I cannot vote for Trump.

[MrBing]

He'd go to jail, I'd go to jail and you'd go to jail, IF what has been reported in the papers is true. I also am convinced of that beyond a doubt though I'm aware there could be some facts, that I too cannot imagine, which would make what she's done not criminal. Also, I guarantee you that not all Courts-Martial results are reported in the local papers. Most aren't interested in reporting it. I just Googled a Sailor by name from my fifth ship who had defrauded the US government of well over $100,000. I was XO and initiated the investigation that eventually led to his conviction at Courts-Martial. He was reduced in rank, fined, given a Dishonorable discharge and sent to prison. I don't recall how long exactly, but I believe it was 1 to 3 years. Doesn't matter, it was a conviction with some interesting circumstances (to include having woman and a son pretend to be his wife and son living with him in Navy housing while his actual wife and daughter were in living in another state), yet he's nowhere to be found on the internet. Mishandling classified information convictions of an E5 or a junior officer aren't even as exciting as that. Has to be senior officer involved to get press attention. I don't think it's possible to convince you short of the FBI recommending charges and the Justice Department prosecuting AND convicting her. Only time will tell on that one. I think the arguments have reached to point of wasting our time. As I said previously, I'm not even going to bother posting on the issue unless something new in the case is reported. This thread is a perfect example of what a waste of time it is.

That's the frickin truth. It is a waste of time and I shouldn't have bothered to get involved. Reminds me of everything I dislike about politics and the WC. People can't be reasonable about it for very long. I should stick with the basketball board. I hear IU is playing some good hoop and are playing tomorrow at noon. You heard that?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

He'd go to jail, I'd go to jail and you'd go to jail, IF what has been reported in the papers is true. I also am convinced of that beyond a doubt though I'm aware there could be some facts, that I too cannot imagine, which would make what she's done not criminal. Also, I guarantee you that not all Courts-Martial results are reported in the local papers. Most aren't interested in reporting it. I just Googled a Sailor by name from my fifth ship who had defrauded the US government of well over $100,000. I was XO and initiated the investigation that eventually led to his conviction at Courts-Martial. He was reduced in rank, fined, given a Dishonorable discharge and sent to prison. I don't recall how long exactly, but I believe it was 1 to 3 years. Doesn't matter, it was a conviction with some interesting circumstances (to include having woman and a son pretend to be his wife and son living with him in Navy housing while his actual wife and daughter were in living in another state), yet he's nowhere to be found on the internet. Mishandling classified information convictions of an E5 or a junior officer aren't even as exciting as that. Has to be senior officer involved to get press attention. I don't think it's possible to convince you short of the FBI recommending charges and the Justice Department prosecuting AND convicting her. Only time will tell on that one. I think the arguments have reached to point of wasting our time. As I said previously, I'm not even going to bother posting on the issue unless something new in the case is reported. This thread is a perfect example of what a waste of time it is.

WTF does someone defrauding the USG and deservedly go to jail have to do with anything? Why can't you and MrBing admit that your claims that we'd all be going to jail (IF WE MISHANDLED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITHOUT SHARING IT WITH FOREIGN AGENCIES OR JOIRNALISTS) are strictly emotional and rhetorical?

Maybe a better question is why I care. I have no friggin' clue.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And furthermore, there is precisely ZERO precedent to go on for assuming he'd go / I'd go / you'd go to jail. That's what has my dander up.

And I don't care about that. I'm more interested in the faulty belief that what has been released to the public so far demonstrates a crime has been committed. It doesn't.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That's the frickin truth. It is a waste of time and I shouldn't have bothered to get involved. Reminds me of everything I dislike about politics and the WC. People can't be reasonable about it for very long. I should stick with the basketball board. I hear IU is playing some good hoop and are playing tomorrow at noon. You heard that?

Sheesh. I've asked clearly worded questions and you've not answered them. If you can point to a specific case wherein someone was arrested and convicted with a prison sentence for mishandling classified information then I'll say thank you and eat crow. If me holding you accountable for your claims that you'd get tossed in jail is unreasonable, then this country is in a world of hurt.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Here's the problem, again. You're not stating that accurately. It would be much more accurate to say, "If what the newspapers have reported is true, then I find it extremely likely that a lot of crimes were committed, and if I committed those same crimes, I'd go to jail."

