Odds on Trump's Impeachment

[Guest050619-1]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Finally.......... that doesn't amount to a hill of shit compared to working with a hostile government to subvert and attempt to steal a Presidential election, or trying to cover up the same..............treason.

Couldn't help yourself, could you? Had to finish up (with what was a pretty decent post) with a blurb that has yet to have a shred...nary one iota...of truth / fact to it. And yet....

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't think printing out is necessarily "disclosure". And how would that government prove beyond a reasonable doubt which ones the maid printed out. There were only a small hand full that were classified at the time that she received them. I think for it to be disclosure, the maid would have to read them.

And the purpose of the statute is to prevent classified documents from falling into the hands of adversarial countries, not to play "gotcha" with public servants doing their work in the most efficient manner. There is not bad intent in having someone print out a document and hand it back to you. That case would be laughed out of court.

"At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.
• The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
• FOIA is designed to “improve public access to agency records and information.”
• The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained “by the agency,” that they should be “readily found” and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress.”
• Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. “Knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
• Section 793 applies to anyone who has been “entrusted” with information relating to the national defense. The law applies to a federal official who “through gross negligence permits” information “to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.”
• Section 798 applies to any government official who “knowingly and willfully communicates” information “to an unauthorized person.”
• Section 1001 addresses giving “false statements.”

[goodolboy]

("As for Hillary, not, not even close. You have to prove that she "knowingly and willfully" "disclosed" classified information to an inappropriate person")


You keep dodging the fact that she intentionally had classified material removed from a secure system as required by law to her own home brewed private server in her bathroom. How could you "unintentionally remove classified material from a .gov secure server to your own accidently? Her intent was obvious, she also destroyed public records then lied about it.

"To focus solely on violations of 18 US Code Section 793 is disingenuous. Clinton manifestly also disregarded other provisions of the Espionage Act, including for example, Section 372; by deleting tens of thousands of emails, thereby inhibiting investigating officers ability to perform their official duties (as Comey’s testimony to Congress acknowledged) as well as others contained within chapters 19, 37 and 93.
She violated provisions of the Federal Records Act that forbid public employees from holding or storing classified information in unauthorized places, media or networks.
Even if one accepts the argument that intent is dispositive in a decision to indict, how in the world could her setting up a personal email system and then subsequently deleting 33000+ emails when the existence of that server was discovered, NOT indicate intent to evade the laws that govern information security and transparency requirements for public officials?"

"Hillary’s minions physically moved the items from JWICS and SIPR to unclassified systems by flash drive or by retyping them, in most cases removing the classified markings (they missed a few). Intent? The items didn’t jump on their own. You can’t get stuff from a high-side system to the low-side system without trying hard to do it. Why? Hillary wanted the stuff where ever she happened to be, when a classified system was not available. Yep. Everyone who has ever worked with these systems knows it, too. It can’t happen by unintended negligence; it has to be done with intent to break the rules."

[goodolboy]

("Turns out, that allegation is largely untrue as I understand what Comey's correction the other day said. Turns out there were very few emails and none of them were classified, if I understand correctly. ")

That correction was reflected in my post. The point you seem to keep missing is the fact that it was illegal to remove classified material from the .gov system and store it on a unsecured server or location, like Weiners personal laptop.

If she removed thousands, or one classified document from the .gov secured system to Weiners personal laptop it is still illegal. The fact still remains that classified material was found on Weiners laptop, just not as many as Comey initially reported. Carlos Danger does not have security clearance, and his personal laptop is not a secure storage device for classified material as required by law.

[TexTushHog]

You're still wrong about HRC. The statutory provision you reference is 18 U.S. Code § 1924. It makes no reference to secure versus insecure syetems. In fact it makes no reference to computers.

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

How is zipping electrons removing a document? That is far from clear. It is also far, far from clear that she intended to "retain" the documents at any unauthorized location. The best evidence of that is that they were accessible to her through mobile devices like a Blackberry so they were not "kept" on the server, but shared.

And neither HRC, nor her attorneys, erased any documents other than those that were personal. The government emails were erased by a contractor AFTER Cheryl Mills told the contractor in writing not to erase them.

