Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Like I said, you are fucking hopeless... You claim to have worked in intelligence. I have my doubts, but if true then you should understand the different classifications. Explain how it is possible for a US Secretary of State to look at SAP (Special Access Programs) documents and NOT know the information is classified. And btw - we've already shown you the evidence multiple times in this thread, but you keep stupidly denying it or saying you would have to see, touch and feel the actual underlying docs yourself.
He is hopeless - you have crushed his argument, yet he flails away....
You need to learn you cannot beat LL in a legal argument. You don't have the right stuff.
We'll see. If the investigation ends with no indictment of Clinton, considering it is safe to assume that the FBI has way more information about the contents of these email than has been made public, then it would be silly to maintain the position that what is public, at this point, was enough "probable cause" to indict.
If it ends with an indictment, we can read the evidence that they have put forth to determine what evidence they used to bring the charges and determine how much, if any, the simple fact that classified information was found on her server played into it.
We'll see. If the investigation ends with no indictment of Clinton, considering it is safe to assume that the FBI has way more information about the contents of these email than has been made public, then it would be silly to maintain the position that what is public, at this point, was enough "probable cause" to indict.
If it ends with an indictment, we can read the evidence that they have put forth to determine what evidence they used to bring the charges and determine how much, if any, the simple fact that classified information was found on her server played into it.
We'll see. If the investigation ends with no indictment of Clinton, considering it is safe to assume that the FBI has way more information about the contents of these email than has been made public, then it would be silly to maintain the position that what is public, at this point, was enough "probable cause" to indict.
If it ends with an indictment, we can read the evidence that they have put forth to determine what evidence they used to bring the charges and determine how much, if any, the simple fact that classified information was found on her server played into it.
Your claim was that she signed a document saying she wouldn't use a private server. Your citation is the opinion of someone who says its a violation "on its face" while she proceeds to perform some mental gymnastics to turn the server into a violation of the agreement. I've read the piece multiple times and, honestly, I'm not even sure how she got there. She seems to be making the same false assumption that most people here seem to be making: the presence of classified information represents negligence. One thing is for certain, this is not a document that says she won't use a private server, you just might be able to interpret it in a way that means by doing so, and having the classified information on that server, violates the NDA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
You are wrong with both "assumptions"!
Really? You don't realize that it is almost certain that the FBI has more information than made public? I have no idea how to respond to that. You aren't serious, are you? Answer this very direct question: you think they have the same information that we have?
Maybe it was the name of the program. Maybe it was something that was classified after the fact. Maybe it was some banal detail of the program that no one knows is classified except for a handful of people. Maybe it wasn't even classified at the time. There are so many potential explanations that assuming one, that she knew it was classified and intentionally mishandled it, is silly.
You're 100% wrong. We're talking about SAP intel. It's the super-sensitive stuff at the top of the pyramid. It's classified from the moment it is created. And it's immediately recognizable as such. If I sent you an email containing the nation's nuclear launch codes, would you plead ignorance regarding whether it was classified or not? How stupid do you want to make yourself look here? You stubbornly refuse to admit the obvious – the further you go up the classification pyramid, the more UNAMBIGUOUS it becomes that what you are reading is highly sensitive, classified material. There are ZERO “potential explanations” for the recipient of 22 SAP emails NOT to know they contained highly classified information. For a sampling of what exactly was in those emails, go back and read my post #216.
The problem is (I suspect) that you've never had clearance so you don't understand how ridiculous what gets classified can be sometimes. There are things that are considered "top secret," but you can find them on wikipedia. They would be redacted if the document were released, but anyone with half a brain could easily deduce by a simple good search what was in the redaction.
All you're telling me is that the Government sometimes over-classifies information. Everyone knows that. But I specifically asked you about the 22 SAP emails. Again, that's the super-sensitive stuff at the top of the pyramid. That's where your argument falls apart - unless you think EVERYTHING should be unclassified and there should be NO secrets. If that's your argument, then spit it out.
Your position is effectively that if you go to wikipedia and that "top secret" data is cached on your computer, there is probable cause you have committed a crime. Even if the government classified it well after you went to the page. The government then has a right to confiscate all of your computers so they can search them. Do you honestly believe this?
Straw man. Read my previous two paragraphs. We're talking about the top of the pyramid, not stuff you can find on wikipedia. Furthermore, I am addressing your post #218 wherein you stated:
“... possessing classified information is not illegal unless you know it is classified. There has to be probably (sic) cause that she knew. Because that's the crime.”
I am arguing it is IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary NOT to have known the 22 SAP emails were classified. By your own admission then, she committed a crime.
I can't believe people want Clinton to be indicted based on the public evidence that is so shoddy. It means that the government basically has carte blanch (sic) to classify something so they can then grab all of the data.
I can't believe anyone DOESN'T want Clinton to be indicted, based on the public evidence that is already so OVERWHELMING. The government didn't “grab” her server and try to recover its contents (including 30,000+ deleted emails) until everyone in the intelligence community started sounding alarm bells over the likelihood that vital national security secrets were compromised. It became painfully necessary for us to find out how significant the breaches were in order to determine what our enemies know and adjust accordingly. Again, for an idea of the extent of the possible damage, read my post #216.
You've shown no evidence of a crime. You've incorrectly claimed that possession of classified information is evidence of a crime. But this is wrong; it isn't evidence of a crime. Possessing classified information is not a crime. It's not. You have to know it is classified and then intentionally or recklessly pass it on at a time when it is actually classified.
You're lying. I've shown you ample evidence of Hillary's KNOWLEDGE from the get-go on this thread! It goes all the way back to my post #43 where Michael Mulkasey talks about what is legally referred to as “a guilty mind”. There is plenty of evidence she knew. What was the point of having the Secretary of State sign that “standard non-disclosure agreement” if she didn't have a clue how classifications worked? How many times do I have to regurgitate everything for you? The evidence is there, it's more than enough for probable cause, and it needs to be presented to a federal judge/jury.