Nothing that's been reported proves a crime by anyone. All it does is describe a situation in which you find it preposterous to imagine crimes won't be found.

That's fine. I can go with "If what the newspapers have reported is true, then I find it extremely likely that a lot of crimes were committed, and if I committed those same crimes, I'd go to jail." It's so extremely likely that I can't fathom how she didn't commit one, but that's OK. Could be I don't have a great enough imagination. I'd add that it's very possible that HRC is being handled far differently than any of us would be. It's standard operating procedure during any incident like this for those that may have potentially mishandled classified information to immediately have their clearances suspended. There is no report that has happened. I suppose that a person can run for President without a clearance up to the point that they're getting classified briefings and that might not happen until they've won the election, so she could be without clearance now and it just hasn't been reported. See it's possible that she's had her clearance suspended and it hasn't been reported. Does that count as saying something nice about HRC?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

WTF does someone defrauding the USG and deservedly go to jail have to do with anything? Why can't you and MrBing admit that your claims that we'd all be going to jail (IF WE MISHANDLED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITHOUT SHARING IT WITH FOREIGN AGENCIES OR JOIRNALISTS) are strictly emotional and rhetorical?

Maybe a better question is why I care. I have no friggin' clue.

That story has to do with your statement that Courts-Martials convictions get reported in the local press. That's demonstrably not true. Also, it is absolutely not necessary to share the classified information with foreign agencies or journalist for one to be charged for mishandling classified information. All that's necessary is to place it at risk of compromise. It was clearly at risk. So I guess it's a given that I won't be saying what I've been saying is "strictly emotional and rhetorical.' It's not. Yes, I do fully believe that if what the newspapers have reported is true, then I find it extremely likely that a lot of crimes were committed, and if you committed those same crimes, you'd go to jail. How was that, Goat?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In researching Ranger's question, I discovered the James Hitselberger case, which seems to simultaneously provide evidence of both sides of this argument. It's an interesting case for our Hillary discussions, because he was charged with violating 18 USC 1924, "Unauthorized removal or retention of classified information," which is the statute most often cited when suggesting potential crimes for Hillary.

On the one hand, State does seem to come down harsh on lower level workers for minor instances of mishandling classified info. On the other hand, as Hitselberger argued at sentencing, there is strong precedent for punishing these offenses with something less than jail time, and sending someone to jail actually would be unusually harsh.

Obviously, that's just his lawyer making a one-sided argument, and I have no stats on it, but the precedent for punishing these types of violations with probation certainly exists. And, in this case, the government actually concurred with the defendant's request for time served, and that's exactly what the judge gave him.

It could be that Aloha and Bing, when they say, "If I did it, I'd be locked up," are in fact quite overstating things. But it could also still be that Hillary's carelessness is something the government would pursue charges against vigorously if she were a mere lackey.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That story has to do with your statement that Courts-Martials convictions get reported in the local press. That's demonstrably not true. Also, it is absolutely not necessary to share the classified information with foreign agencies or journalist for one to be charged for mishandling classified information. All that's necessary is to place it at risk of compromise. It was clearly at risk. So I guess it's a given that I won't be saying what I've been saying is "strictly emotional and rhetorical.' It's not. Yes, I do fully believe that if what the newspapers have reported is true, then I find it extremely likely that a lot of crimes were committed, and if you committed those same crimes, you'd go to jail. How was that, Goat?

Navy.mil lists all of the courts martial cases going back to 2013. Was your sailor before that? Air Force also has a JAG site with results.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That story has to do with your statement that Courts-Martials convictions get reported in the local press. That's demonstrably not true. Also, it is absolutely not necessary to share the classified information with foreign agencies or journalist for one to be charged for mishandling classified information. All that's necessary is to place it at risk of compromise. It was clearly at risk. So I guess it's a given that I won't be saying what I've been saying is "strictly emotional and rhetorical.' It's not. Yes, I do fully believe that if what the newspapers have reported is true, then I find it extremely likely that a lot of crimes were committed, and if you committed those same crimes, you'd go to jail. How was that, Goat?

