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

Again the standard is gross negligence. Whether leaving top secret and beyond documents on an unsecured private server as she did more than 2 dozen times, many of them marked as such, according to info leaked by the Obama Administration on multiple occasions, is ultimately up to Comey to decide and then the Justice department and after that possibly a jury.

 

What powell did or didn't do simply isn't relevant to the question of what Clinton did. Bringing up Powell was little more than a cheesy attempt at deflection and got the treatment it deserved.

 

"What's good for the gander is good for the goose" is NOT irrelevant.

 

Now, you're being willfully ignorant, so this is my last response to you in this thread.

I have already addressed your point in this thread in post #114. Scroll back a page and read the quotation, or read the same quote below, especially the part I made really large, so you can't miss the point, and let your mind rest over "gross negligence." It is NOT, repeat NOT, the standard in the case of Clinton's emails.

 

So from now on every time someone wants to do a story on a certain murder suspect they first have to address every other murder suspect going back 8 years??? There's a difference between attaching a laptop to the government emails system and going completely outside the system with your own server in any case.

 

That's like saying Hastert can get away with sexually abusing boys because it happened before he was speaker.

 

Wrong that like saying what others have done does not of necessity make it okay for you to do it especially when no one else did what Hillary did.

 

Read us v roller and get over yourself hoss.

Roller appealed to SCOTUS, citing just the argument your article does. He also argued that since 793 F has mostly been dealt with by military courts but that 793 is also civilian law that scotus needed to rule to clarify the issue. SCOTUS denied cert, giving his argument no merit. Its good law as of today, until scotus rules otherwise. I realize you don't like that but then that's not my problem.

Not only that but roller and dedeyan make clear that F meets the scienter requirement and neatly avoid the intent requirement.

What else do you call 2000+ pieces of nat def info on an electronically and physically unsecured server that was passed to uncleared hands not once but twice, which permission was neither asked for nor granted, BUT gross negligence?
She either did all of that on purpose or it was a (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Pick one. If it was a (*)(*)(*)(*) up it demonstrates the lack of care that even a careless person might use, IE gross negligence. Doing all of that is certainly not mere inadvertence. It is the sort of pattern of behavior that was either willful, intentional, or grossly negligent. If it was on purpose: Let's talk about 793 A B D and E. Intentional is AB willful is DE.
So was it an accident, accidentally on purpose or on purpose? Choose one.


No electronics? Communications are clearly set out. EMAIL is just a communication. This last bit is a serious non-starter and that's in comparison to the rest of this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you've quoted, which is saying something.

 

Couple of things: what you're talking about now is not what you were talking about before. The "turn into non paper" email was not the 22 TS/SCI pieces in 7 chains. Instead those 22 pieces are almost entirely unknown because nothing was released about them (as is proper).
The existence of TS/SCI info outside an SCIF is definitely damning in such quantities as moving that much of that level of info through unsecure channels is hard to justify as mere inadvertence.

And yes 18USC793F2 requires one to report breeches or possible breeches.

But that is a different duck than we were discussing earlier.

- - - Updated - - -

Bush put himself and at most a few person at risk. Hillary's breech of opsec put individual lives at risk AND the security of the nation.

Which is worse TO YOU?

 

1) no intent requirement exists for F.
2) MARKINGS are not what triggers the statute. The presence of nat def info does.
3) This is exactly why they are taught to err on the side of caution, given special training, and made to sign an affidavit acknowledging their notice of the risks and duties involved.

Its tough is not an excuse that a cabinet level appointee gets to use for gross negligence. Its tough is an excuse a cabinet level appointee gets to use for a simple mistake. Have a single piece of ish on your private email when all your other business is on .gov and properly secured? You can make the argument it was a simple mistake. Have 2000+ pieces on your private server, kept in your home then in the hands of non cleared private corps, unsecured (because you didn't let .gov set it up it is de facto unsecured) both electronically and physically? You're going to have a tough time making the "oopsie" argument.



Let me play the game: The prosecution calls Guccifer: Did you breach this dumb (*)(*)(*)(*)'s server? (*)(*)(*)(*) yes I did, it was easy too. Want to see what I found? Here's what I found.
The prosecution calls Pagliano: Mr p did you set up this server off the government's books? Why yes, yes i did.
Prosecution calls an expert in classification protocols: Yes she (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up big time. Yes this is nat def info. Yes she should've asked. No she wouldn't have been granted. Yes handling all biz through private especially unapproved is a big (*)(*)(*)(*)ing deal.
ETC.
You think one dude who is caveating his statements (sometimes its tough IE at times it is difficult but not impossible etc) is all you need?!

I'd love to go against you counselor

 

Just give me one citation that shows Clinton sent military/defense secrets, marked with any classification code marking whatsoever, to someone without clearance to get that information, and we might continue this discussion. I'll understand when you can't. Do you really think Trey Gowdy would have let that kind of thing slip through the Congressional hearings unnoticed by the media? Sheesh. If he had just one, he would have shouted it from the mountain tops and wouldn't be silenced until she was charged.

Roller was court- martialed, not tried in criminal court, AND he plead guilty.

