Hillary should be in prison.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...nformation-on-anthony-weiners-laptop-n2321720
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...nformation-on-anthony-weiners-laptop-n2321720
Classified information found on Anthony Weiner's (Carlos Danger) laptop
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
If this were anyone other than Hillary or some similar elite politician, they'd be in jail.
It is unclear from his testimony. Hillary likely emailed Huma and she used Weiner's laptop, so those emails were downloaded onto the pervert's laptop. It is also possible that Huma had access to Hillary's emails and they got downloaded when she used the perv's laptop from home.
Oh I thought I heard on the radio the emails had been forwarded to the pervert. Either way, it seems like more of a Huma problem than a Hillary one - though I will fully acknowledge I am not a legal scholar.
The question would be how did Huma gain access to classified information? I don't believe she had that level of clearance. Then the question is how did that information get on Weiner's laptop, who clearly did not have clearance and who's laptop could have easily been hacked. A soldier is in prison for taking a couple of photos for his personal benefit of a sub. Hillary, Huma and Weiner had classified information on a Weiner laptop. Why is one in prison and the other's free? The soldier never intended to send those photos to anyone.
Patraeus got off very, very light. He was a soldier, not an elected politician, btw. If a regular soldier did what he did, prison time.
Who do you think approved the plea deal? I think it was the same guy that selected him to become the Director of the CIA.
Very soft on him. He should have gone to jail just as his soldiers have that did far less.
So, what you are saying is that Huma is really careless and/or among the most stupid people most have ever encountered. Seems also that former evaluations of Hillary's intelligence have greatly exaggerated the facts.
Huma asked her perv husband to print out the classified documents so Hillary could read them. They should all be in prison.
And Comey is wrong. The statute does not require intent. A soldier is in prison right now and he had no intent either.
Prosecutors and former prosecutors disagree. This guy is one of the best Federal Prosecutors.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
Hillary could be had on a plethora of charges from the time she took the job until signing off on sign out statement. A high school grad could close his eyes and select a charge and get a conviction. Huma could be convicted on a series of charges. The only one who could not be convicted is the Wiener. He only copied the documents, but there is no provable evidence the he read even one.
Trump's next move should be to terminate Comey and pay contracted time and hire some competent individual who can restore trust and faith in the FBI. There are a couple competent people who would love the job with a 5 or 10 year contract. But, fire his *** and don't let him get any actionable charges against you. He is absolutely crazy with the power given him. Dangerous.
I realize you are not too familiar with our legal system but it doesnt really matter what Comey thinks. He is just an investigator.
He can make whatever recommendation he wants and if the AG decides to prosecute his opinion is no different than yours.
Very, very easy. Doing this kind of stuff with national security is the very definition of "gross negligence." You or I would be in jail right now.
The following is from Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal Prosecutor who is rather famous for his prosecution of the Blind Sheik who bombed the World Trade Center.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
The law as written:
(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.
Last edited:
Here is the actual law:
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(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—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The problem is, the prosecution has to be able to show that the accused knowingly and willfully made classified information available to an unauthorized person to the detriment of the US. It would be an extremely difficult case to win and it is significantly different than handing someone a book full of classified information who does not have appropriate clearance (Petraeus). Hillary and Huma could argue they had no reason to believe the information would fall into the hands of someone without proper clearance.
This is the reason for Comey's statement:
"Now, let me tell you what we found. Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
He basically said, she was an idiot, but she didn't clear the bar to make it a winnable case to prosecute.
The law does not require intent. Please show me in the statute where the law requires intent. You know why it doesn't? Because we want classified information to be highly protected and we want those that possess it to know that they have to use all precaution to protect it, even if they accidentally disclose it. The law if very simply. BTW, Comey is not a prosecutor. He is a cop and it is not his job to determine guilt or innocence. That is up to the DOJ.