So Hillary NEVER had a secure Government E-Mail account

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I hate to break it to you,

...but after you explain what a "private secure server" is, I will give you ROS.

Here's the "tip of the iceberg"!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20469...nd-secure.html

"NSA-dodging mail service explains why email can never truly be private and secure"

But that begs the question (or actually ignores it) ... the "question" is ...

.. has she violated any one or more of the Federal statutes that prohibit her from receiving and/or possessing classified information on a private computer system.... NOT whether it is secure or not.

Title 50 and the various criminal provisions under Title 18 that have begun to address the communications issues of the 21st century have been around for awhile and they are inviolate in order to maintain one's clearance status. You don't talk shit, share shit, or receive shit outside of the Federal system in which such information may pass.

You have to remember Hillarious "stored" evidence in a criminal investigation in her closet in shoe boxes for months before "finding" them ... after they were subpoenaed six months before she "found" them. They were not her checks.

If I read what you are saying correctly then the NSA, if it wanted to, could read all of Hillary's mail and then easily determine she broke the law as you state.

At that point, they could blackmail her and would want her to be President, would they not? They could control her and torture her with slow leaks. She would put up with it knowing she would have operatives secretly planning to kill the blackmailers and destroy the evidence. She is probably too smart for them!!

I think it increases her chance of being elected.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

If I read what you are saying correctly then the NSA, if it wanted to, .....

.. the recent revelations regarding the "lost" and/or "deleted" IRS emails ("in house") is a glimpse of the reality ... those emails were found on "other servers" even though the principals testified there were none.

Go back to Nixon/Watergate ... relatively speaking "low tech" stuff. I was "taken back" when I heard the testimony that there was an installed recording system in the President's office ...... and it appeared I wasn't the only one. Then if an "observer" at the time did it seem "odd" that a group of operatives who had undetected entered a psychiatrist's office and taken out files without this knowledge would get caught red-handed in a 2-bit burglary of an office building ... by placing tape on a door lock? Those guys were qualified to steal white out of chickenshit ... but they got CAUGHT ... BUT ..
all had bought and paid lawyers the next morning for "arraignment"!

Here's a simple question (I think): How many friends has Hillarious made?

Do you think Obaminable "has her back"?

[i'va biggen]

John McCain had a good reason for not using EMail..LOL

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

She has apparently violated the same Federal Statute that Patraeus did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us...over.html?_r=0

He's pleading to a Federal "misdemeanor," but the charges are multiple counts for each classified document and/or document containing classified information that she received through her private file server, which I understand was at home.

For those who are uninformed, a Federal Misdemeanor, like many State misdemeanors, carry penalties for incarceration in a Federal facility and in this particular instance a ban from holding public office in the future, which is warranted due to her status and security level.

Yet another "Great Right Wing Conspiracy"!

The Martha Stewart of the Obaminable Administration.

BTW: There has been some suggestion in the media, and perhaps in this forum, that the "laws" pertaining to the possession and handling of classified information post-dated the position of Hillarious in the DOS, but that assertion is patently false. Various provisions of the U.S. Code applicable to the former SOS have been around for 15 years and longer.

At a minimum she would loses her security clearance, which would effectively prohibit her from holding any public office requiring a security clearance, as well as in the private sector, even if she gets probation and a fine like Patraeus.

Apparently, Hillarious, who used to practice law, seems to think that she can "cull" the emails to determine which ones violated Federal law and which ones did not. And apparently she thinks she can simply inform Federal investigators that she doesn't have any "classified documents" on her computer, and never did. Again, Martha Stewart.

Like DNA on a blue dress, another Clinton is about to be exposed to the 21st century.

Lack of a security clearance does not prevent anyone from holding office (Kerry+anti war activities), (Obama + Ayres), (Clinton + sex) any of these three things will prevent a soldier from being trusted with a clearance.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

John McCain had a good reason for not using EMail..LOL

I'm not sure he knew how.

