Hillary Clinton

Crazy!

 

Just a quick response as I don't have time right now to read your whole post.

Sorry, you need to read up on that a little further. Someone guilty of gross negligence does not mean that they have broken the law. Someone could be guilty of gross negligence but bear only civil penalties rather than criminal penalties. Someone could break commit gross negligence and not break the law. However through gross negligence the law can be broken.

That is not in my head. The term gross negligence is not defined in criminal code as a crime. It is only a measure of care or diligence that is below what a reasonablwe person would even determine as negligible, let alone standard. Though it is commonly used, its use is somewhat controversial in that it does call into question some subjectivity and context.

 

Julian Assange is still speaking on Tuesday!

Home
Election





WIKILEAKS’ “OCTOBER SURPRISE” STILL ON FOR TUESDAY
ALEXANDER J. LORUSSO
OCTOBER 2, 2016
2 COMMENTS






WikiLeaks October Surprise Still Happening Amid Speculation

​

Reports stated on Sunday that WikiLeaks had canceled a balcony announcement by Julian Assange due to security concerns. However, the “October Surprise” announcement will still take place but security measures will be taken.
According to a tweet posted by Jesse Rodriguez, the senior producer for MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,”, Assange will appear via video to speak instead of his initial planned balcony announcement. Assange along with Sarah Harrison, Melinda Taylor, and John Goetz will appear on Tuesday at 10:00 CEST / 08:00 UTC / 09:00 BST / 03:00 EST.

This may be the October Surprise that Assange promised would shake up the already chaotic presidential race. Trump surrogate Roger Stone made a comment on the announcement in a tweet that reads

“Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done”

This could very well be what Assange was alluding to in interviews last month. Assange vowed WikiLeaks would publish documents on Clinton before election day.
Updates on the event will likely be posted on the WikiLeaks’ Facebook page.

 

I have had time to read further.

I have already touched on this, but:

Wrong.

Now, why don't you point to me the paragraph of the Criminal Code where committing gross negligence of its own is defined as breaking the law. This is why there is no code that says at which level gross negligence becomes a breaking of the law. Because it is simply used as a descrtiptive term where any exact definition becomes too restrictive. On its own it is not defined as a crime. There are places in both the criminal code and civil code where negligence is used instead of gross negligence. But an act of negligence is also not a crime. This is why the term is controversial.

Obviously the training was not comprehensive enough------BECAUSE, many people were doing the same thing, and it was commonly known by many that they were doing it, and yet no one was trying to stop them. And now, the Republicans are claiming it is a problem (though they fail to mention that many influential individuals in their own ranks were doing it too, or should be punished for it).

I didn't say, the training 'don't mean shit.' But the situation is what it is----I mean seriously, you haven't gone through any kind of such training, and then signed a paper or gotten a certificate?

You are pretty sure that she signed a paper and now she is an expert, and that this training was sufficient. Yet no one has actually stated that. No one has come out and presented the training that she was given as far as I know. I could say that you are the one who is gullible----but I think that you are just stubbornly sticking to your argument, even where there is no proof.

If she was the only one who had done that, and if there were attempts to stop her by those who knew what she was doing, then you would have a much stronger point. But that is not the case. Just because it 'must have been that way,' or 'should have been that way,' or 'ideally that is how it works,' doesn't mean that that is how it is.

Now there is a real cop out!

And with that, I guess this argument has gone everywhere it could have gone. But I do thank you Storch, it was fun. Seriously, it was fun, right? We got to make some jabs at each other, I snuck in some jokes, we defended our narratives... Neither one of us will convince the other, but I enjoyed it----and I will just leave it to others to see what they get out of it; to form their own opinions...

 

Sorry, but wrong again.

