Challenge: I think I can prove to you Clinton broke the law

VivaRevolution

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
1
I think we can prove today, that Clinton violated the laws for secure storage of classified information.

Here is one of many laws that governed her storage of information:

Authorized persons who have access to classified information are responsible for: (a)
Protecting it from persons without authorized access to that information, to include securing
it in approved equipment or facilities whenever it is not under the direct control of an
authorized person; (b) Meeting safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency head;
and (c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or
data circuits, in public conveyances or places, or in any other manner that permits
interception by unauthorized persons.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf

Here is proof of her storing classified information:

(CNN)The State Department announced Friday that it will not release 22 emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton because they contain "top secret" information, the highest level of government classification.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/

In what world is Clinton's private server in her basement a "approved equipment or facilities"?

In what world do we not know for a fact that Clinton broke the law here?

I see no mention in this law of being cleared of any responsibility if it is retro-actively classified. I see no mention of intent in this law. It clearly and simply states that classified information must be transmitted and stored in approved and secure places and equipment.

Go ahead Clinton defenders, explain to me how she didn't break this law..........................
 
Better lace up the old gloves, Mr. Goat. I can hear Jack warming up all the way from Canada.
 
If jackbot posts in here, IF, he will blame the right wing media
 
Isn't there a law against keeping the stuff past her employment? There's no dispute she did not turn over the emails when she left office, and since she produced them later (albeit some she deleted) they must have existed in her possession illegally.
 
Non story.


The Republican controlled FBI is on a witch hunt against Hillary Clinton because reasons
 
HendoRuaGOAT said:
In what world do we not know for a fact that Clinton broke the law here?

I see no mention in this law of being cleared of any responsibility if it is retro-actively classified. I see no mention of intent in this law. It clearly and simply states that classified information must be transmitted and stored in approved and secure places and equipment.

Go ahead Clinton defenders, explain to me how she didn't break this law..........................
Click to expand...

You see no mention because it is self-evident. If it was not classified at the time it was sent, then she broke no law. As far as I can tell the law doesn't say that they should treat information that is not classified as if it was just in case somebody decides to reclassify it later.

Let me put in simple terms so you can finally grasp it. Let's say you drive to work every day through a road where the speed limit is 70 mph. Let's say you like to drive at 65 mph. Then you move to another town, but a year later the authorities decide to lower the speed limit to 50 mph in that stretch of road.

Do the authorities have a right to give you a speeding ticket? Can they argue that driving in that road at 65 mph was reckless and that you should've known that the speed limit should have been 50 mph and driven accordingly?

Of course not!

It is as simple as that and by itself demolishes your argument.
 
JadeOwl said:
As far as I can tell the law doesn't say that they should treat information that is not classified as if it was just in case somebody decides to reclassify it later.
Click to expand...

What does "born classified" mean?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fact-checking-the-washington-post-fact-checker-on-mrs-clintons-emails/

Mrs. Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement, Standard Form 312, that renders the question of how the material was marked at the time irrelevant. Even the former Clinton staffer, supporter and Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos felt obliged to ask Mrs. Clinton on his ABC News show, “This Week:” “You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. …But the non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state said that that really is not that relevant.”

Classified or sensitive information need not be marked classified to be recognized as such. As we have reported, some information can be born classified, such as information gleaned from off-the-record conversations with members of foreign governments. The New York Times reported this January that the 22 emails that will not be released to the public contain information regarding Special Access Programs (SAP), which are “among the government’s most closely guarded secrets.”
Click to expand...



Here's her NDA.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf
 
Without getting into specifics, humint is inherently classified at a level well above what goes on a server in a closet
 
What about the evidence of her being on video saying we came, he saw, he died when talking about the Gaddafi lynching.

So what was her role in that and was it legal. Or did Clinton and the Obama administration Sabatoge the Libyan gov. And fund rebels to overthrow and kill gadaffi.
It was never reported in media about any war or operations In Libya.

Sounds like what Clinton and oBama did to Egypt. Sabatoge gov, fund the overthrowing of gov, and Clinton got the Muslim brotherhood in there who were ultimately banned from Egypt.

To this day Egypt wants to know why the u.s. and Clinton forced the brotherhood on them. They had to kick them out, a disaster of a plan.

Then Obama asked for was with Syria. Denied by Congess. But same story, fund rebels , over throw current gov.

The u.s would have done this to libya, gadaffi, Iraq, hussein, Afghanistan, bin Laden, hoping on Syria, assad..

Could it be any more clear
 
well she has attended secret closed door meetings with officials of other countries while being part of the US government.....that alone is breaking the law....
 
Good post, TS.

What is surprising to me, it's not so much that the law is explicitly clear and she violated it, what surprises me the most is the media keeps harping the same mantra such as " stamped classified."

I know, the media is in bed with Hillary. I still think they need to call her to the carpet with the evidence... I know the federal government will when the interviewer. It's clear to everyone that you violated the law. Because we all see the US code.

And as as I have stated in another thread, regular people, if they had classified information on a Gmail account, they would lose their job, lose their clearance, a banned from working on government contracts for X number of years, and be banned from working for the government for X number of years.

It is as simple as that.

-T
 
You aren't a lawyer who has access to the top data.

So if nobody so far has proved it I doubt you can
 
TheStruggle said:
Non story.


The Republican controlled FBI is on a witch hunt against Hillary Clinton because reasons
Click to expand...

THERE is no doubt a bias that does exist. Just like the Bengahzi hearings were an admitted witch hunt.
 
SouthoftheAndes said:
Not illegal and just conspiracy theores.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory? Do you know the government agency that REFUSES to release the emails, even in redacted form?

The US government already stated the information was TSSCI...

And we know the US Code.

It was illegal. US government said so.

-T
 
Here is a short story about two politicians and a crowd of angry people.

- Politician A lies to the public and starts a decade long war that leads to the death of a million people and no one bats an eye because he represents the political party favored by angry people.

- Politician B sends emails from home, followed by a year long investigation that finds no wrong doing, yet angry people still want to see her burn.

Can't we try to be a little unbiased, angry people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,398
Messages
56,645,120
Members
175,331
Latest member
psykro

Share this page

Back
Top