Hillary's E-Mail (Breaking News: Smoking Gun Officially Announced)

I and other have linked it multiple times were it ALSO outlines negligence.

 

Except it is written in plain English and searchable by anyone with fingers and a brain.

It is pretty fucking clear. There are subsections and reading just the one you want doesn't make the below any less illegal.

And before you go back to your old tricks, I never said SHE would be guilty of this and that the likely outcome is someone on HER team.

It is CLEAR however that the LAW was broken as they found said data on her system. Which is WHY the FBI is investigating.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

I am not sure how you or anyone can argue with plain English. IN many cases the language can be written as such to provide a loophole or extend to a broader reach, however in this, 793 specifically relates to the gathering, transmitting and loss of national defense data AKA CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

In this, the law was so well written there isn't much to argue.

People are serving time for much much less under this law.

 

But those folks are not named clinton

 

https://gma.yahoo.com/analysis-sorr...y-clinton-133420655--abc-news-topstories.html

Read this article. Your accusation that negligence equals criminal is a lay persons assessment, as the article states. This is an espionage statute, not lay language, and this statute has been very well defined by the Supreme Court from multiple decisions dating back to 1941. Your problem is that you think that because you were the data security gomer at your unit you have some kind of particular insight that qualifies you to make legal assessments. All along I have advised you that you were wrong on this and provided multiple legal sources to show it. You have allowed your hatred of HRC to cloud your judgement and you believe what you want to believe rather than applying critical thought and seeking the advice of legal experts.

 

I am sure to your low-level IQ it seems painfully obvious however it is not according to legal experts. You are referencing espionage laws that have been very narrowly defined by the Supreme Court and are enforced accordingly. You have been reading reason.com too much along with Winston and you think that you know more than you do because some conservative pundit said so and you believe what you want to believe rather than relying upon facts.

You can show the statute over and over again all you like, but it doesn't remove the fact that this is an espionage statute that has been very narrowly defined by the Supreme Court. This isn't up for interpretation. It's already been done, Pride. This is exactly how I know that you are clueless about the subject and are relying upon conservative media outlets for your information. You keep stating this over and over even though multiple legal experts from both political stripes have stated that it is not the typical lay person definition.

In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase "national defense" in this very espionage law was too vague and over-broad. The answer was no only because:







The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without "intent" to injure the United States and in "bad faith." (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase "national defense" narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.

Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that doing so included "national defense" information "removed from its proper place of custody"? Sure, but that would also completely warp the intent and interpretation of this espionage law without far more evidence than what we have today.

Furthermore, "gross negligence," as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as: "A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence...."

As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal:

"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."

That is another critical point here. This espionage law clearly was never intended to address a secretary of state using -- foolishly or even improperly to maintain her privacy -- a personal email server to send and receive emails. Inevitably, this novel use of the law would leave a political stink.

Here it is in black and white.

 

Keep telling yourself that this is true, Pride. I've already posted exactly why it is not true.

In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase "national defense" in this very espionage law was too vague and over-broad. The answer was no only because:







The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without "intent" to injure the United States and in "bad faith." (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase "national defense" narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.

Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that doing so included "national defense" information "removed from its proper place of custody"? Sure, but that would also completely warp the intent and interpretation of this espionage law without far more evidence than what we have today.

Furthermore, "gross negligence," as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as: "A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence...."

As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal:

"Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers."

That is another critical point here. This espionage law clearly was never intended to address a secretary of state using -- foolishly or even improperly to maintain her privacy -- a personal email server to send and receive emails. Inevitably, this novel use of the law would leave a political stink.

Here it is again.....in black and white. But I am sure that Pride from TF knows more than consititutional lawyers and the Supreme Court.

 

Ahh, good ole personal attack because you have nothing to stand on.

You lose.

 

Believe what you want. SPin it how you want. I haven't watched the news on months brother. Say I get my shit from conservatives, I spend my time studying, playing with the kids and generally being a good dude.

It seems the only person wrapped up in the media on this one is you.

The FBI does not go this far into a "private server" if it is so CLEAR to a simpleton such as yourself. The Clintons have a clear record on stretching the con-finds of the law. You defending her just make it all the more obvious you couldn't be a moderate if paid to do so.

Have fun touching yourself. Im out for awhile. Got dirt bikes to ride, beer to drink and titties to motorboat you faggot.

And yes that was a Joke you PC police.

 

so you can dish it out but you can't take it? come on Pride, I was just giving you a hard time. if i really thought you were of sub standard intelligence i wouldn't waste my time with you. it would be too much like sucker punching the school retard. Lighten up a little....