WH rejects call to block Clinton from receiving classified briefings

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: atomish

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what they said.

All that matters is that in cases like this, someone would of had to have acted in a way that compromised the potential security of the US/secure data, or had the intent of committing such an act.

Otherwise, lapses in proper security procedure are handled internally.

Comey's comments reflect that and he specifically mentions the differences.

Understood. You all are more familiar with the precedent, I've only started looking into this case since I noticed you mention it a few days back.

I was just understanding what he said as the data does not ACTUALLY need to be compromised but simply willingly put in a position where it may be compromised. As in, she knew walking around with her Blackberry in nations with hostile actors could be dangerous and she did it anyway? I could be way off base though.

Just wondering if this is indeed the interpretation and if Shamrock is suggesting that no compromising of data actually has to occur.

Thanks for the response and belated thanks on mentioning the 1941 precedent in a previous thread. I've been in lurk mode.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: atomish

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what they said.

All that matters is that in cases like this, someone would of had to have acted in a way that compromised the potential security of the US/secure data, or had the intent of committing such an act.

Otherwise, lapses in proper security procedure are handled internally.

Comey's comments reflect that and he specifically mentions the differences.

Couldn't one argue that by forwarding emails that contained secured and classified data to an unclassified private server be grounds for intent of negligent handling?

a reply to: introvert

It sets an UNACCEPTABLE gap in national security.
THAT is why.

a reply to: atomish

I don't believe a compromising act actually has to occur. The person has to be shown to of had the intent of placing the info in a compromised position, or actually compromised it.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: atomish

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what they said.

All that matters is that in cases like this, someone would of had to have acted in a way that compromised the potential security of the US/secure data, or had the intent of committing such an act.

Otherwise, lapses in proper security procedure are handled internally.

Comey's comments reflect that and he specifically mentions the differences.

Couldn't one argue that by forwarding emails that contained secured and classified data to an unclassified private server be grounds for intent of negligent handling?

That would be simple negligence and doesn't apply.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

It sets an UNACCEPTABLE gap in national security.
THAT is why.

Ok. If that is true, that gap was created long before Hillary came around.

She was treated just like those that have committed similar acts. It's a procedural/internal issue. Not a criminal issue.

a reply to: introvert

SOMETHING you are missing either by omission or ignorance.
4 DEAD Trumps all of it at the polls.
SHE already has dropped her mask here.
ALL I HEAR>>>www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

It sets an UNACCEPTABLE gap in national security.
THAT is why.

Ok. If that is true, that gap was created long before Hillary came around.

She was treated just like those that have committed similar acts. It's a procedural/internal issue. Not a criminal issue.

You have been in every single thread defending Hilary the democratic nominee.

Not surprising, every single thread authored is anti-right and pro-Hilary except ironically enough a thread on confirmation bias. Bwaahahaha.

There is translucent and then there is transparent. This is coming from a registered democrat btw.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: atomish

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what they said.

All that matters is that in cases like this, someone would of had to have acted in a way that compromised the potential security of the US/secure data, or had the intent of committing such an act.

Otherwise, lapses in proper security procedure are handled internally.

Comey's comments reflect that and he specifically mentions the differences.

Couldn't one argue that by forwarding emails that contained secured and classified data to an unclassified private server be grounds for intent of negligent handling?

That would be simple negligence and doesn't apply.

A few emails might classify as simple. Where talking thousands upon thousands are we not?

a reply to: Rosinitiate

THEY don't PAY enough to put up with me!
Wait...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

SOMETHING you are missing either by omission or ignorance.
4 DEAD Trumps all of it at the polls.
SHE already has dropped her mask here.
ALL I HEAR>>>www.youtube.com...

What are you talking about?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

It sets an UNACCEPTABLE gap in national security.
THAT is why.

Ok. If that is true, that gap was created long before Hillary came around.

She was treated just like those that have committed similar acts. It's a procedural/internal issue. Not a criminal issue.

You have been in every single thread defending Hilary the democratic nominee.

Not surprising, every single thread authored is anti-right and pro-Hilary except ironically enough a thread on confirmation bias. Bwaahahaha.

There is translucent and then there is transparent. This is coming from a registered democrat btw.

I'm not a registered Democrat. What does that tell you?

So I fail to see the point of your post. Do you have an aspect you wish to discuss, or were you focusing on me for #s and giggles?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: atomish

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what they said.

All that matters is that in cases like this, someone would of had to have acted in a way that compromised the potential security of the US/secure data, or had the intent of committing such an act.

Otherwise, lapses in proper security procedure are handled internally.

Comey's comments reflect that and he specifically mentions the differences.

Couldn't one argue that by forwarding emails that contained secured and classified data to an unclassified private server be grounds for intent of negligent handling?

That would be simple negligence and doesn't apply.

A few emails might classify as simple. Where talking thousands upon thousands are we not?

No. I believe it was a only a hundred or so.

originally posted by: essentialtremors
Just a question, but would a petition by The People make any difference in this?

If so, I'm going to start one. ( if there isn't one already)

Here ya go, already one started. Charge Hillary Rodham Clinton pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 641, 793, 794, 798, 952, and 1924
It's already at 87k signatures.

a reply to: introvert

Sure we'll go with that number. A hundred or so instances of: (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or...


www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert

Sure we'll go with that number. A hundred or so instances of: (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or...


www.law.cornell.edu...

Ok. What was the proper place of custody that the emails were removed from?

a reply to: introvert

My point stands bro-ha.

a reply to: introvert

They were removed FROM the SOD secure servers TO her home unclassified server. Surely you didn't miss the Comey statement.

a reply to: introvert

Something about forests and trees pal...THE ELECTION.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert

They were removed FROM the SOD secure servers TO her home unclassified server. Surely you didn't miss the Comey statement.

The information was removed from one sever and placed on another?

I'd like to see the proof of that.