Posted on Mar 22, 2016
9
9
0
Before anyone starts yelling about "The Global Conspiracy" they should read the article and try to understand the actual LEGAL difficulties which any prosecution would have to overcome BEFORE there was a "significant likelihood of conviction" (and how launching a prosecution when an honest prosecutor would have to admit that there was "NO significant likelihood of conviction, and yes, they were a registered Republican" would rebound against the Republicans).
The BEST tactic that the Republicans can use over this matter is to shift the fecal flinging device into a higher gear and keep dumping recycled shit into it. That is not to say that the BEST tactic is actually a very good one.
You may not LIKE reality, but regardless of that it REMAINS reality.
The BEST tactic that the Republicans can use over this matter is to shift the fecal flinging device into a higher gear and keep dumping recycled shit into it. That is not to say that the BEST tactic is actually a very good one.
You may not LIKE reality, but regardless of that it REMAINS reality.
Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
Posted from prospect.org
Election 2016
National Security
Republicans
Law
Democrats
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 21
7
7
0
Her husband was dishonest and she is no better! any other person would never see the light of day, but since it is a Clinton matter we should make her president and sweep it all under the rug. I guarantee if this same thing happens when she is in office (as long as it is not her) the person will be shot for treason, she would see to that! I cant believe people actually like her.
(7)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 Jason Taylor - PO; Exactly what does whether Ms. Clinton is either "likable" or "honest" have to do with whether there is a "reasonable likelihood of conviction"?
(2)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Nothing, Sir, but this is social media where people voice emotion as well as opinion.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
The article is ONLY partially correct. It is correct in saying that Clinton has the authority to change the classification of messages generated within the State Dept. BUT she had ABSOLUTLY ZERO authority to change the classifications of messages generated by other agencies. ONLY they have the authority to do that.
Even claiming she didn't know it was classified holds no water. Even today I can read a message, with NO markings and can tell you if it is classified, or needs to be. I may not be able to say for sure the level of classification, but I can say with 99% certainty that it is a classified message.
She deserves to be in prison for the classified messages, OVER 1800 of them, some with the highest classification (SAP) there is, that she had on her ILLEGAL, UNPROTECTED "home" server.
Even claiming she didn't know it was classified holds no water. Even today I can read a message, with NO markings and can tell you if it is classified, or needs to be. I may not be able to say for sure the level of classification, but I can say with 99% certainty that it is a classified message.
She deserves to be in prison for the classified messages, OVER 1800 of them, some with the highest classification (SAP) there is, that she had on her ILLEGAL, UNPROTECTED "home" server.
(5)
(0)
SFC Raymond Koeller
... but UPON REVIEW get the markings. Quite the curious statement. Doesn't seem to help your case much though.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Agreed, anyone with a clearance knows that just because classified information is on the TV doesn't mean that it is not classified any more. It is one of the reasons I don't like to watch TV with my wife, She has a decent idea of what I do (I'm a contractor) and we like to discuss what is going on in the news, and when information comes on the tube that is classified, particularly in that context, it makes it hard-impossible to have a discussion without telling her classified info. So she just knows that sometimes we can't talk about that news story.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPO Frank Coluccio - Actually the Markings DESIGNATE that the information contained is classified. No markings mean "hasn't been classified" aka (Un)classified as opposed to "not classified."
Information can exist in both a classified and unclassified state based on the source of the information. If the source is not revealed, it may be any one of the classifications, while if the source is revealed, it narrows it down and should be marked as appropriate.
Think back to your time dealing with various projects and how many instances of OVER-classification you dealt with. The same concept applies with UNDER-classification.
Just seeing information itself will not tell you anything. We as users tend to assume it will because "everything" (hyperbole) we deal with is classified to some extent.
CC: SFC Raymond Koeller SFC (Join to see)
Information can exist in both a classified and unclassified state based on the source of the information. If the source is not revealed, it may be any one of the classifications, while if the source is revealed, it narrows it down and should be marked as appropriate.
Think back to your time dealing with various projects and how many instances of OVER-classification you dealt with. The same concept applies with UNDER-classification.
