like intent”), 793(d), and 793(e). It does not appear in 793(c) — but only because that provision, which deals with receiving or retaining information “connected with the national defense,” does not require even potential injury to the US."

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/correcting-a-common-misperception-of-the-espionage-act/

 

Really? I give you an extensive answer, and you quote one word as if that refutes everything?

You have no way to prove your claimed expertise, and you should be able to prove your point without claiming secret knowledge. Your failure to do so suggests you can't.

 

Yup. That's exactly what it is. But it's also the truth. It depends entirely on what lawyer you ask. Just like comeys thoughts that no prosecutor would prosecute her, then some former federal prosecutors say, uh I would have.