And I disagree with you that it is illegal to remove classified material from a government conouter. That's not what the law says. It depends on one's intent.

[goodolboy]

Petraeus wants his job back, he did not get the Hillery treatment.

"When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer."

"Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.
Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”


"Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials."

"The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.
Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced."

[TexTushHog]

Peters's read classified information to his mistress. You're an idiot.

[grean]

Originally Posted by Luke Skywalker

I think the most likely scenario is for Donald to die of asfixiation. One of these days his foot will get stuck in his mouth...

He talks out of his ass, so.......

[grean]

Maybe a bad case of constipation with his own foot up his ass.

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Petraeus wants his job back, he did not get the Hillery treatment.

"When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer."

"Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.
Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”


"Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials."

"The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.
Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced."

Petraeus was investigated,albeit correctly,that is to say the public wasn't made privy to the investigation until it was mostly complete and charges were almost certain to be filed. Then he was charged and convicted after he plead guilty of a misdemeanor in order to avoid possible felony charges because he liked pussy too much.

Manning, for example, while her/his actions were completely wrong, he/she at least did so out of a sense of conviction, not to help get laid. Manning was sentenced to 35 years compared to Petraeus' 100k fine and 2 years probation.

Clinton's investigation was broadcast to the public in the earliest stages. There was no evidence of criminal wrong doing in her case.

Get your facts together, sir.

[goodolboy]

It is pretty obvious for anyone who cares to see that Hillary violated multiple laws and lied repeatedly about it.

(" he liked pussy too much") I think it bears noting that the "pussy" had classified security clearance, unlike Hillary's maid and Anthony Weiner, or the host of other people who had no security clearance, but did have access to Hillary's unsecured private server that illegally contained classified material.

(" he/she at least did so out of a sense of conviction, not to help get laid. ") So robbing a bank is not a crime if you did it with good intentions, did not hand it over to a non US citizen, or claimed you didn't know any better?

There are lot's of people sitting in jail that did not get the same treatment as Hillary.

https://youtu.be/A09yHufpVlM

Even with immunity deals Hillary's IT team pleaded the fifth repeatedly. https://youtu.be/_iKR9viGWFs

[themystic]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

It is pretty obvious for anyone who cares to see that Hillary violated multiple laws and lied repeatedly about it.

(" he liked pussy too much") I think it bears noting that the "pussy" had classified security clearance, unlike Hillary's maid and Anthony Weiner, or the host of other people who had no security clearance, but did have access to Hillary's unsecured private server that illegally contained classified material.

(" he/she at least did so out of a sense of conviction, not to help get laid. ") So robbing a bank is not a crime if you did it with good intentions, did not hand it over to a non US citizen, or claimed you didn't know any better?

There are lot's of people sitting in jail that did not get the same treatment as Hillary.

https://youtu.be/A09yHufpVlM

Even with immunity deals Hillary's IT team pleaded the fifth repeatedly. https://youtu.be/_iKR9viGWFs

Hillary, Russians, FBI; etc. What happen to me being tired of winning all the time. What has he done? Before you bash me, look at what Trump himself promised. What's he done to make America Great

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

It is pretty obvious for anyone who cares to see that Hillary violated multiple laws and lied repeatedly about it.

List those laws broken, please.

If she did, she would have been charged. She wasn't. Careless and stupid isn't synonymous with illegal.

If we use your logic, then anyone who cares can see that Trump violated the multiple law....


Obstruction of Justice =
1. firing the guy investigating you.
2. Threatening the guy you fired that was investigating you.




Heres the kicker..... In the eyes of the law, for anyone who cares, that is, it does not matter if you were actually successful in the obstruction to be found guilty. It only matters that one tried to obstruct justice.

The asshole all but admitted it on the interview with Holt on MSNBC......

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

(" he/she at least did so out of a sense of conviction, not to help get laid. ") So robbing a bank is not a crime if you did it with good intentions, did not hand it over to a non US citizen, or claimed you didn't know any better?

As I said, it was wrong. My point is that Generals should be held more accountable not less.

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Even with immunity deals Hillary's IT team pleaded the fifth repeatedly. https://youtu.be/_iKR9viGWFs

Anyone with half a brain pleads the fifth. It's not an admission of guilt.