Just seeing information itself will not tell you anything. We as users tend to assume it will because "everything" (hyperbole) we deal with is classified to some extent.
CC: SFC Raymond Koeller SFC (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
You make a great point CPO Frank Coluccio if you read something that is not marked as classified, and it looks like it should be, before taking any action, the next step should be finding out who boinked the pooch on the information security. Problem with that is that it once again relies on that Super Power that is kryptonite to all of Washington: COMMON SENSE!
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
COL Ted Mc The problem with this is the word knowingly. If she says I didn't know, she admits to lacking the common sense to protect information. If she says that she knew it was classified, then the criminal prosecution open up.
Whether or not she is prosecuted, she is at the very least incompetent. She refuses to own up to her incompetence. She also showed poor judgement. She has shown a lack of understanding of the rules. All of these may not be something that gets her prosecuted, but it should at the very least have people seriously looking at whether her short sightedness truly is something that warrants her holding the highest office in the land.
I personally think that this has been a witch hunt from the onset. So while I personally do not think that she was necessarily criminally negligent, I think that she was woefully incompetent. This article explains why a prosecution is not warranted. The flip side of that is that this whole investigation has been another instance of government waste. Waste of money, waste of man hours, waste of resources.
I will re-iterate that the RNC and the DNC have lost their damned minds. They are proven that they are the ruling class by giving the American People the choice between two ends of a shit covered stick, and asking us to choose the clean end. We are not voting for president. We are voting for which set of lobbyists we want to see paid for the next four years.
Until people get out of the two party mindset, this is what we will get every time an election cycle rolls around. I fully agree with SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas that if this was a service member, they would be crucified for this no questions asked. Because it is Hillary, she gets handled with kid gloves.
Whether or not she is prosecuted, she is at the very least incompetent. She refuses to own up to her incompetence. She also showed poor judgement. She has shown a lack of understanding of the rules. All of these may not be something that gets her prosecuted, but it should at the very least have people seriously looking at whether her short sightedness truly is something that warrants her holding the highest office in the land.
I personally think that this has been a witch hunt from the onset. So while I personally do not think that she was necessarily criminally negligent, I think that she was woefully incompetent. This article explains why a prosecution is not warranted. The flip side of that is that this whole investigation has been another instance of government waste. Waste of money, waste of man hours, waste of resources.
I will re-iterate that the RNC and the DNC have lost their damned minds. They are proven that they are the ruling class by giving the American People the choice between two ends of a shit covered stick, and asking us to choose the clean end. We are not voting for president. We are voting for which set of lobbyists we want to see paid for the next four years.
Until people get out of the two party mindset, this is what we will get every time an election cycle rolls around. I fully agree with SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas that if this was a service member, they would be crucified for this no questions asked. Because it is Hillary, she gets handled with kid gloves.
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Steven Sherrill - PO; I think that your "I will re-iterate that ... paid for the next four years." paragraph sums up the situation quite nicely - EXCEPT that you forgot to include "and if you don't support the lobbyists we want you to support then we are going to do everything in our power to cripple the nation because we would rather rule a ruined country that play second fiddle in an economically and culturally vibrant one.".
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
"I personally think that this has been a witch hunt from the onset"...I fully agree with this assessment, being that the GOP themselves even said this on numerous talk shows and news outlets. I'd be skeptical had a Dem said it, being they would be seen as protecting their own, but how many Republican's came out and said it? That lends one to believe that it IS just that, throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Had this been a troop, they would've been hammered? GEN Patreus had SAP level information in binders in his house. He retired as a four star, with full retirement, no jail, a small fine (to him). He gave that information that wasn't legally in his house to another officer who had no need to know, and wasn't read on to any of the programs. Manning is doing 35 years for taking information and giving it to wikkileaks. Manning was a SPC. The other two....one will be a President in a few months, and the other is still consulted on ME policies. So no a troop won't be prosecuted if he or she has enough on the collar. Hell you can use a travel card as a four star and loose one star, but a JE,JO, NCO, would loose everything, and owe everything before the Courts get done with them.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google