Please don't resort to innuendo, quote what you are referring to.
Please don't resort to innuendo, quote what you are referring to. You're the champion of not quoting and you didn't quote in the message in which you requested quoting. Irony much?
I was composing on my phone. It's a mighty pain in the ass selecting and copying text. I figured you could remember what I posted. Turns out you did. But here you are:
Details are critical.
I note you didn't use one of the flat-out lies I identified and debunked in detail as the example. Curious, that.
I keep hearing it was from Russia. If not I'll find out soon enough.
You should know already, it's been out in the open for many months. The dossier came from Fusion GPS, a US corporation based in Washington DC. The author was Christopher Steele. A large part (not all) of the information in the document came from Russian sources.
She had classified information on her personal server. That is against the law, i.e. criminal.
Yes in some circumstances, no in other circumstances. Gosh, your sources didn't explain that? Could they be lying by omission?
There are two statutes that cold apply in this case.
18 U.S. Code ”1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:
quote:
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Note the word "
knowingly". That's important.
18 U.S. Code ”798. Disclosure of classified information:
quote:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information”
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes”
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
"
Knowingly and willfully". Notice a pattern?
Hillary had three classified emails on her server.
Emails containing classified information
must start with a header stating so. That header, for whatever reason, was not on those three emails.
Classified information in emails
must be marked with, for example, (c) for confidential information. The classified information in those emails wa so marked, but it was way down in the chain of replies and forwards. I don't know if you have any relevant experience, but it is very rarer for anyone to go down through that chain instead of just reading the top message. Since the required header was not present to alert her and Hillary was a very busy person, it's virtually certain she did not see that (c).
So.
not knowingly and willfully, unless you can prove otherwise, which ain't gonna happen. Not a crime.
She went to great pains to erase her emails and wreck the computer to destroy the evidence. That is obstruction of justice.
Not particularly great pains.
In early 2014 Hillary turned over approximately 30,000 emails her staff had determined to be work-related, retaining the ones they determined to be personal.
In December 2014 she decided she did not need any private emails older than 60 days, and instructed the server company to re-set her retention period to 60 days and delete older emails. Nobody ever checked to see if this was done. It wasn't. Couldn't have been that important, right?
On March 4, 2105 her emails were subpoenaed.
About three weeks later a technician at the server provider realized that the December order had not been carried out. He re-set the retention period and deleted the older emails. He ran a software program called BleachBit intending to prevent recovery of any of the deleted emails. Nobody dd any physical damage to the server.
In the ensuing few months the FBI recovered all or most of the deleted emails from the undamaged server; it's not clear exactly how many. No evidence of criminal activity was found. A few work-related emails were found.
Three elements are required to prove obstruction of justice:
- There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
- The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
- The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
Do you really think that anyone can prove Hillary had corrupt intent? Your opinion doesn't count.
Anything else?
™ Version 4.2
(1)