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

a reply to: shooterbrody

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

No. I said no such thing.

Read again.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

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.

Ok. How about a case for an example?

Just one.

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.

I've read them. That has sparked some discussion about changing SD policies to address those sorts of issues. In fact, I believe they did enact new policies because of it.

Policies, not laws.

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.

Again, provide a case that went through the courts that convicted someone without intent, or proof of intent through action.

originally posted by: introvert

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.

That was already shown to you.

That sailor was prosecuted without having to prove his intent.

You just arbitrarily say that is not similar.

However, it was the same law hillary was accused of breaking, yet intent was not required to prosecute that sailor.

Now can you show me cases where people have deleted subpoenaed evidence and the fbi was ok with it because they planened to delete it before the subpoena?

originally posted by: introvert

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.

US ​​Navy sailor jailed for taking photos of classified areas of nuclear submarine

www.theguardian.com...

Now show me the actual law and where the word intent is in it.

I was also performing a man-in-the-middle on Hillary's email server?
I thought everybody was doing it?

Why the media keeps reporting this like it's news I'll never know.
I think she wanted all of us to be looking, she likes it when people look..

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

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.

US ​​Navy sailor jailed for taking photos of classified areas of nuclear submarine

www.theguardian.com...

Now show me the actual law and where the word intent is in it.

He took pictures inside a nuclear sub and plead guilty.

Again, can you find an example of a similar case in which intent was not established.

The case of the sailor is a huge false equivalence.

Edit: From your source:

Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.

Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.

a reply to: introvert

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

Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.

Source

Now, whistleblowing is defined as exposing information proving that illegal activity is going on, which is protected by the law. You could not prove criminal intent as they are the ones exposing it for no net gain.

To be fair and show that this did not only happen under his watch, Reality Winner just got sentenced to 6 years for leaking that Russia attempted to get into state voting systems. Under the espionage act, the court cases are handled differently, so defense is not even aloud to state why they did something, or prove that it was beneficial to the public.

I understand you could say these cases are irrelevant, as they are not politicians, unless we talk about General Petraeus... However, that would just show that there are two sets of laws, one for politicians, and another for the populace.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

So no applicable example?

Like I said, there are no similar cases that have been tried under similar circumstances.

Unless there is clear intent or actions that prove intent, the issue is handled internally.

a reply to: introvert

Policies, not laws.

I showed you the law regarding the handling of classified information. Yes there is policy as well, but that does not me you are under the umbrella of one or the other, but rather both.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

Policies, not laws.

I showed you the law regarding the handling of classified information. Yes there is policy as well, but that does not me you are under the umbrella of one or the other, but rather both.

I made no such claim.

What you have not shown is a similar case that was tried without intent.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

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.

US ​​Navy sailor jailed for taking photos of classified areas of nuclear submarine

www.theguardian.com...

Now show me the actual law and where the word intent is in it.

He took pictures inside a nuclear sub and plead guilty.

Again, can you find an example of a similar case in which intent was not established.

The case of the sailor is a huge false equivalence.

Edit: From your source:

Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.

Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.

Yes this is a very similar situation.

He took those photos, but his INTENT was not to hurt US security.

Just like Hillary knew she was having classified info on her server, but she claims her INTENT was not to hurt US security.

Same thing.

Now for some reason, prosecutors decided to charge this sailor despite never disputing his intent was not to hurt security.

Yet comey claims no prosecutor would charge hillary because she didnt have intent to hurt security.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CriticalStinker

So no applicable example?

Like I said, there are no similar cases that have been tried under similar circumstances.

Unless there is clear intent or actions that prove intent, the issue is handled internally.

What was the clear intent or actions to prove intent that showed the sailor intedned to harmnational security?

Remember, comey wasnt saying that Hillary didnt know the info was classified; in fact do to her briefings on this she no doubt knew she was breaking policy and their could be claassified info on her server.

Comey said she did not have intent to act criminally.

Neither did this sailor.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

Policies, not laws.

I showed you the law regarding the handling of classified information. Yes there is policy as well, but that does not me you are under the umbrella of one or the other, but rather both.