I think he had pretty well refined the code tapping on walls thingy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Lack of a security clearance does not prevent anyone from holding office (Kerry+anti war activities), (Obama + Ayres), (Clinton + sex) any of these three things will prevent a soldier from being trusted with a clearance.

Are you suggesting any of those folks "lost their security clearance"? I think they did not.

Do you actually believe that the President of the United States can serve without a security clearance? I will look it up, but it is my understanding that the provisions in question prohibit the violator from serving in any public office.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you suggesting any of those folks "lost their security clearance"? I think they did not.

Do you actually believe that the President of the United States can serve without a security clearance? I will look it up, but it is my understanding that the provisions in question prohibit the violator from serving in any public office.

If they are elected, how are you going to stop them?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you suggesting any of those folks "lost their security clearance"? I think they did not.

Do you actually believe that the President of the United States can serve without a security clearance? I will look it up, but it is my understanding that the provisions in question prohibit the violator from serving in any public office.

Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano's take on this matter:

[I]f Hildabeast retained on her personal email account using the Clinton server at her home or near her home in Chappaqua, New York, classified materials, classified documents, she arguably violated the same statute that General Petraeus has agreed that he will plead guilty to which prohibits retaining classified information in a non-government non-secured way. That’s a misdemeanor. It’s not a felony. There’s no grand jury. There’s no trial jury. But the punishment is up to a year in jail and $100,000 fine for each document....

Hildabeast doesn’t have to willfully flout the law but she has to lawfully retain the document. If she received a classified document or discussion about classified information, for example, we’re going after Osama bin Laden, we think he’s in Abbottabad and that comes from the president, or from the Secretary of Defense, and that is in her computer in her home rather than secured in a government computer, she has violated the same statute that General Petraeus has pled guilty to....

She had the same security clearance as the president, the Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA so that she could openly and clearly deal with these national secrets. It’s inconceivable she never dealt with them [using her e-mail account]....

[T]he other way that she’s in trouble is a person who knowingly and willfully destroys or conceals government records. This is a felony punishable in jail by up to three years, and ... Disqualification from holding public office under the United States of America in the future...

[I]t is concealing from the government documents that she knew or ought to have known belong to the government... [I]nstead of going to the government and saying I want my personal documents, the government had to go to her and say we want the governmental documents. So instead of the government giving her the personal ones, she decided what was personal and what was governmental.

- Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

If they are elected, how are you going to stop them?

If they aren't on the ballot it is going to be difficult to get elected.

Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)
a.Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

b.Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States

If the person is "disqualified" from holding the "office" the person can be enjoined by a Federal Judge from seeking the "office" and the Federal Judge can issue a mandamus to have the person's name struck from the ballot or enjoin the states from placing the person's name on the ballots.

Don't want to start an "impeachment" thread AGAIN, but I suspect this offense would suffice as a "high crime" and I also suspect the "House" would indict for that impeachable offense.

Having classified documents in a private computer system and destroying government documents to conceal or attempt to conceal the presence of those classified documents in order to avoid detection and/or prosecution is a basic activity that should disqualify anyone, even a Clinton, from serving office, even on a cleaning crew in the building.

And to clear the air in advance, Party makes no difference to me.

[UnderConstruction]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03...narrati/202797

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you suggesting any of those folks "lost their security clearance"? I think they did not.

Do you actually believe that the President of the United States can serve without a security clearance? I will look it up, but it is my understanding that the provisions in question prohibit the violator from serving in any public office.

I guess the founders figured that if someone could convince the voters to elect them or the governors to appoint them to federal office then they were trustworthy enough for a clearance. They never brought it up. However, they did require a president to have been born in this country. I guess that is supposed to ensure loyalty. As for the others; Senator Leahy was caught giving out secret information to the press, he is still a senator. Bill Clinton was recorded talking to Monica by the Mossad. John Kerry outed a covert CIA agent by name while serving on a committee. He is the current Secretary of State.