Navy.mil lists all of the courts martial cases going back to 2013. Was your sailor before that? Air Force also has a JAG site with results.

None of this court-martial stuff is relevant, anyway. If Hillary is indicted for something, it won't be a violation of the UCMJ, and she won't be court-martialed. If we want to see if Hillary is being given special treatment, we should be looking into cases of civilian State workers who mishandled documents, not military personnel.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

None of this court-martial stuff is relevant, anyway. If Hillary is indicted for something, it won't be a violation of the UCMJ, and she won't be court-martialed. If we want to see if Hillary is being given special treatment, we should be looking into cases of civilian State workers who mishandled documents, not military personnel.

I agree but I'm proving a point that there isn't precedent to claim what Aloha and Bing are claiming, in any justice system.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Navy.mil lists all of the courts martial cases going back to 2013. Was your sailor before that? Air Force also has a JAG site with results.

I left that ship in 2001 and my next ship in 2009. Interesting if they list them all now because in searching for several convictions I could remember, I found exactly zero reported in the press. I'll heck out when I get a chance so I can see what that site is reporting.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

None of this court-martial stuff is relevant, anyway. If Hillary is indicted for something, it won't be a violation of the UCMJ, and she won't be court-martialed. If we want to see if Hillary is being given special treatment, we should be looking into cases of civilian State workers who mishandled documents, not military personnel.

Because we military folks are mere peons that deserve to be treated far more harshly for our crimes . . .

Seriously, the federal law for this is the same. The classification levels mishandled are the very highest. I doubt there is a precedent nearly this serious at DoS or anywhere else.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Because we military folks are mere peons that deserve to be treated far more harshly for our crimes . . .

That's unfair.

Seriously, the federal law for this is the same. The classification levels mishandled are the very highest. I doubt there is a precedent nearly this serious at DoS or anywhere else.

Are they? Are the UCMJ provisions word-for-word identical to the provisions that would apply to Hillary? I never studied military law, so I have no idea.

The criminal code doesn't distinguish between classification levels. Might the government seek harsher sentencing at higher levels? Maybe. But look at what Petraeus did. That was a helluva lot worse than what Hillary is likely to have done, even in a worst-case scenario for her, and he got off pretty easy.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

In researching Ranger's question, I discovered the James Hitselberger case, which seems to simultaneously provide evidence of both sides of this argument. It's an interesting case for our Hillary discussions, because he was charged with violating 18 USC 1924, "Unauthorized removal or retention of classified information," which is the statute most often cited when suggesting potential crimes for Hillary.

On the one hand, State does seem to come down harsh on lower level workers for minor instances of mishandling classified info. On the other hand, as Hitselberger argued at sentencing, there is strong precedent for punishing these offenses with something less than jail time, and sending someone to jail actually would be unusually harsh.

Obviously, that's just his lawyer making a one-sided argument, and I have no stats on it, but the precedent for punishing these types of violations with probation certainly exists. And, in this case, the government actually concurred with the defendant's request for time served, and that's exactly what the judge gave him.

It could be that Aloha and Bing, when they say, "If I did it, I'd be locked up," are in fact quite overstating things. But it could also still be that Hillary's carelessness is something the government would pursue charges against vigorously if she were a mere lackey.

By the way, I linked an article about that case and two others like it a while back because I couldn't find two better Courts-Martial cases I had in mind. Far as I could tell no one bothered to read what I linked and made no comments. I can be stubborn and I've since refused to even bother to find and link additional cases. Besides, no matter what case is linked it won't be exactly the same. There is no case exactly like this one. Someone will say, yeah, but . . . " every time. If they bother to read it.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Because we military folks are mere peons that deserve to be treated far more harshly for our crimes . . .

You're infinitely smarter than this. Come on, man. #CrisCarter

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That's unfair.


Are they? Are the UCMJ provisions word-for-word identical to the provisions that would apply to Hillary? I never studied military law, so I have no idea.

