Author Topic: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?  (Read 788 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« on: August 26, 2015, 06:53:17 PM »
No attacks, no name calling... Is this true or false:

[/b]At the time Hilary was secretary of state, there was no law against using your own email server?[/b]

Is this true or false?  I read tonight that while laws are in place NOW, they weren't there when Hilary was SOS.  Also, Powell had his own secret email server while he was SOS and it was a non issue then too.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707.html

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2015, 07:29:04 AM »
Yeah but you still can't transmit TS or higher data across it.
L

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2015, 12:32:48 AM »
Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton has committed no crime

Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton has committed no crime
Anne M. Tompkins 7:27 p.m. EDT August 30, 2015
Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation of the law.
635765453752964047-Hillary6


Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.

These journals contained top secret and even more sensitive “code word” national defense information, including the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic discussions, and quotes and deliberative discussions from National Security Council meetings, including discussions with the president of the United States.

............

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals,...........

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2015, 07:25:23 AM »
If she saw an email that said TS/SCI or codeworded and then retransmitted, opened it or anything else other then report it to DOS security managers she is wrong and committed a felony. This is as easy a regulation as there is....its very black and white except when the Clintons are involved.
L

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2015, 08:09:12 AM »
If she saw an email that said TS/SCI or codeworded and then retransmitted, opened it or anything else other then report it to DOS security managers she is wrong and committed a felony. This is as easy a regulation as there is....its very black and white except when the Clintons are involved.

i'm a huge clinton hater.  I think her nomination is inevitable but cannot stand her.

BUT, IMO, if there's a smoking gun here... let's see it.  She deleted a bunch of emails, probably anything with "classified" in it. 

I'm not sure she broke any laws.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2015, 08:49:45 AM »
She may not even nominated. The FBI is investingating and we'll have to see. No matter what you, her or the DOJ say...if she opned, sent or originated any secret, TS, TS/SCI or code word email it is a violation of Federal law...just remains to be seen whats done about it.
L

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33705
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2015, 11:28:50 AM »
She may not even nominated. The FBI is investingating and we'll have to see. No matter what you, her or the DOJ say...if she opned, sent or originated any secret, TS, TS/SCI or code word email it is a violation of Federal law...just remains to be seen whats done about it.

Nothing will be done about it.

The Repubs have been starting investigations on her since 1992.  Not a damn thing has happened so far.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2015, 11:35:24 AM »
This is an FBI investigation....and Barry and his clowns hate Clinton and her crew. Documents don't go from unclass to class very often if ever. You can't send docs on a secured server to a an unclass system. You can email from low to high but the doc still goes to a secured server and the doc is looked at and signed off on. This is not what happened here. Her people took classified docs, printed and scanned them and then sent them off to her. No other way this happens.....
L

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33705
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2015, 11:44:32 AM »
This is an FBI investigation....and Barry and his clowns hate Clinton and her crew. Documents don't go from unclass to class very often if ever. You can't send docs on a secured server to a an unclass system. You can email from low to high but the doc still goes to a secured server and the doc is looked at and signed off on. This is not what happened here. Her people took classified docs, printed and scanned them and then sent them off to her. No other way this happens.....

Again :

Nothing will be done about it.

The Repubs have been starting investigations on her since 1992.  Not a damn thing has happened so far.

Has any of the other investigations been by the FBI?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2015, 02:13:48 PM »
Oh brother.  No, she will not be able to use Colin Powell as some "defense" to breaking the law. 

And where is the evidence that Colin Powell ran classified intel off his home computer? 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2015, 02:17:22 PM »
If she saw an email that said TS/SCI or codeworded and then retransmitted, opened it or anything else other then report it to DOS security managers she is wrong and committed a felony. This is as easy a regulation as there is....its very black and white except when the Clintons are involved.

I agree.  I think either she or one of her underlings is going to get prosecuted over this. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Clinton Defense - Is this true or false?
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2015, 04:45:55 PM »
And where is the evidence that Colin Powell ran classified intel off his home computer? 

it's hiding with the evidence that hilary KNOWINGLY did it.

Do I think she knowingly did it?  Fck yes, I do.  Obviously, she did it.

But it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.  I doubt they can prove she knowingly did anything.   "I don't recall" kept reagan's criminal ass out of prision.  Why wouldn't hilary use it?