What I said earlier, if you took a typical soldier or sailor and had them caught up in a sex scandal, money scandal, or some serious questionable behavior they would not be able to get a high security clearance.

[Jackie S]

The requirements for President, Senators, and Congressmen are specifically laid out in the Constitution. You cannot add to, or take away from these by Statute, it has to be done by Amendment.

If a person is elected President, he is automatically Commander in Chief. I suppose that supersedes any statute requirement for a security clearance.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The requirements for President, Senators, and Congressmen are specifically laid out in the Constitution. You cannot add to, or take away from these by Statute, it has to be done by Amendment.

If a person is elected President, he is automatically Commander in Chief. I suppose that supersedes any statute requirement for a security clearance.

No. It's not a "clearance" issue, it is a disqualification based on the commission of a specific felony, which also carries with it the "removal" from office, if the person is "in office" at the time of the conviction, and there is no "exemption" or "exception" based on whether the person is elected or not, whether it be for President or otherwise.

The provisions of the Constitution and the amendments have been implemented and clarified ("tweaked") with Acts of Congress (and state legislatures), including statutes that "disqualify" persons from "enjoying" the "rights and privileges" provided in those documents.

Voting and firearm possession are two that come to mind immediately.

The "under current" in the allegations poses a greater concern, if shown to be true and/or valid, regarding:

1. the existence of classified information on a personal computer system after the person no longer holds the positions that authorized the possession of the classified documents;

2. the destruction of classified documents in the possession of one not authorized to have them; and

3. inappropriate communications with persons outside of the United States government regarding either U.S. business or personal business (such as fund raising) while the person is in office and subject to the oversight of Congress.

A viable "rule" in legal proceedings is that a failure or refusal to disclose documents can be presumed to be an admission that the content of the documents is "unfavorable" to the person failing to disclose them (or unfavorable to someone being protected by that nondisclosure), and the same with the destruction of documents that would normally be retained and/or required to be retained by law. That presumption would apply to Clintons, as difficult and bitter a pill it might be to swallow. It is appearing the far left are aligning up against her as well. Where's Obama?

[JD Barleycorn]

I found this today and included for the lefties spank bank
Maybe one of her better photos

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. It's not a "clearance" issue, it is a disqualification based on the commission of a specific felony, which also carries with it the "removal" from office, if the person is "in office" at the time of the conviction, and there is no "exemption" or "exception" based on whether the person is elected or not, whether it be for President or otherwise.

The provisions of the Constitution and the amendments have been implemented and clarified ("tweaked") with Acts of Congress (and state legislatures), including statutes that "disqualify" persons from "enjoying" the "rights and privileges" provided in those documents.

Voting and firearm possession are two that come to mind immediately.

The "under current" in the allegations poses a greater concern, if shown to be true and/or valid, regarding:

1. the existence of classified information on a personal computer system after the person no longer holds the positions that authorized the possession of the classified documents;

2. the destruction of classified documents in the possession of one not authorized to have them; and

3. inappropriate communications with persons outside of the United States government regarding either U.S. business or personal business (such as fund raising) while the person is in office and subject to the oversight of Congress.

A viable "rule" in legal proceedings is that a failure or refusal to disclose documents can be presumed to be an admission that the content of the documents is "unfavorable" to the person failing to disclose them (or unfavorable to someone being protected by that nondisclosure), and the same with the destruction of documents that would normally be retained and/or required to be retained by law. That presumption would apply to Clintons, as difficult and bitter a pill it might be to swallow. It is appearing the far left are aligning up against her as well. Where's Obama?

So, if a person has a felony conviction, can he run for President?

And if a sitting President "breaks a law", (say he beats his wife), can he even be prosecuted unless first impeached , convicted, and removed from office?

Keep in mind, impeachment is a political Process, and we now live in a Country where one major political party goes by the mantra......"party first, Country second".