The criminal code doesn't distinguish between classification levels. Might the government seek harsher sentencing at higher levels? Maybe. But look at what Petraeus did. That was a helluva lot worse than what Hillary is likely to have done, even in a worst-case scenario for her, and he got off pretty easy.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the UCMJ is based on federal law and adds military unique infractions like "conduct unbecoming," "failure to obey," "fraternization," etc.

Classification levels absolutely matter. Someone mishandling a Confidential document might get a slap on the wrist, someone mishandling Secret or Top Secret information is likely going to be treated very harshly. Quantity matters. Intent matters. Level of negligence matters. History matters. It all matters in one way or another in the whether charges are brought and at what level and how severe the punishment is.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You're infinitely smarter than this. Come on, man. #CrisCarter

I was joking about how it sounded. Guys get way too serious here sometimes.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Classification levels absolutely matter. Someone mishandling a Confidential document might get a slap on the wrist, someone mishandling Secret or Top Secret information is likely going to be treated very harshly. Quantity matters. Intent matters. Level of negligence matters. History matters. It all matters in one way or another in the whether charges are brought and at what level and how severe the punishment is.

All that stuff matters in terms of how seriously the government takes it and how vigorously they pursue it, but, with the possible exception of sentencing factors, they are all legally irrelevant unless they are elements of the crime. And other than distinguishing between knowledge, intent and gross negligence, they generally are not.

Look, even if Hillary did knowingly mishandle classified info, she still didn't do anything nearly as bad as Petraeus, which was to mishandle classified info, and then give it to an unauthorized person. And he got probation.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

All that stuff matters in terms of how seriously the government takes it and how vigorously they pursue it, but, with the possible exception of sentencing factors, they are all legally irrelevant unless they are elements of the crime. And other than distinguishing between knowledge, intent and gross negligence, they generally are not.

Look, even if Hillary did knowingly mishandle classified info, she still didn't do anything nearly as bad as Petraeus, which was to mishandle classified info, and then give it to an unauthorized person. And he got probation.

But according to Aloha and Bing, they'd have gotten drawn and quartered.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I concur with that. Hillary vs. Trump or Cruz or whoever the GOP nominates will make this an election without a good choice. I also realize that Bernie is pushing some pie in the sky policies but I can vote for him and hope he gets us closer to some of that pie.

Fair enough. I'm hoping Bernie will make like a cowpie and hit the trail.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

All that stuff matters in terms of how seriously the government takes it and how vigorously they pursue it, but, with the possible exception of sentencing factors, they are all legally irrelevant unless they are elements of the crime. And other than distinguishing between knowledge, intent and gross negligence, they generally are not.

Look, even if Hillary did knowingly mishandle classified info, she still didn't do anything nearly as bad as Petraeus, which was to mishandle classified info, and then give it to an unauthorized person. And he got probation.

I actually think it's arguably just as bad or worse for a couple reasons. First, the quantity involved is significantly higher and included the highest level of classification and having it rest on an insecure unclassified server placed it all at risk of compromise. The opening assumption in a case like that is that it was compromised until proven otherwise so defending on the information a lot of resources could be expended trying to protect the methods and sources as if they've been outed. Second, his mistress actually did have a clearance at the appropriate level. She didn't possess the need to know and patraeus didn't follow appropriate procedures for transmitting/transporting it or storing it. He deserved more than he got, but he was a four star and Director of the CIA and it is what it is. If there se charges and punishment in HRC's case, the harshest will be aimed at staffers and she'll be treated similarly to Patraeus.

That would still kill her run to the White House and that would be a crying shame.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Saw my first Bernie TV ad today. I have no way of knowing if it was a BTN slot or a local slot, but I assume it was local. I can't imagine why buy air time directly from BTN.

If that's the case, that tells me Bernie's people are feeling pretty confident right now, to start spreading money into a May primary state, instead of spending everything on next Tuesday. Or maybe he just has so much money that he can afford to do both with no worries.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

But according to Aloha and Bing, they'd have gotten drawn and quartered.

