‘No!’: Anchor Chris Wallace Fiercely Pushes Back Against Democrat’s Clinton Email Cla

Again, they don't have to be marked. What part about that sentence is difficult for you? I'll walk you through it, tell me where I lost you.

It has been litigated without intent, something you'd know if you'd read the threads as you claim.

She has also violated NARA. Quote me where I discussed the legal implications of NARA.... I'll wait.

Sigh: Preponderence = civil. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt = Criminal. Violation of 18 USC (the section on CRIME) = criminal case. Ergo he has to prove the elements of 18 USC 793(f)1 or 2 (1 is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up. 2 is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up or potentially (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up and not telling your superior "hey I (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up or might have (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.". 1 in this case is keeping all that ish on her server. 2 is not reporting all the attempted hackings of her server etc) BARD. Not by preponderence of the evidence which is a lesser standard.

Which is why you have to appoint a special counsel for this case not a DOJ attorney. That is in fact the ENTIRE REASON for the existence of the concept of special counsel.

 

Hillary is going to prison...................

 

Dude you got caught trying to mislead everyone, get over it

- - - Updated - - -

 

When Sullivan told her that the source was having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then ordered Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel. That should be game, set, and match, Yes?



Ordering the headings stripped, and Sullivan’s apparent reluctance to work around the secure fax system, makes it all but certain that the material was classified at some level — and Hillary knew it. One has to query as to how many times Hillary ordered secure and classified material stripped of it's markings and sent to and through that private server located in Chappaqua NY? Hmm... It appears it happened at least 22 times.

 

That is simply not true. Please show how a misled everyone and be specific. I did no such thing. You have admitted that you are just trolling for a gotcha moment. A moment that never happened because everything I posted was accurate. You seem to have just got your panties in a bunch because I wouldn't spoon feed you.

 

You are assuming facts or is that fax not in evidence. What are the tps and were they classified. Without that information this your whole premise is shot to hell.

 

Please don't insult my intelligence. To PROVE something in a court of law, you need evidence that that leaves not even the shadow of a doubt, when it comes to guilt.

Tell me this, if the documents aren't marked, how can you prove that she knew the information was classified and that she knowingly sent that same information forward? All anyone has to say is, "I didn't know it was classified. It wasn't marked that way." There is your shadow of a doubt, for the jury and for the judge. If the documents were not marked, she has plausible deniability that she didn't know they were classified, because they WEREN"T CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME. The legal term is ex post facto. ​You cannot try someone for a crime retroactively, like sending classified documents that weren't classified at the time.

Citation needed on this claim. If you're talking about military/ defense classified information, that is binary. She either did it or she didn't and no more proof is necessary. She would have already been charged if that kind of documentation was found in her emails, since all her emails have been processed. Therefore that part of 18 USC 793 doesn't apply to this case. In the event you mean any other part of 18 USC 793 requiring intent, I'll provide counter citation below...

If you've read my posts, I've already said she violated regulations of NARA. She did that when she didn't turn over every single one of her business emails when she was Secretary of State. NARA has also been quoted in the OIG report as saying that because she turned over all the emails that she had, the violation was mitigated.

Was that posed argumentatively because you just want to argue, or because you are countering my posts? I'm confused because I don't disagree with you here. Wait all you like.

Under which law would she be tried, IF indeed, she was to be charged? Espionage (every part of 18 USC 793 is part of the Espionage Act, including (f)) is criminal. Surely you don't think that she's going to be tried in civil court for the violation of job regulations, do you? What lawyer in his right mind would take the presumptive Democratic party Presidential nominee to civil court over a broken job regulation?

IF the FBI recommends the issue move forward, the DOJ will be in charge of the deciding whether or not the case has sufficient evidence to take it to court and no one else. The DOJ doesn't have to take the case to court even if the FBI recommends prosecution, which they most likely will not even recommend. If a Special Counsel is chosen, he/she would be chosen by the DOJ, and that will happen exactly when and if the DOJ believes they have a slam dunk case for conviction. In this political climate, deciding to take the case to court and then lose is not a viable option.

