Yes, Donald Trump, the FBI Can Vet 650,000 Emails in Eight Days

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm aware of 793. It was written in 1950. A time when all documents had a "proper place." A locked file cabinet or a safe.

It would be appropriate to update that law.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm aware of 793. It was written in 1950. A time when all documents had a "proper place." A locked file cabinet or a safe.

It would be appropriate to update that law.

Maybe, but that is the law and they decided not to enforce it. It does not require intent, but no one has been prosecuted for it without intent for a long time.

That was my point - intent not required according to the law.

There are a couple of other statutes she was probably in violation of too.

a reply to: Trueman

Forget about your theory for a moment. I want you to write a post saying: "Hillary is not corrupted". Come on, say it.

If I could objectively look at the situation I would say that very thing. If your Dr was in the news as much as Hillary, would you choose another Dr?

Here are a couple threads so you can see I am actually objective and you are not.

Why aren't you posting Trump stuff.

and these are threads I wrote yesterday kinda anti trump
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

It does not require intent, but no one has been prosecuted for it without intent for a long time.

Like I said, in a world where there are concerns greater than file cabinets and safes, it needs to be updated.

What's the "proper place" for an email? The statute does not provide a definition.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

National Review

I'll just leave that here.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

It does not require intent, but no one has been prosecuted for it without intent for a long time.

Like I said, in a world where there are concerns greater than file cabinets and safes, it needs to be updated.

What's the "proper place" for an email? The statute does not provide a definition.

The digital version of a filing cabinet is fairly well known and has been since Windows was first introduced.

originally posted by: Cygnis

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

National Review

I'll just leave that here.

It's not even a debate - she broke the laws as they stand.
I don't know why it's so hard to just agree she got away with it because of who she is and a reluctance on the part of the DOJ to rock the boat.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Cygnis

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

National Review

I'll just leave that here.

It's not even a debate - she broke the laws as they stand.
I don't know why it's so hard to just agree she got away with it because of who she is and a reluctance on the part of the DOJ to rock the boat.

I know, it's not a debate. I'm very much aware she broke the law, it is getting others to understand this. I'm trying to dispell the whole "intent" thing.

They have set a precedent in this country that cannot be allowed to stand, and the people should be "Pitchfork" mad about it.

IF not, what is the point of having laws if we pick and choose when to enforce them.

a reply to: Cygnis

The National Review has it wrong. The FBI "rewrote" nothing. Section 798 does require intent and that is the section which Comey was referring to.

Section 793 applies after the fact. And is quite obsolete.

(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—

a reply to: UKTruth

The digital version of a filing cabinet is fairly well known and has been since Windows was first introduced.

Right. And Clinton's email server would use a directory system because if it didn't, it wouldn't work. So would her email client, presumably. I know mine does.

a reply to: Phage

The National Review has it wrong. The FBI "rewrote" nothing. Section 798 does require intent and that is the section which Comey was referring to. Section 793 applies after the fact. And is quite obsolete.

"section 793 means what ever they flippin says it does you got it genius!", as the piano wire tightens around your neck........

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

The digital version of a filing cabinet is fairly well known and has been since Windows was first introduced.

Right. And Clinton's email server would use a directory system because if it didn't, it wouldn't work. So would her email client, presumably. I know mine does.

Not any digital filing system, Phage.
The "proper place of custody". I doubt very much a home brew server in Hillary's basement applies, otherwise the old law would have allowed someone to lift the entire filing cabinet up and take it home.

Have you also looked at 2071? Hillary wilfully destroyed and concealed classified information, as proven when the FBI found classified documents she had not turned over.

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Cygnis

The National Review has it wrong. The FBI "rewrote" nothing. Section 798 does require intent and that is the section which Comey was referring to.

Section 793 applies after the fact. And is quite obsolete.

(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—

Sounds like everything else, because we'll bend rules to suit our needs. One section requires intent, another simply gross negligence.

Under 793 she's guilty on gross negligence, under 798 she's not because of lacking intent. (up until 2014, both 793 and 798 were both in play, not sure what changes were made with the new additions Obama signed into law the day before Thanksgiving, but they don't apply as she was SoC from '08 - '13).

And how many times are charges brought up on someone "under section xyz of such code"?

The fact she was using a private email server shows intent, not having proper security shows intent as well.

Well anyway, no point getting into it now. It's done and over. She got away with it or didn't break the law, depending on ones perspective. Comey did not conclusively give his view on which, so it's left to the perspective one wants to take and it's now history.

"STATE DEPT TELLS FEDERAL COURT IT NEEDS FIVE YEARS TO REVIEW HILLARY’S DELETED EMAILS: State Department officials asked a federal court Monday to consider allowing them up to five years for their review of 31,000 pages of emails recovered by the FBI during its year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton."


But Trump, at a Michigan campaign event, insisted that the fix was in. “You can’t review 650,000 emails in eight days,” he said.




"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
-Abraham Lincoln

a reply to: AlienView

STATE DEPT TELLS FEDERAL COURT IT NEEDS FIVE YEARS TO REVIEW HILLARY’S DELETED EMAILS: State Department officials asked a federal court Monday to consider allowing them up to five years for their review of 31,000 pages of emails recovered by the FBI during its year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton."


But Trump, at a Michigan campaign event, insisted that the fix was in. “You can’t review 650,000 emails in eight days,” he said.

Nice can I get a source

a reply to: UKTruth

I doubt very much a home brew server in Hillary's basement applies,

You are welcome to your opinion. Comey seems to disagree at some level.

Have you also looked at 2071?

No. And now that I have I don't see the relevance. Did she destroy court records? Is an email a "thing?" Another obsolete law in need of updating to make sense in this world.

Hillary wilfully destroyed and concealed classified information, as proven when the FBI found classified documents she had not turned over.

Yeah, well. Proving she destroyed any government records would seem to be problematic. I'm not sure what you mean by "found classified documents she had not turned over." Where did they find them?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: AlienView

STATE DEPT TELLS FEDERAL COURT IT NEEDS FIVE YEARS TO REVIEW HILLARY’S DELETED EMAILS: State Department officials asked a federal court Monday to consider allowing them up to five years for their review of 31,000 pages of emails recovered by the FBI during its year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton."


But Trump, at a Michigan campaign event, insisted that the fix was in. “You can’t review 650,000 emails in eight days,” he said.

Nice can I get a source

State Department tells court it needs 5 years to review deleted Clinton emails

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

I doubt very much a home brew server in Hillary's basement applies,

You are welcome to your opinion. Comey seems to disagree at some level.

Have you also looked at 2071?

No. And now that I have I don't see the relevance. Did she destroy court records? Is an email a "thing?"

Another obsolete law in need of updating to make sense in this world.

Comey did not say whether he disagreed or not. He only talked about intent as the reason for not moving forward, which is not required.

2071 relates to more than court records, but whatever, it's litigating a closed case at this point.

a reply to: UKTruth

He only talked about intent as the reason for not moving forward, which is not required.

It is for section 798.