BS. We don't even allowing flogging or keel hauling these days. The good old days are long gone.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I actually think it's arguably just as bad or worse for a couple reasons. First, the quantity involved is significantly higher and included the highest level of classification and having it rest on an insecure unclassified server placed it all at risk of compromise.

That's still debatable. A relatively small percentage of those emails were actually sent by her, and we still have to remember that a crime was only committed in cases where the email contained information she knew was classified or should have known absent gross negligence. You can pretty much forget gross negligence. That's very hard to prove. So the only potential crimes are going to be emails where the person sending (or perhaps, in Hillary's case, storing) the email actually knew the information was classified at the time. So, despite the big numbers being thrown around the press, us regular folks who don't have access to the investigation really have no idea what kind of quantity we're really talking about.

The opening assumption in a case like that is that it was compromised until proven otherwise so defending on the information a lot of resources could be expended trying to protect the methods and sources as if they've been outed. Second, his mistress actually did have a clearance at the appropriate level. She didn't possess the need to know and patraeus didn't follow appropriate procedures for transmitting/transporting it or storing it. He deserved more than he got, but he was a four star and Director of the CIA and it is what it is. If there se charges and punishment in HRC's case, the harshest will be aimed at staffers and she'll be treated similarly to Patraeus.

In this case, that might be appropriate. It sounds now like one of the most likely scenarios for a crime is an aide knowingly moving classified info to an unsecure system and then sending it in such a way that by the time it got to Hillary, Hillary was unaware it was classified. In those particular cases, Hillary would not be criminally liable, but it would absolutely be proper to go after the aide.

On the other hand, if she is criminally liable in any of these instances, and she receives lighter treatment than others, I agree that's pretty shitty, but as you said about Petraeus, "it is what it is."

That would still kill her run to the White House and that would be a crying shame.

I won't shed tears for her, especially since I still believe Bernie will beat Trump if they face off in November.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That's still debatable. A relatively small percentage of those emails were actually sent by her, and we still have to remember that a crime was only committed in cases where the email contained information she knew was classified or should have known absent gross negligence. You can pretty much forget gross negligence. That's very hard to prove. So the only potential crimes are going to be emails where the person sending (or perhaps, in Hillary's case, storing) the email actually knew the information was classified at the time. So, despite the big numbers being thrown around the press, us regular folks who don't have access to the investigation really have no idea what kind of quantity we're really talking about.

In this case, that might be appropriate. It sounds now like one of the most likely scenarios for a crime is an aide knowingly moving classified info to an unsecure system and then sending it in such a way that by the time it got to Hillary, Hillary was unaware it was classified. In those particular cases, Hillary would not be criminally liable, but it would absolutely be proper to go after the aide.

On the other hand, if she is criminally liable in any of these instances, and she receives lighter treatment than others, I agree that's pretty shitty, but as you said about Petraeus, "it is what it is."


I won't shed tears for her, especially since I still believe Bernie will beat Trump if they face off in November.

This thread started off with me saying I won't vote for Trump and it went all over the place. Now that your talking about Sanders vs Trump I . . . still wouldn't vote for Trump. I don't want either to be President, but I don't think you should be so confident that even Trump can't beat Sanders. I think he could without my vote. Either way, that election would suck hard for me.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This thread started off with me saying I won't vote for Trump and it went all over the place. Now that your talking about Sanders vs Trump I . . . still wouldn't vote for Trump. I don't want either to be President, but I don't think you should be so confident that even Trump can't beat Sanders. I think he could without my vote. Either way, that election would suck hard for me.

I think most reasonable moderate Repubs like you should consider the likelihood of Sanders accomplishing his socialist reforms. If you guys all go vote for Bernie just to keep the Demagogue out of office, but also vote for your Republican congressfolks, and keep government split, he won't. If you guys all stay home, and the end result is that the Dems somehow magically win back Congress, you have a lot more to worry about.

 

[iuwclurker1]

This thread started off with me saying I won't vote for Trump and it went all over the place. Now that your talking about Sanders vs Trump I . . . still wouldn't vote for Trump. I don't want either to be President, but I don't think you should be so confident that even Trump can't beat Sanders. I think he could without my vote. Either way, that election would suck hard for me.