 

Chris Wallace will never live up to his father.

Poor guy can only get his name in the news by beating a dead horse.

 

Well, birds of a feather, flock together. Why should anyone be surprised that a Clinton supporter would have any more integrity than Clinton?

Let us just hope that the FBI has the evidence to put this (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) away. But it seems once you reach a certain level in gov't, you are not subjected to the same laws as the peons. I am not so sure that even the FBI isn't as corrupt as the rest of the gov't is.

Clinton was simply trying to be secretive, and broke the law in doing that. This ignorance of the law used to not help you out. Remember, the policies she thumbed her nose at, were policies that came from enacted law. So she broke the law, pure and simple. Was a national security risk, intentionally, in order to keep people from looking at what they are a right to look at. At one time, such willful violations would have gotten you in front of a firing squad. Today, they will get you into the oval office.

To show you just how MSNBC used propaganda, I listened to one of their talking heads, make the claim that this report did not even mention Clinton's name. LOL. And the people who heard that, believe it, even when the report clearly has her name in it, and information about her and her wrongdoing. So what in the hell has happened to the brains of americans? They seem to be a lack of a rational brain. And we put up with it. The oldest trickery in the world is to cloud up facts, to muddy up the waters, so that only a sharp mind can wade through them, and see the truth. The lessor brains, will be fooled, and believe in something totally false. And this is the case with these Clinton sycophants. But they are an insult to human intelligence and rationality. Which seems to have little important these days.

 

How fast do you believe Obama ill give Lynch the go ahead to appoint an Independent (Special) Counsel?

 

Nothing like putting down a good honest journalist, eh?

 

So thats where I lost you. Go read 18 usc 793 (f). You'll notice that I don't have to prove she knew anything. Or that the documents were classified at the time because the classification is not what triggers the statute, it is instead the nature of the information and it's import to the US's security that makes mishandling the information a crime. Nothing ex post facto about it bud. That's WHY they are given training on what is and is not nat def info, how to recognize it, and to err on the side of caution if they are unsure. They are also made aware of the possible consequences of breeches of their duty, including gross negligence, including that information is what is a punishable and it doesn't have to be marked at the time.

US v Roller 1995. You said you'd read the threads. You should know this buddy. Feel free to cite Westlaw or lexisnexis I have both. The info is what is a danger, the nature of the info is what you are trained to recognize. The info on her server is the sort of info that is nat def, she's trained to recognize that. Trained TWICE. Gross negligence would be doable to prove with all the lack of security etc surrounding her server.

As to NARA: no genius I was being (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sarcastic and not engaging your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing strawman. Because I did not mention NARA nor did I claim it had a penalty. See how that works?

See the part where it says she's being tried under 18 usc 793 (f)? See the part where it says 18usc is the part of the US code labeled "crime"? As in criminal case? See where I say criminal cases go by BARD? See where I say she'll be tried under BARD?
Honestly man can you read?

Congress can appoint special prosecutors smart guy. All they've got to do is nix some regs. Not a big deal for a majority.

 

I'm aware of what you're talking about. Notice how I quoted sections of it before you posted it. There is no indication of what occurred after that. Also she's claiming turn into non paper means send me the non nat def info portions. Not game set and match at all. Meat for the grinder maybe. It would take more evidence than that as to what happened after that.

The 22 bits are things she typed into emails. Information. Things she was discussing with someone. Important things to national security.

 

Good googly-moogly! You didn't lose me. This is going to be my last post to you because you are being deliberately ignorant…

There ya go, good buddy.

Have a nice evening. We're done here.

 

"State Department officials also said the agency’s Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus are investigating if any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of Clinton’s defense of her email practices.
The department will release its next batch of emails from her time as secretary of state later today.
But The Associated Press learned seven email chains are being withheld in full for containing “top secret” information. The 37 pages include messages a key intelligence official recently said concerned “special access programs” —highly restricted, classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes. Even if Clinton didn’t write or forward the messages, she still would have been required to report any classification slippages she recognized in emails she received. But without classification markings, that may have been difficult, especially if the information was publicly available."

