Vegas Free-for-All - "New" Behghazi E-Mails Released

"New" Behghazi E-Mails Released

pjstroh

Dec 26, 2015
9:40pm

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
"Hoops is still telling the right wing fib about the Obama admnistration not calling Bengazhi a terrorist attack." - obama and company repeatedly said the attack was caused by a video. Is pj now saying that they didn't say it?

State Dept officials are not allowed to keep classified info at home. clinton had classified info on a server in her home; therefore the server is illegal

Well this explains everything. The problem is simply the difference between how investigators and Hoops define words in the English language.

The investigators define illegal as "breaking a Federal law". Hoops defines illegal as "not complying with State Dept policy".

Boilerman

Dec 26, 2015
9:44pm

Block User

If one can tried in a court of law for the actions, then it's against the law.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: hoops2
"Hoops is still telling the right wing fib about the Obama admnistration not calling Bengazhi a terrorist attack." - obama and company repeatedly said the attack was caused by a video. Is pj now saying that they didn't say it?

State Dept officials are not allowed to keep classified info at home. clinton had classified info on a server in her home; therefore the server is illegal

lvfritz

Dec 27, 2015
1:23am

Block User

LOL, I'm pretty sure that mishandling classified information is more than simply against state department policy, but then I'm not trying to defend the indefensible.

Like earlier posts mention, ask David Petraeus about what can happen when dealing with classified information improperly. But according to some, Hillary is too big to jail.

pjstroh

Dec 27, 2015
2:09am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: lvfritz
LOL, I'm pretty sure that mishandling classified information is more than simply against state department policy, but then I'm not trying to defend the indefensible.

Like earlier posts mention, ask David Petraeus about what can happen when dealing with classified information improperly. But according to some, Hillary is too big to jail.

Is that from the same lawbook that says Obama isn't eligible to be president because he father was from Africa?
Laws aren't defined by FOX news junkies who practice law on las Vegas message boards.

Maybe someone can post the actual law that would incriminate Hillary Clinton...oh, and Colin Powell....and every Secretary of state in the internet era who broke the same "law". And Jeb Bush tooo....since he used and erased government emails on his personal account.

lvfritz

Dec 27, 2015
2:23am

Block User

Typical of you PJ......name calling and justifying bad behavior with other bad behavior. If there is a case against the others, let's bring it. If not, let's just deal with the case at hand. And then let's check on Ash Carter while we are at it......nice of PJ to leave him off his list. OH, that's right, he's another democrat.

Notice there is no name calling here......no justifying Hillary's poor performance with other poor performances.

PJ, one day you will learn that defending the indefensible is just not the easiest thing to do. Those pesky little things like facts and laws really do apply to all of us......no exemption for the Clinton's.

Don

Dec 27, 2015
3:40am

Block User

Pertinent Law

i. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

ii. 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

iii. Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

These are the laws which would apply to a Government Official in possession of classified information. [note 1]

DonDiego does not expect these, . . . or any other laws, . . . to be applied to Secretary Clinton, because she is Hillary Clinton.

note 1: These are the pertinent Laws which poor old DonDiego found within 3 minutes; he saw no point to expending more time on a quixotic errand.

pjstroh

Dec 27, 2015
3:58am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Pertinent Law

i. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

ii. 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

iii. Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

These are the laws which would apply to a Government Official in possession of classified information. [note 1]

DonDiego does not expect these, . . . or any other laws, . . . to be applied to Secretary Clinton, because she is Hillary Clinton.

note 1: These are the pertinent Laws which poor old DonDiego found within 3 minutes; he saw no point to expending more time on a quixotic errand.

its that whole "pertinent" part I'm wondering about. Your links specifically say the laws are applied to those who (a) have an intent to share documents with a foreign entity. or (b) do not have permission to take the documents in the first place.

For two years we've been asking for evidence for (a) - and we get nothing. Maybe DonDiego knows something nobody at the FBI does. And considering Hillary is Secretary of State - there is nobody higher on the hierarchy in her department to get permission from (so much for "b").

Don

Dec 27, 2015
5:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

its that whole "pertinent" part I'm wondering about. Your links specifically say the laws are applied to those who (a) have an intent to share documents with a foreign entity. or (b) do not have permission to take the documents in the first place.

For two years we've been asking for evidence for (a) - and we get nothing. Maybe DonDiego knows something nobody at the FBI does. And considering Hillary is Secretary of State - there is nobody higher on the hierarchy in her department to get permission from (so much for "b").

DonDiego suggests pjstroh read more carefully, . . . the cited publications apply more broadly than pjstroh states.

The Laws pertaining to creation/handling/transmission of classified documents apply to all Government employees and in some cases others as well. The fact that one heads a Cabinet-level Department of Government does not permit one to make up one's own rules.

The FBI investigation continues.

pjstroh

Dec 27, 2015
9:50am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh

its that whole "pertinent" part I'm wondering about. Your links specifically say the laws are applied to those who (a) have an intent to share documents with a foreign entity. or (b) do not have permission to take the documents in the first place.

For two years we've been asking for evidence for (a) - and we get nothing. Maybe DonDiego knows something nobody at the FBI does. And considering Hillary is Secretary of State - there is nobody higher on the hierarchy in her department to get permission from (so much for "b").

I'm a pretty good reader. Your source:
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, .....
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid....
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, ....

The laws state pretty specific actions - none of which Hillary Clinton is charged with or there exists any evidence of. Maybe DonDiego can quote the specific line item in his source that Hillary allegedly is guilty of. I dont see one.

clcjim

Dec 27, 2015
11:46am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
The laws state pretty specific actions - none of which Hillary Clinton is charged with or there exists any evidence of. Maybe DonDiego can quote the specific line item in his source that Hillary allegedly is guilty of. I dont see one.

(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 . . .

«‹4 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now