China was hacking Hillary Clinton's e-mails in real time.

originally posted by: introvert

It has been my experience that China hacks everything they can, to extract whatever information they can.

And this is not about meddling in an election. It's about hacking Clinton's server, correct?

Hacking Clinton's server with what purpose?

Just some chinese guys havin' some fun? Come on.

Russia was still involved in all of that, and it appears this is a distraction propaganda piece trying to deflect attention.

Lol. You guys really don't want to let go from the Russia narrative, even with 2 years of investigation leading to nothing.

Regardless, there is no evidence to suggest Page mentioned anything about China in this context.

No evidences.

Plenty of indications.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Reopen her case and keep "gross negligence" on the table this time!

She wasn't breaking any laws by having that in her crapper was she?

No, actually. That was not against the law.

Her use of it for SD emails was against policy, but the server itself was not against the law.

That's a bit disingenuous, while it is a legal grey area to have a private email server to conduct official government business, sending classified information over private channels is in violation of the law.

The reason they didn't charge her is they couldn't prove intent.

www.fbi.gov... -a-personal-e-mail-system

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information

Actually it is junior.

edit:
and ask manafort how not getting charged for previous "investigated" crimes has worked out for him

a reply to: vinifalou

Hacking Clinton's server with what purpose? Just some chinese guys havin' some fun? Come on.

Information.

Lol. You guys really don't want to let go from the Russia narrative, even with 2 years of investigation leading to nothing.

It's not a narrative. It's true that Russia involved itself. Just ask Trump Jr.

No evidences. Plenty of indications.

Such as? You have a good source?

From what I understand, that claim has a "pants on fire" rating because of the unfounded nature of the claim.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Reopen her case and keep "gross negligence" on the table this time!

She wasn't breaking any laws by having that in her crapper was she?

No, actually. That was not against the law.

Her use of it for SD emails was against policy, but the server itself was not against the law.

That's a bit disingenuous, while it is a legal grey area to have a private email server to conduct official government business, sending classified information over private channels is in violation of the law.

The reason they didn't charge her is they couldn't prove intent.

So I was right. It was not against the law to have the server in her crapper.

How it was used and to what extent is where the issue comes in to play.

Even then, she violated some policies, but not enough to warrant prosecution.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Reopen her case and keep "gross negligence" on the table this time!

She wasn't breaking any laws by having that in her crapper was she?

No, actually. That was not against the law.

Her use of it for SD emails was against policy, but the server itself was not against the law.

That's a bit disingenuous, while it is a legal grey area to have a private email server to conduct official government business, sending classified information over private channels is in violation of the law.

The reason they didn't charge her is they couldn't prove intent.

So I was right. It was not against the law to have the server in her crapper.

How it was used and to what extent is where the issue comes in to play.

Even then, she violated some policies, but not enough to warrant prosecution.

Not policies, she violated laws, and hid behind ignorance. The FBI stated that they couldn't establish motive/intent, which is an attorney generals job, not the FBI.

The law was broken, but I'm not partisan, so I have no problem admitting she is not the only one who does this.

Politicians do this to hide from the FOIA and protect their rear, which leaked/hacked emails have shown. That should be enough to show intent for her and others.

Problem is, everyone is fine with protecting "their team's" politicians, so we can throw any hope of accountability or transparency out the window for this country.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I love your posts.

Thanks for articulating my opinion so well.

Here, grab a beer or two or three.

a reply to: introvert

Having the server is not against the law. Using it in the way she did is.

a reply to: vinifalou

Thank you kindly! When I worked for a corporation I had to sign agreements that all work related communication be done via work email for transparency. As their employee, any communication pertaining to business matters was seen as their proprietary property.

If I sent confidential information through another channel I could have been sued and and subject to corporate espionage criminal charges.

Government employees are our employees, if anything, they should be subject to stricter laws, not more lenient.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

lol
are we really pretending this was just "a server" and not what it actually was?
lol that is a riot
what a disingenuous bunch

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Not policies, she violated laws, and hid behind ignorance. The FBI stated that they couldn't establish motive/intent, which is an attorney generals job, not the FBI.

If they couldn't establish intent/motive enough to prosecute, then they couldn't prove she broke the laws. She violated policies.

Politicians do this to hide from the FOIA and protect their rear, which leaked/hacked emails have shown. That should be enough to show intent for her and others.

Is that a legal opinion?

Problem is, everyone is fine with protecting "their team's" politicians, so we can throw any hope of accountability or transparency out the window for this country.

I agree and disagree.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Having the server is not against the law. Using it in the way she did is.

That's what I said, though she violated policy.

She did not do enough to establish that she broke the law, which required intent.

a reply to: introvert

Sorry, they don't need to prove that. The sailor who took the sub pictures had no intent/motive, he was prosecuted.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Having the server is not against the law. Using it in the way she did is.

That's what I said, though she violated policy.

She did not do enough to establish that she broke the law, which required intent.

Intent is not required. It was a made up standard for her that is not used in other cases because intent does not factor into whether you broke the law.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Sorry, they don't need to prove that. The sailor who took the sub pictures had no intent/motive, he was prosecuted.

Completely different context that falls under a different set of rules.

And yes, they do need to prove intent. There is no precedence in which a person was prosecuted without proof of intent or actions that prove intent.

But that is something that has been discussed too many times.

a reply to: Arnie123

Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act, seven senators including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter accusing him of politicizing the issue." Et al.

To be fair to Feinstein she didn't write that letter .....it was her Chinese Spy Driver who did.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

Having the server is not against the law. Using it in the way she did is.

That's what I said, though she violated policy.

She did not do enough to establish that she broke the law, which required intent.

Intent is not required. It was a made up standard for her that is not used in other cases because intent does not factor into whether you broke the law.

Ok. Give me one example of someone being prosecuted for doing something similar, without intent.

Tip: There isn't any such case.

a reply to: introvert

are you actually proposing NO ONE has been prosecuted for mishandling classified information?
really?

lol
the actual evidence was gathered
the ball is at the one yard line and simply needs to be carried in

those in government at the time were either partisan or scared of retaliation
those conditions no longer exist

a reply to: introvert

If they couldn't establish intent/motive enough to prosecute, then they couldn't rove she broke the laws. She violated policies.

Cornell law

There is a link to the law, no where does it say that intent has to be proved. That was Comey's own interpretation. That said, ignorance usually does not protect people from breaking the law. If you have security clearance, you are briefed on how to deal with said information, so I don't see how you could even claim ignorance.

Is that a legal opinion?

CNN

I'm not going to include all the excerpts of communication between Colin Powell explaining to HRC on why and how to use private email to circumvent communication being recorded on state servers out of interest of the thread, but you are welcome to read those.

But it doesn't take a lawyer to see that breaking protocol out of self preservation shows not only knowledge of the laws, but motive and intent to circumvent them.

You can read the law, which has no language of intent, but should you decide to inject intent in there as Comey has, it is clear government actors are aware of what they're doing to get around it.

Either way the precedence is set, so we can pretty much give up on trying to go after any government official for transparency.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

And of course the intent ot hide info is most clearly exemplified in her teams deletion of subpoenaed emails.

She and her team said they deleted those emails three weeks after subpoenaed because they had been designated months earlier to be deleted.

Yet we know, her IT guy combetta was on reddit the night before he deleted the emails asking people how to remove names from emails chain metadaata because he needed to remove the name of a "very VIP" (hillary).

Now why would this tech guy need to change metadat on a bunch of emails he was going to delete the next day anyways?

This proves that there was intent to hide these emails from investigators and the public.