 

Federal Judge Says Hillary Clinton Violated Government ...


By Jonathan Turley
August 21, 2015

I have questioned both points and noted that she is really saying that no “marked” classified material was sent (a less than compelling argument) and she is speaking of federal criminal laws as opposed to the clear official policy not to use such personal servers. It appears clear that some of this material was indeed classified and, as I discussed this week on NPR, the policy against doing what she did was clear and strong at the time of her tenure at State. Now, United States District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has weighed in with comments this week that Clinton clearly did violate State Department policy and that violation caused much of the difficulty in retrieving her communications while in office.

[**snip**]
You do not generate material as the Secretary of State and assume that it is unclassified. You are supposed to assume and treat it as presumptively classified. Otherwise, there would be massive exposure of classified material and willful blindness as to the implications of the actions of persons disregarding precautions.

https://jonathanturley.org/2015/08/21/federal-judge-says-hillary...

Seems those in defense of Hillary's actions have not read the musings of Jonathan Turley. BTW, he's a dyed in the wool Liberal Democrat.

Home Federal Judge Says Hillary Clinton Violated Government Policy In ... lesser violations regarding classified ... violates secrecy laws in a stream of ...

 

Hillary used personal email, Bush drove Drunk... which is worse

 

Seems to be one of the few things on which both fox and msnbc agree.

 

So basically you've spent this entire time arguing her the same lame straw man? No one is saying that. What we are saying is that her use of a private essentially unsecured server amounts to gross and potentially criminal handling of classified files.

 

Apparently birds of a feather do flock together. The fact that you and many conservatives just put your fingers in your ears and say I am not listening to you.

Again I defy anyone in this thread to point out anything I said that was not accurate and honest. I cannot say the same about the conservative posters on this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Why all the spam in this thread. Seems to me you are trying to convince yourself of something.

 

Well said.

 

Your Honor, I'd like to call Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Stand...


Q: : And I want to ask you about her emails. You've been in government pretty much your whole life. Secretary Clinton has spent a good deal of time in government. I know there is lots of overclassification and people complain about that. But with your experience, if you read a document in an email, would you have a pretty good idea whether it should be marked Top Secret even if it wasn't?


ROBERT GATES: Sometimes not. The truth is, things are overclassified, and sometimes I would get something and it would be classified Secret or Top Secret.


RADDATZ: Even if it’s the highest classification?


GATES: And I would look at somebody and say, I'm about to tell a foreign leader what is on this piece of paper that's marked Top Secret. And that's going to do serious damage to the United States?

Why are you giving it to me as a talking point if it's classified Top Secret? So it is tough sometimes. And if you don't have any markings on a piece of paper, it is tough sometimes to tell whether it's classified or not."

^ From the May 1 edition of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.


Your honor, the jury finds the defendant: Not Guilty

 

I'm not arguing a straw man. I'm telling you that unless a lawyer can PROVE that she knowingly and willingly sent secrets to someone that wasn't supposed to have them, she will not be charged and there is no CRIME. Having the server was not a crime. Using her own email was not a crime. Sending classified information, that was not marked as classified information at the time she received or sent it, is not a crime. She broke a regulation by not having every single email to hand over to NARA, but that is also not a crime, but rather a broken work regulation. Unless there is a crime, that can be proven by a preponderance of evidence and beyond the shadow of a doubt, no one is indicted, no one is charged, no one faces consequences. Clinton is not going to be charged over this email business. No one has been charged with espionage in 20 years without the prosecution proving intent. There is absolutely no evidence that she intended to share classified information with someone that was unqualified to receive it.

Yes, she broke a job regulation. People don't go to jail over that. Lawyers don't risk their careers on attempting to prosecute the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee over a job regulation violation.

You even used the word potentially. That, in and of itself, shows you even doubt.

 

And I'm telling you the law makes gross negligence in the safe guarding and handling of such secrets a criminal offense whether anyone else gets them or not.

 

Powell isn't running for president, so Wallace thinks his crimes are irrelevant. That's like saying Shrub kept America safe after allowing 9/11 to happen. Con logic is moronic.