Name a major media outlet, I'll find you an article, bubble boy.
No one is arguing she wasn't careless. My point is, there was no breach(we would have seen some by now) and the emails weren't Top Top Secret.
And for the record, I don't agree with her setting up the server and am not really a fan of hers.
If you think there were no breach then I have to question your sanity. In any case there being a breach is irrelevant to potential charges she may be facing. She was negligent, period. She has lied over and over about this.No one is arguing she wasn't careless. My point is, there was no breach(we would have seen some by now) and the emails weren't Top Top Secret.
And for the record, I don't agree with her setting up the server and am not really a fan of hers.
If you think there were no breach then I have to question your sanity. In any case there being a breach is irrelevant to potential charges she may be facing. She was negligent, period. She has lied over and over about this.
If she was smart she took the fifth like this during this inverview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdeo7Q2E5cE
Name a major media outlet, I'll find you an article, bubble boy.
Fappity-fap-fap-fap. The same could be said for birtherism, Fast & furious, Benghazi & the rest. The media loves sensationalism.
There are laws in regards to negligence that may or may not apply. I'm not aware of any law that says the data must have actually been stolen in order for there to be culpability.Are you making a moral or legal judgement? If the first then I'd agree. The second would require being able to cite a law which was in place at the time of her actions.
I find the liberals dismissing the optics here to be breathtaking. To nobody on earth with an ounce of rational intellect would this look good. To look at the event without knowing what was said and concluding BC wasn't seeking some political advantage is as conspiratorial as to say that he was. There is nothing but partisanship coloring the views on both sides. But one cannot deny the facts of appearance. No sane mind operates on tha notion that if it walks like a duck it's a rose. The press shoul ask what the purpose of the meeting was.
He really is the biggest hack I've ever met.And there you have it, jhhnn the liar.
Welcome back to my ignore list.
He really is the biggest hack I've ever met.
What a lot of us have been saying for years is he doesn't seem to think the rules apply to him that apply to everybody else. This is just an example of that attitude.A lot of posts here make a very good point, why would Bill Clinton attempt to manipulate the investigation in a publicly visible meeting? But I don't really get why Bill didn't seem to realize it looks bad regardless. Maybe he's just getting senile.
Loretta Lynch herself admits that the meeting creates an appearance of conflict of interest and wishes she declined it. But had she turned him away that may have created its own problems, giving a stronger appearance that Bill was doing something he should have been which would have reflected worse on Hillary.
A lot of posts here make a very good point, why would Bill Clinton attempt to manipulate the investigation in a publicly visible meeting? But I don't really get why Bill didn't seem to realize it looks bad regardless. Maybe he's just getting senile.
But how many administration officials were removed from office or prosecuted? They can make noise, but the shite hits the fan, they do nothing about it.Doesn't want to rock the boat? What? put down whatever you are smoking. I believe the Repub congress had about 6 investigations into Benghazi alone. And you can go through the litany of BS issues they've investigated.
It's pretty sad. We're all hacks to a certain extent, he just takes it to new levels.Wonder if he ever gets out of his moms basement, I get a kick out of the Denver location and no knowledge of CO gun laws or Denver laws.
There are laws in regards to negligence that may or may not apply. I'm not aware of any law that says the data must have actually been stolen in order for there to be culpability.
(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.
And there you have it, jhhnn the liar.
Welcome back to my ignore list.
Loretta Lynch herself admits that the meeting creates an appearance of conflict of interest and wishes she declined it. But had she turned him away that may have created its own problems, giving a stronger appearance that Bill was doing something he should have been which would have reflected worse on Hillary.
A lot of posts here make a very good point, why would Bill Clinton attempt to manipulate the investigation in a publicly visible meeting? But I don't really get why Bill didn't seem to realize it looks bad regardless. Maybe he's just getting senile.
Thanks, it looks like it needs to have been taken AND there needs to be knowledge that it was THEN they didn't report it. Some would argue that the transfer of classified material to her bathroom server was the "legally removed" aspect of this. Anybody who was aware of the server could be in trouble for this who sent her information in regards to the "national defense" through it.Let me present one. I don't know all the law, but this one mentions consequence for breaches.
From US Code Title 18 section 793(f)
Defenders would say "what's gross negligence". I think in a court of law the pattern of disregard and demonstrated priorities of personal privacy over security coupled with refusing aid in correcting security deficiencies would quality. Hard to rationally argue that point.
Whether any other laws are applicable I cannot say, but this deals with consequences under certain contingencies. IF IF IF they happened then she's in trouble or should be. If the investigation shows no breach then of course she's off the hook as far as 793 is concerned.
Do you really believe this crap?It likely was a simple faux pas that was instantly blown out of proportion for consumption by the Birther/Benghazi believers. Witness the conjecture & innuendo in this thread, the expressions of certainty as to what great conspiracy was discussed & why.
When your goggles are smeared with bullshit, everything looks bad.
. Was it bad optics? Absolutely! But that's about all it was.
Do you really believe this crap?
Do you really believe this crap?
He and his foundation, and his wife, is at the center of an fbi criminal (not security review) investigation that may involve over a hundred agents, subpoenas, testimony, plea bargains, extraditions, national spotlight...etc. He, a formerly barred attorney, state ag, governor, president who appointed ags, had a special prosecutor go after him, and his wife, another former attorney, committed an accidental fuck up "faux pas" while effectively ambushing the current ag, who is reponsible for said investigation, after holding up his own take off time by more than a half hour, while not announcing said meeting and it not being discovered until a singlr reporter got a tip and asked a single question?It likely was a simple faux pas that was instantly blown out of proportion for consumption by the Birther/Benghazi believers. Witness the conjecture & innuendo in this thread, the expressions of certainty as to what great conspiracy was discussed & why.
When your goggles are smeared with bullshit, everything looks bad.
Here is what is hilarious. We need to have proof that he might have been trying to derail an investigation. If nobody can investigate them how can we ever get proof?Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?
If not, all the accusations need to be framed properly as scurrilous speculation.