I understand that you really, extra-really, super-duper really want to find a way that she's going to have some kind of legal consequences for her server, her emails, or something else that will disqualify her candidacy and put her in jail. I've linked legal scholars, judges, and expert opinions on why she won't be charged according to past precedents, and the legal rationale for what you believe she should be charged for won't happen. Feel free to continue to believe what you like. I tried to lead you to water. I cannot make you take a sip.

 

He won't. Hillary will not be indicted though she could and should be. Political considerations.

 

1) See those 7 chains with 22 bits of intel that were entirely redacted including the headers etc?
2) Doesn't need to be marked as I've told you now at least 5 times.
3) No 3rd party passage is required under subsection F, again as I've pointed out multiple times

You think he'd have broadcasted nat def info on an international broadcast while attempting to genup a prosecution for someone who had mishandled nat def info? Much to learn you have

Roller was court martialed and tried for violations of the uniform code mil just AND for violations of 18 USC 793(f). The mil tribunal handled both. The parts where they rule on what 18 usc 793f means? Valid as it applies to other 793f prosecutions. The fact that roller appealed to SCOTUS making your exact argument and they told him to kick rocks? Important to note. If you make them work for the conviction they generally try to hit you with the max penalty because (*)(*)(*)(*) you that's why. Why do you think plea bargains exist in the first place? Why do you think petraeus pled out? He pled OUT to plead DOWN. Crim law 101: If your client is guilty as hell, look for a deal.
Roller cleaned out his desk in an SCIF and ended up with some intel docs purely by accident. He was in a rush to clear out of the place after a defugalty with his supervisor and mistakenly placed some things that were nat def info into his gym bag, taking them home.
That right there^ according to the courts all that is strictly required to violate 793 f, as they go into the fact that no 3rd party passage is STRICTLY required to trigger the statute.
Compare shoving some (*)(*)(*)(*) in a gym bag and taking it home to having 2000+ pieces of intel on an unsecured, both physically and electronically, server and keeping that in your home for years before handing it off to a private company. The first was found to be gross negligence. What do you suppose the second would be?

You don't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing read do you skippy? I've already stated she won't be charged. Multiple times. Both in this thread and in the other 2 you claimed to have read my posts in. She SHOULD and COULD be charged, but she will not be. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

 

Have a good day, man.

 

And you as well. Sorry I wouldn't bite onto your strawmen.

 

all these political hacks are doing is playing on your utter ignorance of the law and it works

I want you to show me anywhere in the law where the word classified, secret, top secret, marked or unmarked is used
I will make easy for you here is the law

none of those words are there are they?
but I will tell you what is there and what the law pertains to it is "information respecting the national defense" doesn't dam mater if it is marked, unmarked, deemed may or may not be classified secret or top secret all that is required it to be is "information respecting the national defense"

 

The low info called Robert Gates a political hack.

LOLOL

"Robert Michael Gates is an American statesman, scholar and university president who served as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011.

"Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and was Director of Central Intelligence under President George H. W. Bush.

Gates was also an officer in the United States Air Force and during the early part of his military career, he was recruited by the CIA.
After leaving the CIA, Gates became president of Texas A&M University and was a member of several corporate boards. Gates served as a member of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan commission co-chaired by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, that studied the lessons of the Iraq War.

Gates was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush as Secretary of Defense after the 2006 election, replacing Donald Rumsfeld.

He was confirmed with bipartisan support. In a 2007 profile written by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Time named Gates one of the year's most influential people[SUP]. [/SUP] In 2008, Gates was named one of America's Best Leaders by U.S. News & World Report."

What the hell does he know compared to an anonymous right wingin' extremist posting on a bulletin board on the internet, eh?

 

Are you claiming with fact that Colin Powell used a personal private server he set up in his home to send and receive emails and in at least 20 instances sent or received highly classified materials that still cannot be divulged? BTW what primary for the presidency did Powell compete in?

- - - Updated - - -

At least we agree on that.....

 

Yeah what the hell DOES he know when he said it was sometimes tough to tell? IE occasionally it was difficult but not impossible to tell.

I love how you think his statement in an article somehow excuses multiple years of clinton having a physically and electronically unsecured server passing all her business through.

 

You're correct.. It was just another factual point being made. The sole fact that there were tens of documents that are so secret we cannot be told what they are about found on Hillary's Private Server in Chappaqua NY, should be enough to indict her. Yet the talking points of the Left continue to say that's okay that it is not a crime. Au Contraire! it's a Federal crime and it's a violation of National Security. While, recently a Navy officer was court martialed for just taking photos inside a nuclear submarine and Gen. Petraeus is still working off his conviction of sharing information with Major Paula Broadwell who also has/had high classified clearance.

Navy sailor pleads guilty to taking cellphone pictures inside restricted areas of nuclear submarine
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-pictures-nuclear-submarine-article-1.2652586
A 29-year-old Navy sailor who took cellphone pictures of a nuclear submarine pleaded guilty ... material and that he …

 

Now you're getting it.

Earlier, a RW poster countered my post (on another thread) regarding the exchange between Gates.

