Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

The Truth About Who Trump Is

Drop by to catch the latest information about Weber related Con programming, guests, and activities, plus just plan meet-ups!
Re: The Truth About Who Trump Is
Post by doug941   » Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:40 am

doug941
Commander

Posts: 169
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 5:21 pm

doug941 wrote:
gcomeau wrote:

As you said, charges can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, likewise they can also be charged a singles or as a group.


but they absolutely CANNOT simply be multiplied by the number of people information reaches after it is breached. That is crazy.

The law says that a single person seeing a single document he/she is not cleared to see is a single crime. Seeing multiple docs is either multiple charges or a single charge.


Yeah? Show me the exact part of the law that says what you just typed. I'll wait.

And don't forget how Comey had to play 7 dimensional chess to excuse her handling of classified material. He rewrote Federal law to say what it doesn't say to legally excuse her.


Yeeeeah.... no. No he did not.


Possession of classified materials in non-cleared areas is a crime even if the person having it is cleared to have it.


And whether it is prosecuted as a crime is to a large degree a matter of prosecutorial discretion on the severity of the offense, the intent or lack thereof of the person who committed the offense, etc...

This was rather non severe, and there was zero established intent of misconduct. It was simply an act of poor judgement in choice of e-mail infrastructure. So as Comey accurately stated, no prosecutor would reasonably bring charges in this case.

General XYZ looking at a classified intel briefing about PRC military strength while sitting in his office is legal if he is cleared for those doc. Him looking at them while sitting in a McDonalds eating a cheeseburger is illegal.

And while you mention 18 US Code 1924, I noticed you DID NOT mention 18 US Code 798.


Because that statute requires *knowing and willful disclosure or publication* of classified materials? Which did not happen here? So it's completely irrelevant?


The number of people seeing classified info is legally moot, it is the fact of them actually seeing the info that is the crime. Nor is the time frame important. The "breaching" of classification does not in any way become a"get-out-of-jail" card. Breached classified materials are still classified until declassified by relevant authorit

Bradley/Chelsea Manning was found guilty of SIX charges of espionage. SIX, not one. To use your version of logic, he/she legally could not be charged with those six. Still waiting?

Comey in his speech used language that appears nowhere in US Code and that completely changes what the espionage laws mean. And the then current FBI General Counsel James Baker has testified in front of the House of Representatives that Hillary was entirely deserving of having charges filed. John Radcliffe, a former Federal Prosecutor asked Baker the following:
"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?”

Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.” He was later talked out of standing behind this position.

Lack of intent is not proven here nor can it be. A number of these docs were deliberately and criminally removed from an intelligence intranet. This intranet has NO, repeat, NO connection to the outside world. The only way these docs could have ended up on her server was is they were downloaded to a removable storage device and/or printed and then removed. Both of these are themselves illegal acts.

18 US Code 798 (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

The Colorado IT firm that Hillary hired to run her server would by definition had "Knowingly" access to the system. They could not do their job otherwise and the first several months it was in operation, the system was not encrypted.
The legal team she used to vet the various emails were not cleared to see them. As such, she "knowingly" violated espionage laws when she gave them access to the emails. At least 22 emails contained "Top Secret" or "Top Secret/Code Word" material. Over 2,000 emails contained "Confidential" thru "Top Secret." She could not legally give access to ANYONE outside of government service or non-government persons so cleared. And even if someone is cleared to see materials in areas "A", "B" and "C", allowing them to see material in area "J" is yet another crime.
Top
Re: The Truth About Who Trump Is
Post by gcomeau   » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:55 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:24 pm

doug941 wrote:
gcomeau wrote:
Because that statute requires *knowing and willful disclosure or publication* of classified materials? Which did not happen here? So it's completely irrelevant?


The number of people seeing classified info is legally moot, it is the fact of them actually seeing the info that is the crime.


Why yes, yes it is! So you have abandoned your previous claim that the number of people who saw the info multiplied the number of potential charges then. Good. We can move on.

Nor is the time frame important. The "breaching" of classification does not in any way become a"get-out-of-jail" card. Breached classified materials are still classified until declassified by relevant authorit


Nobody said anything about time frames.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning was found guilty of SIX charges of espionage. SIX, not one. To use your version of logic, he/she legally could not be charged with those six. Still waiting?


Oh yes, definitely still waiting.

Thanks for bringing up the case that proves my point. Yes, Manning was charged with multiple counts of espionage, because she committed MULTIPLE ACTS of espionage.

She breached the CIDNEI database to steal classified material from it and distribute it.

She breached the CIDNEA database for the same purpose.

She breached a US Southern Command database for the same purpose.

She breached a State Department diplomatic database for the same purpose.

Etc...

Each ACT is an offense, Not each classified piece of paper that got out.

And to make that point more emphatically, the prosecutors tried to overreach and multiply the charges a bit and the judge shot them down and said no, Manning can only be charged once for each individual crime, and merged the charges and reduced the potential sentence.

So no, it was not a matter of "oh they could have charged her with thousands of felonies because thousands of classified documents got out they just didn't want to do the paperwork."

That is not how the law works

Comey in his speech used language that appears nowhere in US Code and that completely changes what the espionage laws mean. And the then current FBI General Counsel James Baker has testified in front of the House of Representatives that Hillary was entirely deserving of having charges filed. John Radcliffe, a former Federal Prosecutor asked Baker the following:
"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?”

Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.” He was later talked out of standing behind this position.

Lack of intent is not proven here nor can it be.


I see you specifically cut out the final part of his testimony.

James Baker wrote:“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).


Establishing intent does in fact MATTER.

You have just called on Baker to support your position when Baker's final conclusion was charges WERE NOT warranted and he directly contradicts your claim.

A number of these docs were deliberately and criminally removed from an intelligence intranet. This intranet has NO, repeat, NO connection to the outside world. The only way these docs could have ended up on her server was is they were downloaded to a removable storage device and/or printed and then removed. Both of these are themselves illegal acts.


And show me where Clinton was the one who removed them and e-mailed them to herself? Or are you just planning on skipping over the "establish who actually did it" part of your criminal accusation?


(PS: Oh and you're still completely ignoring Trump's far more extensive criminal life story)
Top

Return to Conventions