Another way to view the election is think long term. Ignore who you're voting for and think about the consequences of having him (her? ) elected. Slaughtering Bernie would teach the Democrats a good lesson about nominating quasi-socialists.

 

[iuwclurker1]

That's the frickin truth. It is a waste of time and I shouldn't have bothered to get involved. Reminds me of everything I dislike about politics and the WC. People can't be reasonable about it for very long. I should stick with the basketball board. I hear IU is playing some good hoop and are playing tomorrow at noon. You heard that?

Rather be selective in who you decide to engage. Is it fun? No? CANCELED.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And I don't care about that. I'm more interested in the faulty belief that what has been released to the public so far demonstrates a crime has been committed. It doesn't.

She likely admitted criminal conduct when she said:

"I never sent an e-mail MARKED classified". (My emphasis). Then she argues classification of her e-mail was done later. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the utter stupidity of her comment. Even if she is not charged, she is too stupid to have her finger on the button.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

She likely admitted criminal conduct when she said:

"I never sent an e-mail MARKED classified". (My emphasis). Then she argues classification of her e-mail was done later. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the utter stupidity of her comment. Even if she is not charged, she is too stupid to have her finger on the button.

You're delusional.

And a crappy lawyer if you expect posts like this to actually be taken seriously.

You. Hate. Hillary. We get it. You've been in crazy town about this for years, with a small detour while you focused your irrational hatred on Obama, instead.

And, since I can easily predict what your response will be, no, you don't live rent-free in my head. You keep responding to my damn posts. Go away.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

She likely admitted criminal conduct when she said:

"I never sent an e-mail MARKED classified". (My emphasis). Then she argues classification of her e-mail was done later. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the utter stupidity of her comment. Even if she is not charged, she is too stupid to have her finger on the button.

You should read the guides that say what's classified, what's not, and at what level. They're complicated and somewhat subject to interpretation.

I'm no fan of hers, not that it matters, but I do believe that someone can not know whether a piece of information is or isn't classified. Whether she knew or not is what's at question, and your latching onto that phrase you listed as a smoking gun is wildly naive for someone of your intelligence.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're delusional.

And a crappy lawyer if you expect posts like this to actually be taken seriously.

You. Hate. Hillary. We get it. You've been in crazy town about this for years, with a small detour while you focused your irrational hatred on Obama, instead.

And, since I can easily predict what your response will be, no, you don't live rent-free in my head. You keep responding to my damn posts. Go away.

You need to think like a lawyer, not like a partisan hack

First, she has never denied sending classified info on her private e-mail. Not ever. Not once.

Second, she had total and absolute control over the content of messages she originated.

Third she had total control over what she chose to mark or not mark for the messages she originated.

Fourth, if any of her messages were retroactively "marked," as she claims, that likely means she messed up marking when she originated the message.

Fifth, her claim that she never sent a message "marked" classified is stupid. That would have been her decision. Not any one else's decision.

Finally this narrow point isn't that hard. But it seems to be hard for you. There is much more as I and others have pointed out for months. But this is the most obvious legal issue for H because of what she keeps saying about marking.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You should read the guides that say what's classified, what's not, and at what level. They're complicated and somewhat subject to interpretation.

I'm no fan of hers, not that it matters, but I do believe that someone can not know whether a piece of information is or isn't classified. Whether she knew or not is what's at question, and your latching onto that phrase you listed as a smoking gun is wildly naive for someone of your intelligence.

She was Secretary of State

For the United States of America. Not some hapless staffer. What do the guides say about messages originated by her? Or originated by POTUS. Or originated by SecDef?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You need to think like a lawyer, not like a partisan hack

First, she has never denied sending classified info on her private e-mail. Not ever. Not once.

Second, she had total and absolute control over the content of messages she originated.

Third she had total control over what she chose to mark or not mark for the messages she originated.

Fourth, if any of her messages were retroactively "marked," as she claims, that likely means she messed up marking when she originated the message.