The RW poster presumed himself prosecutor, and asked questions, court-style.

The questions are his, the replies (mine) are a likely scenario <in a court of law> :

Prosecution: Mr Gates, is unmarked classified material still considered to be classified?

Gates: That depends at what point it was classified. As I just told you, if you don't have any markings on a piece of paper, it is tough sometimes to tell whether it's classified or not.

Hillary has said nothing she sent or received was marked classified, telling me it was a judgement call made after the fact by the intelligence community as the FOIA request was in review.
The State Dept and IC are often at odds at what is deemed classified or not, and it would be tough to presuppose automatically and with 100% foresight what another person in the CIA, for example, would determine classified - especially if it had contained no markings.

There is also the fact that what might be assuredly be non-classified information in 2010 - an event, a conflict in the world, a CIA agent goes undercover, well, it could be any number of incidents, that happen in 2012, that, upon review for FOIA release in 2015, now deems that information sent in 2010 - Top Secret.

Prosecution: Whose responsibility is it to treat classified material with the proper security protocols?

Gates: The responsible authority and or the bearer of the material, however, I would repeat what I already stated in my last as a qualification for what actually is classified..

Prosecution: As to this "overclassification" issue, how does that effect the proper handling of classified material?

Gates: Quite a bit. Overclassification is a troubling issue with many of us in different depts. of the government. Many of us are astounded by what's gets labeled classified. As former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton said "If there is anyone who fully understands our &#8216;system&#8217; for protecting classified information, I have yet to meet him."

Prosecution: One final question, had Mrs. Clinton simply followed State department rules and NOT set up an unauthorized, private server, would we be here today.

Defense: Possibly. Whether that information was on her private server, or the state.gov, I don't see where the difference would be in what they each respectively contained. It would be the same information - unmarked items that were deemed later to be classified, and part of that same judgement call. I will say, as has Sec. Clinton, it was not wise for her to use that server.

In retrospect, it was a mistake. I would like to add, we are all human, and beyond a reasonable doubt, humans make mistakes.

Judge: Defense, your witness....

 

But you're not lol I'm pointing out that he wasn't saying it was impossible to tell. He was saying sometimes it was difficult, not that it was EVER impossible. English not your first language or something?

Let me stop you there at the response to the first question. Mr. Gates, please answer the question, does national defense information HAVE to be MARKED to trigger the statute? If he says anything that is not a clear yes or no, Your honor I request permission to declare Mr. Gates a hostile witness and ask permission to lead. Granted counsel, Mr. Gates please answer the questions in a yes or no format. Repeat question: yes or no? If he says yes, then you bring up the fact that he's either entirely incorrect and thus a (*)(*)(*)(*) witness for the defense OR that he's actively lying by introducing other evidence or later having your expert testify as to how entirely off base a YES would be to that question in bold. Because it DOESN"T have to be marked.

More than that, why on earth do you expect that a federal prosecutor would lose control of his witness and let him wax philosophic about humans making mistakes? You simply cut the (*)(*)(*)(*)er off at CONTAINED by saying "Thank you Mr. Gates, that will be all. Pass the witness your honor.".

More than that its not like Gates will stop all the testifying that goes on about how long she had it up, all the training she received, the policies in place, the fact she didn't ask and wouldn't have been granted if she did, that the server was setup outside gov channels, and that she kept the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing in her barn for YEARS when it was packed to the brim with intel. To say nothing of the fact that she handed it off, filled to the brim, to a private company without clearance who backed it up electronically with ANOTHER private without clearance.
That is more than a simple "mistake". That is a series of mistakes that could've been avoided if she had used the bare minimum of care that even a careless person would use. She did not. Hence gross negligence applies.

You're stuck on gates but he's not even a good witness for the defense with all his caveats You're doing great counsel

 

Ok. You run like the mad wind on that --

that a public servant is supposed to know peremptorily and always every bit of information that crosses his or her desk, in the tens of thousands that come in --


and determine (even though it is a judgement call, and gov dept's have been infighting for decades as to what is and isn't classified) unmarked pieces of information (which can be -- as has been shown -- even widely available public knowledge)

*should* be classified by another dept, after the fact classification resulting from FOIA public release requests.


Good luck getting any jury in the world to find a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.


Godspeed!

 

Crooked Hillary is a certified liar:

 

Nat def info is rather specific sorts of information. They receive special training to identify it and are taught to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION if they are unsure. Nat def info is the sort of thing that you will say to yourself "can I tell people this? I'm not sure I can" because its troop movements, strategy, communications between governments, intelligence info etc.

Guilty on gross negligence for setting up a private server to run all of her GOVERNMENT business through which would of course per se contain nat def info in some respects, which has been shown to contain nat def info, the setting up of which was done without permission, for which permission would never have been granted, when she kept the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing in her house which is not an SCIF and in new jersey with a private company that was likewise not an SCIF?
I don't think it would be terribly difficult.

She's never going to get to trial though as she won't be indicted because of political considerations. She should and could be but she won't be. As I've said numerous times in this thread and others.