Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

E-mail server thing looks bad for Hillary

Page 6 of 12 [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 2:17 pm

She had no intent of distributing classified material, and that's what's illegal. What was the actual harm caused? Nothing as far as we know.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

11 Jul 2016, 2:31 pm

AspE wrote:
She had no intent of distributing classified material, and that's what's illegal....

Yes, but a lawful court and/or jury certainly could determine intent based on the "reasonable person" standard regardless of what Clinton claims about herself. After all, defendants' statements about themselves go only so far.

AspE wrote:
...What was the actual harm caused? Nothing as far as we know.

This is irrelevant if intent is determined by a court. As you have said before, intent is the proof that national security laws, like the federal Logan Act, rely upon.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 3:22 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
AspE wrote:
She had no intent of distributing classified material, and that's what's illegal....

Yes, but a lawful court and/or jury certainly could determine intent based on the "reasonable person" standard regardless of what Clinton claims about herself. After all, defendants' statements about themselves go only so far.

And no jury would think Hillary Clinton intended to give secrets to our enemies.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Jul 2016, 3:37 pm

AspE wrote:
She had no intent of distributing classified material, and that's what's illegal. What was the actual harm caused? Nothing as far as we know.


intent has nothing to do with it, 'oops I didn't know I couldn't do that' isn't an acceptable answer when it comes to the improper storage of classified material. Who intends to be negligent? Hillary is guilty as hell.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Jul 2016, 3:38 pm

AspE wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
AspE wrote:
She had no intent of distributing classified material, and that's what's illegal....

Yes, but a lawful court and/or jury certainly could determine intent based on the "reasonable person" standard regardless of what Clinton claims about herself. After all, defendants' statements about themselves go only so far.

And no jury would think Hillary Clinton intended to give secrets to our enemies.


doesn't matter when she was negligent, she gift wrapped them to multiple foreign intelligence services

her private email server literally had to be shut down multiple times because of it



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 3:40 pm

Jacoby wrote:
...

doesn't matter when she was negligent, she gift wrapped them to multiple foreign intelligence services

her private email server literally had to be shut down multiple times because of it

Intentionally? Maybe she knew something that we don't. Perhaps the State Department was infiltrated by a mole!



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Jul 2016, 3:52 pm

AspE wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
...

doesn't matter when she was negligent, she gift wrapped them to multiple foreign intelligence services

her private email server literally had to be shut down multiple times because of it

Intentionally? Maybe she knew something that we don't. Perhaps the State Department was infiltrated by a mole!

She even order her staff to send classified emails without their heading, there definitely was intent. It's purely political how she wiggled out of this, they didn't think they could convict her because of the political climate basically meaning she is above the law. How you are okay with this I don't know; Petraeus, Snowden, and Manning should be pissed. They took it easy on Petraeus but they have Manning locked away for 30 years in a torture cell and have literally threatened to assassinate Snowden. Even Julian Assange they've threatened to execute who isn't even an American citizen. Hillary is the epitome of privilege, she is above the law while us peasants face the full brunt of it.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

11 Jul 2016, 3:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
AspE wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
...

doesn't matter when she was negligent, she gift wrapped them to multiple foreign intelligence services

her private email server literally had to be shut down multiple times because of it

Intentionally? Maybe she knew something that we don't. Perhaps the State Department was infiltrated by a mole!

She even order her staff to send classified emails without their heading, there definitely was intent. It's purely political how she wiggled out of this, they didn't think they could convict her because of the political climate basically meaning she is above the law. How you are okay with this I don't know; Petraeus, Snowden, and Manning should be pissed. They took it easy on Petraeus but they have Manning locked away for 30 years in a torture cell and have literally threatened to assassinate Snowden. Even Julian Assange they've threatened to execute who isn't even an American citizen. Hillary is the epitome of privilege, she is above the law while us peasants face the full brunt of it.


Yeah, except again virtually everything in your post is incorrect. Don't you ever get tired of that?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Jul 2016, 4:16 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
AspE wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
...

doesn't matter when she was negligent, she gift wrapped them to multiple foreign intelligence services

her private email server literally had to be shut down multiple times because of it

Intentionally? Maybe she knew something that we don't. Perhaps the State Department was infiltrated by a mole!

She even order her staff to send classified emails without their heading, there definitely was intent. It's purely political how she wiggled out of this, they didn't think they could convict her because of the political climate basically meaning she is above the law. How you are okay with this I don't know; Petraeus, Snowden, and Manning should be pissed. They took it easy on Petraeus but they have Manning locked away for 30 years in a torture cell and have literally threatened to assassinate Snowden. Even Julian Assange they've threatened to execute who isn't even an American citizen. Hillary is the epitome of privilege, she is above the law while us peasants face the full brunt of it.


Yeah, except again virtually everything in your post is incorrect. Don't you ever get tired of that?


No it's not. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt 'ya know?



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

11 Jul 2016, 4:36 pm

Jacoby,

You're very factually challenged. It's all right though, so are all your Trumpian buddies.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 4:55 pm

Jacoby wrote:
...
She even order her staff to send classified emails without their heading, there definitely was intent. It's purely political how she wiggled out of this, they didn't think they could convict her because of the political climate basically meaning she is above the law. How you are okay with this I don't know; Petraeus, Snowden, and Manning should be pissed. They took it easy on Petraeus but they have Manning locked away for 30 years in a torture cell and have literally threatened to assassinate Snowden. Even Julian Assange they've threatened to execute who isn't even an American citizen. Hillary is the epitome of privilege, she is above the law while us peasants face the full brunt of it.

Intent to send an e-mail without a header isn't intent to share classified information without permission. You're just wrong that this is an example of privilege.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Jul 2016, 5:30 pm

AspE wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
...
She even order her staff to send classified emails without their heading, there definitely was intent. It's purely political how she wiggled out of this, they didn't think they could convict her because of the political climate basically meaning she is above the law. How you are okay with this I don't know; Petraeus, Snowden, and Manning should be pissed. They took it easy on Petraeus but they have Manning locked away for 30 years in a torture cell and have literally threatened to assassinate Snowden. Even Julian Assange they've threatened to execute who isn't even an American citizen. Hillary is the epitome of privilege, she is above the law while us peasants face the full brunt of it.

Intent to send an e-mail without a header isn't intent to share classified information without permission. You're just wrong that this is an example of privilege.


lol what do you think the intent of removing a classified header is?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Jul 2016, 5:30 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
Jacoby,

You're very factually challenged. It's all right though, so are all your Trumpian buddies.



Nope, I'm not. You won't accept the facts about the Clinton's right in front of your eyes, do you think OJ was innocent too? What about Bill Cosby?



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

11 Jul 2016, 5:35 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
Jacoby,

You're very factually challenged. It's all right though, so are all your Trumpian buddies.



Nope, I'm not. You won't accept the facts about the Clinton's right in front of your eyes, do you think OJ was innocent too? What about Bill Cosby?


Lol :roll:



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Jul 2016, 5:39 pm

Jacoby wrote:
...lol what do you think the intent of removing a classified header is?

I have no idea. I've only recently learned of the idea of a classified header.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

11 Jul 2016, 5:46 pm

AspE wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
...lol what do you think the intent of removing a classified header is?

I have no idea. I've only recently learned of the idea of a classified header.


So if you have a classified header but can't send it then order your staffer to remove the header and send it unsecured, what do you think the intent was?

read it yourself

Image