I made no such claim.

What you have not shown is a similar case that was tried without intent.

I have, I proved that whistleblowers have gone to prison without having criminal intent for leaking information for public benefit.

You're saying that they have to prove criminal intent, whistleblowing is literally the opposite of that, they're exposing criminal activity.

I understand you have a political lean in this matter, and that's fine. See things through your lens, that's your freedom.

I'll continue to say what she did is BS, and I'll go even further and say it's not just because it's HRC, but because many politicians do it. What she did was not isolated, and she shouldn't be the only one they go after.

But don't sit here and act like They all don't know what they're doing. And this is not partisan, as proven by Powell helping HRC out on that. Both sides of the isle are complicit, and truth be told neither want anyone to be prosecuted for it because it would end their gravy train of no accountability.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

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

No. I said no such thing.

Read again.

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

is that "similar" enough for you?

also where does it state in the law there must be a similar case prosecuted?
that is some special made up bs right there!

comey already stated there is evidence the law was broken by hillary
he just didnt have the guts to prosecute her

a reply to: Grambler

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.

She knows how to play the game, as many others do. Buffer yourself so that it can't come back to you.

He should have at least been charged.

This isn't the only case, and I don't care if it's an (R) or a (D) next to someone's name, it's time we start treating our employees as such. They answer to us, not the other way around.

I don't understand how people are OK with defending Bush and Obama for the Patriot Act which allows the government to spy on everyone, but god forbid we use the FOIA to see into what our elected and non elected employees do with our money.

People forget that these corrupt politicians hide behind our political loyalty. No one will defend them harder than their followers.

a reply to: introvert

Are you OK with those in Trump's admins using private emails if they have a security clearance? I'm not.

BTW, they do. So should we sit on our hands and say "no one has been charged before, why start now"?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Of course she knows how to play the game.

I will concede when it comes to the destruction of evidnce, there is not proof publicly that I have seen that says she oredered it.

However, there is no doubt whatsoever that combetta should have been charged.

People like introvert for some reason totally ignore this and act like no laws were broken; but this is cut and dry.

And if the FBI did their job and charged combetta, who knows, maybe he would have been willing to tell them who ordered him to take a very VIP's name off of the metadata.

But instead, as we see over and over again, the fbi did everything possible to not charge anyone connected to hillary with even obvious crimes like this, or like Mills and abedin lying to the FBI.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I have, I proved that whistleblowers have gone to prison without having criminal intent for leaking information for public benefit.

Whistleblowers have their own laws that apply. For good reason.

You're saying that they have to prove criminal intent, whistleblowing is literally the opposite of that, they're exposing criminal activity.

True, which is why it is a false equivalence.

I understand you have a political lean in this matter, and that's fine. See things through your lens, that's your freedom.

Sure. I don't care and I'm not sure what purpose it serves to say something like that.

I'll continue to say what she did is BS, and I'll go even further and say it's not just because it's HRC, but because many politicians do it. What she did was not isolated, and she shouldn't be the only one they go after.

I agree. It was BS.

Not sure how BS applies to the current laws, but BS it remains.

But don't sit here and act like They all don't know what they're doing. And this is not partisan, as proven by Powell helping HRC out on that. Both sides of the isle are complicit, and truth be told neither want anyone to be prosecuted for it because it would end their gravy train of no accountability..

I have not said that, or "acted" like that in any manner.

Again, not sure what that has to do with the topic and I cannot debate how you feel or how you feel I "acted".

a reply to: shooterbrody

"But Manafort"?

Really?

You're just posting idiotic nonsense.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

Are you OK with those in Trump's admins using private emails if they have a security clearance? I'm not.

How is that question relevant to what we are discussing?

I ask you for one case similar in nature and instead of providing it, you ask me how I would feel if it was Trump?

BTW, they do. So should we sit on our hands and say "no one has been charged before, why start now"?

No. If you can properly read and are honest enough to put things in context, you would not ask such a thing. I did not say anything of the sort and not one of my posts even hinted at that.

Stay focused.