[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread

The investigation has been opened, closed, re-opened, and re-closed. Being careless does not equal worth being locked up over. Worst case, she would get a fine and have her clearance revoked which has probably already happened since she doesn't have any type of office that requires a clearance.

Funny thing is that you guys don't want the IT guy who acquired the equipment, registered her domain, and set up her email server locked up. Why is that?
 
Only one of the IT guys was given limited immunity which didn't extend to his testimony to Congress and/or his testimony given to the FBI. He was then held in contempt of Congress shortly after this for failing to testify/comply in the investigation.

Nobody wants him locked up though.
 
jgrange said:
Only one of the IT guys was given limited immunity which didn't extend to his testimony to Congress and/or his testimony given to the FBI. He was then held in contempt of Congress shortly after this for failing to testify/comply in the investigation.

Nobody wants him locked up though.
Click to expand...

When we can't get the main people convicted, why should we care about the little fish? If he was sent to jail, he would just be falling on his sword for Hillary.

Yes let's jail the guy that just was doing what he was hired to do instead of the people ultimately responsible. Fuck, Watergate forced a sitting president to resign for less.
 
jgrange said:
The investigation has been opened, closed, re-opened, and re-closed. Being careless does not equal worth being locked up over. Worst case, she would get a fine and have her clearance revoked which has probably already happened since she doesn't have any type of office that requires a clearance.

Funny thing is that you guys don't want the IT guy who acquired the equipment, registered her domain, and set up her email server locked up. Why is that?
Click to expand...

When 'being careless' means classified documents not only outside the government's network, but on non-government employee computers with slim to no security...yeah..its worth being locked up over
 
jgrange said:
Being careless does not equal worth being locked up over.
Click to expand...

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(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 one year, or both.


I mean that's a minor one, but it's not the only one. There's no stipulation about carelessness. You could argue that the Secretary of State, 4th in line in chain of command of the United States of America, was completely unaware that classified information might cross her personal email server in the course of her duties. lol. Or I guess you could argue that the statute says "his" so it doesn't apply to her.
 
Well... what's the point of a witch hunt if we don't get to burn the witch?!

331794ea5ac025234078ed60d38dc088.jpg
 
Ixiterra said:
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


This is irrelevant because her emails contained no classified information at the time and only after the investigation were some deemed to be fit to be retroactively classified.

There's actually very little proof that she should be locked up for anything. She did not show any intent to purposely mishandle classified information and further more decisions based around "top secret" information gets handled more securely rather than through email (of any sort). You can't show that she intended to mishandle sensitive information.

The only thing you can prove is that she knew Colin Powell used a private email server before her and she wanted emails on her Blackberry for convenience.

No jail time nor fine necessary.
 
Is intent necessary? I thought mishandling classified information was criminal in itself. The secstate of all people should know better.
 
mishandling of classified intel is only part of it. she destroyed subpoenaed evidence. a LOT of it. not only digital but physical...which to me is on the same level as perjury, and thats what got her husband in deep chit
 
jgrange said:
She did not show any intent to purposely mishandle classified information and further more decisions based around "top secret" information gets handled more securely rather than through email (of any sort). You can't show that she intended to mishandle sensitive information.
Click to expand...

maybe not, but you CAN show that she intended to obstruct justice by breaking all blackberries and some hard drives with hammers, deleting 33,000 emails with bleach bit, and having her IT lackey take to reddit to find out how to remove a "very vip" person's email address from email headers. All of this AFTER she was served a subpoena.

:shrug:
 
You guys can't even prove she intentionally mishandled classified emails which were only deemed to be classified well into the future of their existence. LOCK HER UP!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top