Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry, that made my laugh out loud. Make your mind up, please...
I think you missed the point of what I posted.
I have read them.Read the statutes. Intent is not necessary to prefer charges. However intent was evident given the classified material was found on her personal unsecured server and email. The FBI chose not to prefer charges.
That's not stated in the law. Unlike physical documents, emails duplicate and end up in multiple places - the author's computer, their email server, the destination server, the recipients email. I'd agree they need to update the wording to apply to digital situations, as opposed to physical documents that can be kept under physical security.
Regulations != laws.I will chalk this up to you not knowing federal government regulations and statutes at large.
Top secret and secret information has absolutely no electronic or network link to the worldwide web. They both operate on their own network to prevent national secrets from leaking to foreign nationals and the public at larger. Thus why it is called classified information.
There is no way for someone to sit at a top secret terminal and email documents to a private email account. No way. There is no way to sit at a top secret terminal and email documents to a secret email address. No way.
The only way to get classified material from classified systems is to an unsecured system (www or gmail) is to download the material to a disk (which is illegal) or print it out and scan the documents to an unsecured system (which is also illegal).
On your email question. On approved classified systems all electronic attachments must be marked with the proper security classification (label TS Secret, Confidential or Unclass). The email body itself must be labeled as well with the proper classification.
What you are missing is Hillary bypassed all of the above and moved classified material from approved secured systems (illegal) to her private server and email (illegal) and transmitted said classified material over the unsecured unauthorized server and email And removed the classification labels (most illegal).
When I say unsecured unapproved server and email this is what it means.
If you work at the DoE and have access to nuclear reactor information, you are only allowed to deal with that information within an approved location at the DoE building. You can email other DoE employees with the same clearance and need to know your work to get their inputs. That's fine because you are on the DoE Top secret network and Wikileaks cannot touch that fiber.
Now after a long day on the job you call it quits. But you really want to continue your work. You decide you will download some material to a DVD to work at home (illegal). Then you print out some hard copy diagrams labeled top secret. You decide to scan them in on the unclassified scanner but first white out the labels.(illegal) You then use your work unclassified email to send the scanned doctored documents to your gmail account. (Illegal).
When home you download the DVD disk to your Mac computer which has internet service through the local cable company. You have a home server and download all your homework. (Illegal)
What I outlined above shows multiple violations of Federal CFR, Executive orders, and agency regulations and statutes. HRC and her team violated everyone one of the outlined points.
Here are some open source regulations. Note, for the secret squirrel stuff, you won't find the regulations on the web.
https://fam.state.gov/fam/12fam/12fam0530.html
https://www.google.com/search?ei=oi...erp..1.14.1672...33i160k1j33i21k1.XFjEXcB76tY
http://fas.org/sgp/isoo/safeguard.html
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
For the first clause to pertain here, then she would need to have transmitted classified information to someone who wasn't legally allowed to receive it - whether that was on her own email server or on a government one, she would have broken the law you quoted. Whether she ran her own email server or not is irrelevant.
The FBI investigation did establish HRC and team violated every clause of the statute you quoted. Comey just decided not to book her.I have read them.
We've discussed them.
Many times.
Apparently we won't agree on this.
The decision was made not to prosecute by a legally trained professional who had reviewed all the evidence, a description that applies to neither of us.
I'm not sure continuing to believe that decision was wrong will make you feel any better about it, but you're a better judge of that than me.
Oh the irony! Anthony Wiener's actions bring down a massive criminal conspiracy.
No, his statement explained the law, then explained why the investigation did not reach the conclusion that she had broken that law.The FBI investigation did establish HRC and team violated every clause of the statute you quoted. Comey just decided not to book her.
That is your government at work for you and me.
While a poor slob I worked with who accidentally sent a classified document on an unclassified fax was fired, lost his security clearance and his career ended.
Are you saying no cached copies of emails remain, even on e.g. regular handheld devices, when the server is secure?
I wasn't talking about the server, but about the client.That's the point...the classified server is secure.
It does not touch the internet we use. From our computers at home we cannot touch the government secure servers. Different pipes.
How does Wikileaks get all these emails?
From the negligent practice of removing classified information from approved containers and servers to private means.
Comey said no one in their right mind would prosecute the case against HRC. His way of saying she was above the law.Then - for the umpteenth time - would you like to point out where they said that in the statement about why she would not face prosecution?
He stated the law, then said why she didn't merit prosecution.Comey said no one in their right mind would prosecute the case against HRC. His way of saying she was above the law.
He laid out a convincing case to refer her for indictment. He just chose not to do it:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
I wasn't talking about the server, but about the client.
Wikileaks never got mails held on secure servers?
Show me the part of the legislation you feel was violated. Or not. I'm done going round and round.
He stated the law, then said why she didn't merit prosecution.
It's not a long document.
Try and read it without contradicting his stated conclusions, then I will stop thinking you are deliberately lying about it.
Does the email remain on the client? Sent items? Cached files?
No, they aren't hackers and never have been - but they famously published classified US gov't data, no?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?