Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But based on what has been public through the beginning of April, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton
Petraeus took classified information, and kept it outside of a secure location. Hillary also did the same thing, only on a much, much larger scale.
No, he knowingly gave the information to his mistress with a huge forehead. He absolutely knew that his notebook had classified information. . . . he admitted it. Hillary is claiming that she had no actual knowledge (who knows if that's true) of the classified status of the emails because the information was not marked classified.
So yer sayin' that she did it accidentally?
That her judgement was so poor that she
couldn't even tell the difference between
"beyond top secret" and her yoga plans?
A ringing endorsement to be sure.
BTW, negligence fits the criteria for indictment.
What you are arguing for is "constructive knowledge", which is she "should have known."
"Actual knowledge", which is very difficult to prove (ask any prosecutor or lawyer), is needed for conviction of Hillary . . . so I am told.
People here argue "oh, it must have been so obvious the information was classified or top secret, she must have known!!" Not good enough. She must have actually known. The fact that the State Department is continuously reclassifying hundreds of documents on a retroactive basis is an indication that the classification process is not as obvious as you might think.
In any case, none of us have the information that FBI has. So it is crazy to argue one way or the other at this point.
No, he knowingly gave the information to his mistress with a huge forehead. He absolutely knew that his notebook had classified information. . . . he admitted it. Hillary is claiming that she had no actual knowledge (who knows if that's true) of the classified status of the emails because the information was not marked classified.
Mick
Yes, but he was also guilty of removing classified information from a secure location, and keeping it in an unsecured location (his house).
Hillary's emails did not have markings on them because they were being transmitted through unsecured channels. If she left the markings on, or put marking on, she would be admitting to commuting a crime.
Of course, negligence is not a defense, Hillary was required to know classified information when she sees it, and treat it as such, even without markings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
What you are arguing for is "constructive knowledge", which is she "should have known."
"Actual knowledge", which is very difficult to prove (ask any prosecutor or lawyer), is needed for conviction of Hillary . . . so I am told.
People here argue "oh, it must have been so obvious the information was classified or top secret, she must have known!!" Not good enough. She must have actually known. The fact that the State Department is continuously reclassifying hundreds of documents on a retroactive basis is an indication that the classification process is not as obvious as you might think.
In any case, none of us have the information that FBI has. So it is crazy to argue one way or the other at this point.
Mick
Hillary could be prosecuted for negligently handling classified information.
From an article I read earlier today.
The truth of the matter remains that Clinton, by signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement pursuant to President Obama's executive order regarding classified information, understood that mishandling classified information could lead to criminal prosecution.
From a purely legal standpoint President Obama's executive order, with its "knowing" and/or "negligent" provisions, covers the gamut from intentional acts to "oops, my bad."
I'm beginning to think this could be about much more than the classification and handling of email. I know reports were out that the FBI was also looking at the intersection of the Clinton foundation and state department business, but there is a LOT of dirt there - and if they have full access to all her emails....classification of emails may be the least of her worries.
I mean the Saudis and Boeing are donating tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation and then the state department sells them record amounts of high tech weaponry. Companies with ties to the kremlin buy 20% of the US uranium production. Banks being investigated for money laundering donate to the Clinton foundation and then Hillary steps in on their behalf? There's re things that could border on treason.
What you are arguing for is "constructive knowledge", which is she "should have known."
"Actual knowledge", which is very difficult to prove (ask any prosecutor or lawyer), is needed for conviction of Hillary . . . so I am told.
People here argue "oh, it must have been so obvious the information was classified or top secret, she must have known!!" Not good enough. She must have actually known. The fact that the State Department is continuously reclassifying hundreds of documents on a retroactive basis is an indication that the classification process is not as obvious as you might think.
In any case, none of us have the information that FBI has. So it is crazy to argue one way or the other at this point.
Mick
Eh, not really.
Like I said, negligence fits the criteria for indictment.
Lets see what Guccifer has to say about Hillary's e-mails...will he get immunity too?
Exactly. For the swaths of low information participants and lurkers, Guccifer hacked the server and leaked at least some of the emails under scrutiny. He was recently extradited from Romania to the US in order to answer to a nine count indictment (unclear as to whether the Hill hack is directly related to his extradition).
All that really needs to happen is for Guccifer to cough up something contrary to what Clinton might categorically deny or claim never existed while under oath. 18 USC 1621 Federal perjury statute. 5 year maximum plus, it's likely sentencing for any other charges would be stiffer if the perjury charge is pertaining to the other indictments.
I thought this part of the article you posted was very telling.
In an unusual legal defense strategy, four top Clinton advisers from her time as secretary of state have hired the same lawyer to represent them should they be interviewed by FBI investigators. Poltico reports a former assistant U.S. attorney is representing the Clinton aides, who plan to tell the same story to investigators if they're asked, in order to present a united front from the Clinton camp.
You guys better get your story straight.
I'll quote a good post on the 147 FBI agents investigating Hillary.
Tell us more about that 147 agents. We are dying to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA Bubbleup
It is standard practice for the State Department to suspend review activity when that activity is related to an ongoing criminal investigation. The FBI asked the State dept to halt their review for this reason. Even Reuters says so. (your linked article fails to mention that key component).
Hillary has been quoted as saying "none of the emails were marked classified went sent", which is absolutely true. They are marked:
Top Secret
Secret
Confidential
Public Trust
Unclassified
Pure and simple, her statement is a deliberate form of language parsing with a goal to establish a false narrative and mislead the general public.
How 'bout dem apples'?
Can you dispute the fact that the emails were not marked classified when sent? That seems to be what it all hinges on - the 'classified' designation. Not confidential or secret.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
