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

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: introvert

The intent occurred when she used a private server to HIDE all of her communication. That is intent under the law. WTF are you even arguing?

Show me proof that her intent was to hide "all of her communication".

a reply to: introvert

The documents she signed as Secretary of State, stating that SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT AND KNEW NOT TO.

Any other stupid questions?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: introvert

The intent occurred when she used a private server to HIDE all of her communication. That is intent under the law. WTF are you even arguing?

Show me proof that her intent was to hide "all of her communication".

Paul combetta asking people on reddit how rto remove a very vip's name off of metadata

This proves that someone ordered combetta to hide her name from some of these emails.

a reply to: introvert

I call people petty, ignorant and question reading skills because they show the signs of being as much and their posts are proof of it.

For example, you took Powell's words out-of-context and claimed he said something he did not. You choose to do that out of your own ignorance, or whatever other issue you have, and me pointing that out is not because I'm worked up.

It's because your ignorant, dishonest, whatever.

That is your burden to bear, not mine.

Well, thank god ATS has someone with superior intellect .

Luckily I have a text to voice installed on my computer, or how else would I escape pettiness and ignorance considering I can't read your posts.

One day you are gonna fall off that horse, and seeing how high up you are, it's going to hurt bad.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

I call people petty, ignorant and question reading skills because they show the signs of being as much and their posts are proof of it.

For example, you took Powell's words out-of-context and claimed he said something he did not. You choose to do that out of your own ignorance, or whatever other issue you have, and me pointing that out is not because I'm worked up.

It's because your ignorant, dishonest, whatever.

That is your burden to bear, not mine.

Well, thank god ATS has someone with superior intellect

.

Luckily I have a text to voice installed on my computer, or how else would I escape pettiness and ignorance considering I can't read your posts.

One day you are gonna fall off that horse, and seeing how high up you are, it's going to hurt bad.

This is sadly a pattern from that poster.

Always a resort to slander and name calling, while pretending to be a non partisan intelectual.

And once you show him that he is incorrect enough, he will just ignore you and act like he is some intellectual superior by ignoring all points that prove him wrong.

I have found that when someone is so quick to resort to slander and name calling, its because deep down they know they have lost on the substance of the issue.

a reply to: introvert

The fact that she set up a private server is intent. Any respectable attorney would wipe the floor with her defense.

introvert knows that, but we're the ignorant ones. What's the weather like in La La Land?

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.

I often wonder if you believe some of the garbage you spew.

It's either massive ignorance, or willful deception. You make the call.

a reply to: Grambler

To be fair, none of us can prove anything on this topic as that is for the courts.

However we can all take a look at information and at least see where there seems to be indications something might warrant we all look into the matter.

As I've said, elected and non elected politicians have all engaged in this practice that keeps them buffered from the FOIA. If there is anything that should show this is blatant misconduct, look no further than people are still doing it despite the stink raised over Hillary.

There is no question whether or not using private email to conduct government business is against policy, yet people still do it. There is no question sharing of classified information over private channels is against the law, yet we will not know if people do it because we cannot use the FOIA to find out, there would have to be an investigation and a court order to look into that.

It is beyond me how even though this has been brought to the public light, that the practice still continues.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes exactly right.

That is why I say when it comes to the destruction of subpoenaed evidence, SOMEONE on her team should have been charged, probably combetta himself.

Hillary may have been totally innocent; I see no proof of her guilt.

By my angle in all of these investigations is being most concerned about corrupt or biased investigators, which to me is a far bigger threat than any one criminal, even if its someone as powerful as trump or hillary.

When you see the fbi clearly refusing to prosecute obvious crimes, what faith can you have in any of their work?

Yet some people want to cover this up or ignore it, as long as its beneficial to their "side"

a reply to: Grambler

Yet some people want to cover this up or ignore it, as long as its beneficial to their "side"

And that isle divider isn't as tall and wide as people think.

Hence why I found it so pertinent to use Powell as an example helping HRC get her setup running. Supposedly representatives from "polar opposite" administrations and parties... But many of us know the truth.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.

You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.

Yes, what his intent was and what he did are two separate things.

OMG if Hillarys email were all going directly to China like she CC d them .

WHO THE EFF CARES ABOUT INTENT?

If she CC'd China in her emails, that would show clear intent.

You still don't get this, do you?

Actually it would not as that would be a completely different crime.

Yes, it's a different crime, but the act itself would show intent to give info to China, correct?

Why else would she CC them on the emails?

Yes, which would be a different crime, and has nothing to do with the law she did break.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: introvert

The intent occurred when she used a private server to HIDE all of her communication. That is intent under the law. WTF are you even arguing?

Show me proof that her intent was to hide "all of her communication".

that's easy. Free of charge, an E-mail address was already set up for her, and all she needed to do is use it. Instead, she hired out IT support to purchase two servers, and maintain them at her home. Unless her intent was to piss away money so she could once again claim they were "broke", the only other option was to hide her mail from FOIA requests.

a reply to: network dude

Initially it was Bill's old server her email system was set up on then eventually migrated to the successornservers and then eventually ended up at PRN.

I still happen to think it was Obama's metadata they were wanting scrubbed.

a reply to: introvert

Well then why are they so scared to mention China other than it takes eyes off Russia. Only thing I can get out of that comment is that Russia controls or works very closely with China? Or that it was China company but Russians controlled it? I am confused.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: vinifalou

The Clintons have had shady dealings with China going back to Bill's time in office.

So they hacked Hillary's server?

I'm sorry. What exactly is your point?

Or they were allowed to intercept Hillary's emails...

originally posted by: introvert
That is why the running policy within the DoJ for years has been a matter of having to have intent to violate the law. That is why there are no cases to refer to, except one from the mid 1900's and that was dismissed, if I am not mistaken.

I assume you're referring to the case of CIA director John Deutch in 1996. Wasn't he pardoned by Bill Clinton before the Justice Department could file a misdemeanor plea deal for mishandling government secrets?

Comey's excuse for not prosecuting was lack of proof of intent to commit a crime, but all that was required was proof of intent to circumvent security protocols. Hillary's testimony was enough to establish that. And circumvention of those security protocols is/was a crime.

You asked for other precedents. Apart from John Deutch, two others spring to mind:

Bill Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger, prosecuted and fined $50,000 for mishandling classified documents.

Naval reservist, Bryan Nishimura, prosecuted and fined $7,500 for downloading and storing classified information on his personal electronic devices.

Significantly, that investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.
www.fbi.gov... removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

What...there are countries other than Russia? For a moment there, MSM had me fooled.

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,

You couldn't try to down play that anymore could you ? LOL Just a policy "matter" ….

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Sooo, between this incident and Senator Feinstein's 20 year driver, who ended up being a Chinese spy, one can only imagine the stuff China is getting away with that we know nothing about.. This is just two of god knows how many incidents that have diminished our intelligence community.... Both incidents should be properly investigated with a special counsel.

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Sooo, between this incident and Senator Feinstein's 20 year driver, who ended up being a Chinese spy, one can only imagine the stuff China is getting away with that we know nothing about.. This is just two of god knows how many incidents that have diminished our intelligence community.... Both incidents should be properly investigated with a special counsel.

Nonsense ! China didn't hack our election ! China didn't help Donald Trump ! And to make things even MORE clear, this story is BS. How could China intend to steal her emails, if Clinton didn't intend to break the Law by keeping them on a secret unsecured server! They couldn't possibly know about the server !

Is that how it's done ?