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

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You might want to reread that.

I read it just fine. He explains intent here:

What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers.

And then explains that he used it for purposes other than what he should have.

Again, how is that proof of Hillary's guilt?

I never argued it wasn't policy, I've said it is both policy and law. You did read that law, right?

Yes. Which has never been applied without intent in the court of law.

It is a violation of policy and handled internally.

If I am am wrong, again, please provide an example.

a reply to: introvert

Yes, I have no substance, yet here I am talking about the issue.

one of the first honest statements I have seen you post...BRAVO

Talk about the issue or move on.

I inquired of you with no reply, only personal insult from you as if the subject matter were out of your depth.

I do not want to waste my time with emotional hypocrites.

It is a good think I do not fit that description or you would not have replied, no?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

He plead guilty because he did it. He had no intent of wrongdoing, just like Hillary, he had zero intent to do anything bad with them according to your source. Intent is nowhere in the law, please cite it.

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law, which is the problem and why is have not been perused, except in cases where intent can be proven.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.

Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..

You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?

a reply to: introvert

You're backtracking now. You said that he used the private channels for matters not relating to business when he clearly said

I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

I can't prove guilt, that's for a court, it does prove intent though.

People get taught the laws and policies when they get a security clearance. So discussing ways to circumvent that is intent to break laws and policies.

a reply to: shooterbrody

It looks as though sarcasm is lost on you.

Please address the issue or move on.

originally posted by: pavil
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.

Lmfao, nice I totes forgot about that 😋

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

He plead guilty because he did it. He had no intent of wrongdoing, just like Hillary, he had zero intent to do anything bad with them according to your source. Intent is nowhere in the law, please cite it.

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law, which is the problem and why is have not been perused, except in cases where intent can be proven.

HOLY CRAP
GAME
SET
MATCH

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law

I guess the prosecution should have moved forward then.

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

Lmao, ya think?

As was Russia (probably), the U.K., Germany, Iran, and who knows who else. And the same was probably happening for most other important politicians. Pretty much every country is constantly trying to fend off attacks while attacking everyone else, that’s the state of cyberwarfare today. Even allies do this to each other. Friend or foe only matters if you get caught. And most don’t.

This doesn’t squash the Trump-Russia collusion at all. If true, it just shows that other nations besides Russia were also trying to hack people in our government. That says nothing about what Trump or people around him actively tried to do during his campaign.

As usual, this is smelling like more government sponsored right wing propaganda to try and make everyone look away from the current scandals involving the president.

a reply to: introvert

nice try
still haven't addressed my inquiry dodgy mcdodgerson

a reply to: introvert

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

The Law

Looks pretty clear to me.

Of course, if we don't agree with your conclusion we clearly have reading comprehension skills.

Yet you never did show me where in the law it says anything about intent.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

You're backtracking now. You said that he used the private channels for matters not relating to business when he clearly said

I've not backtracked. Read what I said again.

I can't prove guilt, that's for a court, it does prove intent though.

True. His intent was to talk to friends. He then said he used it in ways he shouldn't have, but he did not say that was his intent.

People get taught the laws and policies when they get a security clearance. So discussing ways to circumvent that is intent to break laws and policies.

At the SD, it is not that cut and dry. That is why the IG said the SD has a culture of being laxed on certain policies.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.

Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..

You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?

Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

He plead guilty because he did it. He had no intent of wrongdoing, just like Hillary, he had zero intent to do anything bad with them according to your source. Intent is nowhere in the law, please cite it.

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law, which is the problem and why is have not been perused, except in cases where intent can be proven.

HOLY CRAP
GAME
SET
MATCH

I cannot. Intent is not specified in the law

I guess the prosecution should have moved forward then.

Move forward with precedent that contrdicts such an action?

This issue is much more complicated that what people are presenting and there is a reason no one has been prosecuted without evidence of intent.

a reply to: introvert

True. His intent was to talk to friends. He then said he used it in ways he shouldn't have, but he did not say that was his intent.

Where does the law say anything about intent?

You call everyone out for "ignorance" or "reading comprehension", you ask for examples, and when given you move the goal posts.

If you're going to play semantics and use "gotchya moments" because someone says policies and leaves out law in one post, hold yourself to the same standards you've demanded of the conversation.

originally posted by: underwerks

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

As was Russia (probably), the U.K., Germany, Iran, and who knows who else. And the same was probably happening for most other important politicians. Pretty much every country is constantly trying to fend off attacks while attacking everyone else, that’s the state of cyberwarfare today. Even allies do this to each other. Friend or foe only matters if you get caught. And most don’t.

So because everyone does it its all good now?

Just because it was on Hillary's?

This doesn’t squash the Trump-Russia collusion at all. If true, it just shows that other nations besides Russia were also trying to hack people in our government. That says nothing about what Trump or people around him actively tried to do during his campaign.

Whataboutism, huh?

Don't go off topic, we are all aware of the Trump-Russia investigation, not collusion. But on this topic we're addressing the fact that China had REAL TIME access to HRC's server, which she handled classified information.

Got any comments on that?

As usual, this is smelling like more government sponsored right wing propaganda to try and make everyone look away from the current scandals involving the president.

Of course. Everything that its not published on CNN is false.

Figures.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Looks pretty clear to me.

Of course, if we don't agree with your conclusion we clearly have reading comprehension skills.

Yet you never did show me where in the law it says anything about intent.

I already stated the law does not specifically address intent, which is why it presents an issue.

That is why Comey said what he said. No prosecutor will take such a case when there is no precedence without intent.

a reply to: introvert

This issue is much more complicated that what people are presenting and there is a reason no one has been prosecuted without evidence of intent.

your opinion less sources is worthy?

charging a crime is hardly "precedent" if you believe so you have been sorely mislead, or knowingly so in your case

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.

Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..

You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?

Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?

The evidence, apparently.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.

That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.

I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.

Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..

You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?

Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?

He did. And this is because he's not partisan at all ya know..