Mrs. Clinton was entrusted with national-defense information and knew that working with such classified intelligence was a substantial part of her duties as secretary of state. Despite this knowledge, she willfully, and against government rules, set up a private, non-secure e-mail communication system for all of her government-related correspondence — making it inevitable that classified matters would be discussed on the system. This was gross negligence at best. And the easily foreseeable result is that classified intelligence was removed from its secure government repository and transmitted to persons not entitled to have it — very likely including foreign intelligence services that almost certainly penetrated Mrs. Clinton’s non-secure system. The penalty for violating this penal statute is up to ten years’ imprisonment for each individual violation. Mind you, there are already 1,600 reported instances of classified information being transmitted via the Clinton server system, and the latest indications are that at least twelve, and as many as 30, private e-mail accounts are known to have trafficked in our nation’s defense secrets. Many of these account holders were certainly not cleared for access to the information — and none of them was permitted to access it in a non-secure setting.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431254/hillary-clintons-e-mail-felony-violations-arent-stopping-her-running

I've already shown you the U.S. Code that she violated. But here it is again. Take note that there no mention of degrees of gross negligence.
_________________________________________________________________________________

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.
_________________________________________________________________________________

MVW: You are pretty sure that she signed a paper and now she is an expert, and that this training was sufficient. Yet no one has actually stated that. No one has come out and presented the training that she was given as far as I know. I could say that you are the one who is gullible----but I think that you are just stubbornly sticking to your argument, even where there is no proof.

​​Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information.

I hereby acknowledge that I have received security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom you contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.

She signed a document specifying these, and other, obligations. So, apparently you are the one stubbornly sticking to your argument despite proof that she signed a document which legally binds her to the details of its content.

 

So Assange is supposedly going to release more information gleaned by hackers from private communications by members of the DNC. The FBI is convinced that this information was obtained by Russian hackers trying to influence the U,S, elections. And why would they want to do that? Because one of the candidates thinks Putin is a menace to national security and the other thinks he's a really cool stud. And this doesn't bother you?

 

Does it bother you that old Russian and American cold war fears are resurfacing at the same time the two countries are waging a proxy war in Syria?

Just curious.

 

I didn't indicate one way or another.

 

If you want a refresher course of what kind of person Hillary Clinton is, and the drama constantly surrounding her, have a read: Hillary Clinton's 22 Biggest Scandals http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/

Here's the "table of contents",

1) Clintons turn IRS into ‘gestapo’
2) Covering Bill’s dirty deeds
3) Looting the White House
4) Filegate: FBI files on GOP enemies
5) Hillary’s ‘Muslim Brotherhood princess’
6) Vince Foster’s 1993 death
7) Emailgate: ‘She should go to prison for this’
8) Chinagate: Sale of high-tech secrets
9) Travelgate: Always room for friends
10) Whitewater: Jail for friends, but not Clintons
11) ‘Landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia
12) Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records
13) Pardongate: Hillary Senate contributions
14) Hillary’s cash cows and 9,987 percent profit
15) Clinton body count: ‘You find dead people’
16) Hillary’s radical pal, Saul Alinsky
17) Hillary laughs about defending child rapist
18) Hill ca$hes in: Iranian fundraising
19) Clinton Foundation: Scandals keep coming
20) Benghazi: 4 American lives lost
21) Peter Franklin Paul: Another Hillary friend goes to prison
22) Watergate: Fired for being a ‘liar’

Bonus! Gift-gate

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t9zxhN7uNo

 

What difference does it make if Russians influence elections that are already rigged? How are Clinton and the DNC morally superior to Russia? I could give two shits who decides the fate of US elections if it isn't going to be the American people deciding.

 

Well sure, if you want to nit pick. But other that that . . .

 

Thanks for bumping my posts over to the new page.

 

Well, concerning one of those allegations, it is true that Clinton received training in proper procedure concerning classified material, and that she signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement stating that she did indeed receive this training, and that she also signed this Agreement acknowledging that she understood that she was legally bound to the details of its content, and that she ignored her legal obligations as stated in the Agreement she signed, and was grossly negligent, and that she was aware that the U.S. Code clearly condemns gross negligence, which describes gross negligence as exactly what Clinton did. She violated the U.S. Code and the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed.

No charge . . .

 

I got a bad feeling this Wikileak is going to be very anti-climatic. Like Al Capone's vault. But I sure as hell hope not. I'd stay awake to see the live streaming of the announcement, but I got to work tomorrow.

 

yeah when he was ready to leak them , the trash whores tried to dominate the media with the kordanians getting robbed.. to bad the fake news didnt murder that scum..

 

It feels like blood hungry people gathering at the town square to watch a hanging with all of this....and I feel this is all bull shit, anyway...staged shit to make Hillary look even worse. We'll see if anything pans out or it all peters out...but I am not gathering at town square for it.....