Posted on 05/05/2016 8:17:51 PM PDT by Fasceto
Or give her a lobotomy. Makes no difference to me.
= = = = = = = = = =
A wasted procedure.
BUT
She could always say
“I used to have a bottle in front of me now I have had a frontal lobotomy.”
Notice the ‘sympathy’ factor is starting with ‘Bill being sick’ and guess Chelsea will be ready for another kid or even kidnap or have the first one come down with a debilitating illness....
Anything to keep the eye off the brass ring.
Was a crime committed? Who done it? She did intend to store data on her unsecure server?
Is malicious intent an element of the crime?
Wouldn’t it be simple knowledge regardless of intent, possibly recklessness or criminal negligence?
What elements was Petraeus guilty of?
Pure unadulterated crap. The law is the law. Lex Rex, not Hillary rex.
No. The law doesn’t punish carelessness in this case. There has to be intent.
Actually she set up a separate system to protect herself from Obama.
But, in her defense, she was told that not following the security rules could lead to agents being “blown” and, naturally, she didn’t think the agents would mind that...
I have never made this kind of accusation before, but this dude lives under a bridge.
FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui
>>>Zacarias Moussaoui is a French citizen who pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to conspiring to kill citizens of the United States as part of the September 11 attacks.
call it cowpo, call it bulshift, stinks all the same. R.
There is a good discussion of it here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/emmens_reaem_and_hillary_clinton.html
There is also a good argument that her withholding the information from FOIA requests and from the Benghazi Committee constitutes evidence of removal from proper repository for a specific intent.
No it is not. Mishandling of secure information is a crime.
I have to take training several times a year on the proper handling of secure information. Mishandling is "mala se".
By the way... intent can be conclusively established by the registration date of clintonemail.com
https://who.is/whois/clintonemail.com
Registered January 13, 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Nomination_and_confirmation
January 13, 2009 is also the date her confirmation hearings began, hearings which did not end until the 21st of that month, and she was sworn in on the same day.
This scheme can therefore be conclusively established to have been her intent before she took office.
Furthermore, she has repeatedly put a false statement on the record, that she set up the server for her “convenience”. But there was no way this could have been an issue on January 13, 2009, as she had not experienced the inconveniences of the security setup at State yet and decisions as to what specifically was allowed to her in terms of electronic communications devices were not even made yet.
Odd that the Washington Post has this. This is a FBI criminal investigation. Who is leaking it? Obviously it is coming through Obama’s DOJ and reaching his administration to manage the media message for Clinton.
It's so obvious she did what she did partly for convenience and mostly to hide what she was doing from Obama and FOIA requests from Republicans who did catch at least one lie, but she "held up so well"
The fix has been in all along.
Bull squat! And does that matter when breaking the law?
This despicable idiot was SOS. I don’t give a damn what her intent was.
It was obfuscation that led to secret messages being sent over a public server.
For a Secretary of State of the United States Government that is jail.
If she is that obtuse then it sure as hell doesn’t mean a promotion!
Public Records Act of 1950....no need for intent. She failed to take care of all kinds of public records to skirt FOIA discovery. Judicial Watch is doing the work that the DoJ refuses to do.
It has been reported over and over - the section of US Law covering this has NOTHING to do with intent.
Setting up one’s own server isn’t careless, it’s intentional.
Telling an underling: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure” isn’t careless either, it’s intentional.
So she knowingly broke the law, but not in a bad way in her own mind. Got it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.