The fact that you keep coming back with more and more absurd, over-reaching and untenable arguments tells me you are just a libtarded troll who takes delight in exasperating others with positions that you know full well are ridiculous.
If I sent you an email containing the nation's nuclear launch codes, would you plead ignorance regarding whether it was classified or not?
Of course not. And if it was this obvious that the information was classified then she should unequivocally be punished for it. But what you have wrong is that, simply because it falls under the header of "SAP," that doesn't mean that the information in question wasn't overclassified or that there is no room for an honest mistake.
Quote:
the further you go up the classification pyramid, the more UNAMBIGUOUS it becomes that what you are reading is highly sensitive, classified material!
I agree with this. But that doesn't mean everything classified at that level should be classified at that level, nor that everyone handling any of that information should know every piece of information that is classified.
For instance, let's focus on SAP for a second. There are two types of programs, unacknowledged and acknowledged. The former, they pretend doesn't exist whether the public knows about it or not. The latter they confirm exists, but still protect the details. It is entirely possible that she saw the name of the program mentioned elsewhere in public, but it is not an officially acknowledged SAP, and incorrectly assumed that it was already acknowledged. She may have just mentioned the name of an unacknowledged program, which is also well known publicly - that's it - and it would count as "SAP classified." It might be the same program mentioned by name those 22 times. It might be one, minor and virtually inconsequential mistake made 22 times. It might have been mentioned once, but got caught up in the "reply" section of emails going back and forth another 21 times. We just don't know.
Quote:
We're talking about the top of the pyramid, not stuff you can find on wikipedia.
You are saying that it is impossible for a unacknowledged SAP program's name to end up somewhere on the wikipedia? You do realize that Snowden released a set of papers confirming an unacknowledged SAP funding program, correct? Someone could easily write the name on a wikipedia page.
Quote:
I can't believe anyone DOESN'T want Clinton to be indicted, based on the public evidence that is already so OVERWHELMING. The government didn't “grab” her server and try to recover its contents (including 30,000+ deleted emails) until everyone in the intelligence community started sounding alarm bells over the likelihood that vital national security secrets were compromised. It became painfully necessary for us to find out how significant the breaches were in order to determine what our enemies know and adjust accordingly. Again, for an idea of the extent of the possible damage, read my post #216.
This paragraph doesn't follow very well. You say the "evidence is overwhelming" but then go on to explain that we need to figure out what was breached or potentially breached. I totally agree with the latter point, which is part of the reason why I have no problem with server being analyzed. But there is, at this point, no public evidence of a crime.
Quote:
It goes all the way back to my post #43 where Michael Mulkasey talks about what is legally referred to as “a guilty mind”. There is plenty of evidence she knew.
You contradict yourself. I already addressed the weakness of his claim when I posted that he relies on the same exact lack of evidence that many people here are relying on as well. But what is contradictory is that Mukasey made the argument that she guilty of "at the least for mishandling classified information," not that she necessarily knew. It's almost like he just throws out the part about her knowingly sending classified information because he knows people will eat it up, but is smart enough to hedge it a bit as well so it is harder to throw it back in his face if it turns out that he was wrong.
Quote:
What was the point of having the Secretary of State sign that “standard non-disclosure agreement” if she didn't have a clue how classifications worked?
Nothing she has said nor done indicates that she doesn't understand how classification works.
Quote:
The fact that you keep coming back with more and more absurd, over-reaching and untenable arguments tells me you are just a libtarded troll who takes delight in exasperating others with positions that you know full well are ridiculous.
We disagree. I'm defending my position and you are responding to me as much as I am responding to you. The difference between you and I is that I have done so relatively respectfully, while you are calling me names. From the outside looking in, who would you think looks more like a troll?
BTW, you are making some of the better arguments here. You have absolutely no reason to rely on insults. They do nothing but make it look like you have less faith in your position and risk turning this into a personal insult war.
I'm fairly certain that at some point we're going to here that some asset was compromised, killed, or captured by Hillary's reckless disregard for security and I wonder what the lefties will say then. I'm giving them a chance now to redeem themselves by stating ahead of time that they will be calling for Hillary to go to prison when that happens.
They'll yawn over that death like the 4 she got killed in Benghazi. And say that it was understood by the person when they signed on that they were doing dangerous work or some such BS. Anything to defend Shrillary !
We'll see. If the investigation ends with no indictment of Clinton, considering it is safe to assume that the FBI has way more information about the contents of these email than has been made public, then it would be silly to maintain the position that what is public, at this point, was enough "probable cause" to indict.
If it ends with an indictment, we can read the evidence that they have put forth to determine what evidence they used to bring the charges and determine how much, if any, the simple fact that classified information was found on her server played into it.
There is already probable cause to indict. Obama and AG Lynch are stonewalling it. You know nothing about how things work, do you? The FBI is frustrated with the interference. But Hillary won't be indicted, not because she's innocent, but because she's Hillary. We know what happens to people who get on the wrong side of the Clinton's.
The fact that you keep coming back with more and more absurd, over-reaching and untenable arguments tells me you are just a libtarded troll who takes delight in exasperating others with positions that you know full well are ridiculous.
Wonder if this POS is related to woomby, Lil Cotex or Ekim.....or ALL THREE ?
Everyone knows that. But I specifically asked you about the 22 SAP emails. Again, that's the super-sensitive stuff at the top of the pyramid. That's where your argument falls apart - unless you think EVERYTHING should be unclassified and there should be NO secrets. If that's your argument, then spit it out.