Fifth, her claim that she never sent a message "marked" classified is stupid. That would have been her decision. Not any one else's decision.

Finally this narrow point isn't that hard. But it seems to be hard for you. There is much more as I and others have pointed out for months. But this is the most obvious legal issue for H because of what she keeps saying about marking.

Take your own advice and try to remember that you were, at least once, an expert in the law.

Her comments about content being marked are not being made in court. They are the benefit for the public. But they don't constitute an admission of guilt except in crazy GOP world where you twist everything she says or doesn't say into the worst possible version.

Did she admit to knowingly sending or storing classified info on an insecure system? No? Then sit down, and shut up, counselor. Thankfully, we still live in a country where you have to prove guilt, not innocence. You'd clearly have it work the other way around for Hillary.

 

[iuwclurker1]

You're delusional.

And a crappy lawyer

Now we know what COH is. What are you?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Take your own advice and try to remember that you were, at least once, an expert in the law.

Her comments about content being marked are not being made in court. They are the benefit for the public. But they don't constitute an admission of guilt except in crazy GOP world where you twist everything she says or doesn't say into the worst possible version.

Did she admit to knowingly sending or storing classified info on an insecure system? No? Then sit down, and shut up, counselor. Thankfully, we still live in a country where you have to prove guilt, not innocence. You'd clearly have it work the other way around for Hillary.

Hillary is well-coached and she chooses her words wisely

Her consistent use of the word "marked" in connection with e-mail she originated and sent must mean something. a reasonable explanation is that she can't truthfully say she never originated and sent classified info not marked. We aren't talking about jury instructions here. We are talking about politics and what are likely the crimes of a candidate for POTUS. As far as I know, we have never had a legit front-runner candidate subject to an active FBI criminal inestgation during the campaign.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

She was Secretary of State

For the United States of America. Not some hapless staffer. What do the guides say about messages originated by her? Or originated by POTUS. Or originated by SecDef?

You're showing your ignorance on this subject. The hapless staffers likely know the guidelines far better than their managers and leaders. That is not an indictment on her, as she had far larger fish to fry than know the classification guidelines.

I believe she failed in exercising proper judgment. If something even smelled like it could be classified she should've had it reviewed prior to putting it on an unprotected, non-air-gapped system. You see, these are the things that sink careers, little things like this. Diplomats, top military leaders, etc., get fixated on the mission and they lose track of this. It's a timeless story.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're showing your ignorance on this subject. The hapless staffers likely know the guidelines far better than their managers and leaders. That is not an indictment on her, as she had far larger fish to fry than know the classification guidelines.

I believe she failed in exercising proper judgment. If something even smelled like it could be classified she should've had it reviewed prior to putting it on an unprotected, non-air-gapped system. You see, these are the things that sink careers, little things like this. Diplomats, top military leaders, etc., get fixated on the mission and they lose track of this. It's a timeless story.

Interesting post

And I don't disagree with your general intent.

But the ARB report said there was leadership and competency failures in several areas of the department of state. She testified under oath that she didn't consider pulling our diplomats out of Libya prior to the ambassador being killed because "no one recommended that to her". She didn't bother herself with the security of diplomats because she didn't know what to do. She didn't take responsibility for much. Seemingly her only fish to fry while she was SOS was to build her campaign resume.

 

[RBabbitt]

You're delusional.

And a crappy lawyer if you expect posts like this to actually be taken seriously.

You. Hate. Hillary. We get it. You've been in crazy town about this for years, with a small detour while you focused your irrational hatred on Obama, instead.

And, since I can easily predict what your response will be, no, you don't live rent-free in my head. You keep responding to my damn posts. Go away.

A crappy lawyer? A neophyte lawyer from a third-rate law school who couldn't get a job anywhere says this to another lawyer who has practiced for forty years and has represented a lot of high-profile clients? That's high comedy.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

A crappy lawyer? A neophyte lawyer from a third-rate law school who couldn't get a job anywhere says this to another lawyer who has practiced for forty years and has represented a lot of high-profile clients? That's high comedy.

Substituting political obsession for sound legal judgment makes you a crappy lawyer, no matter what your experience.