Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Tommy Jeppesen]

actually, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 793.

I will note your fabulous B-b-bu TRUMPBUSHPOWELL attempted derail, tho.

I am of course on record for putting Powell in the jail cell right next to Clinton.

No, she didn't. Because she is not convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793 unless you can produce a transcript of a court sentence. Don't you understand how a justice system in a state of law works?

 

[wareyin]

actually, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 793.

I will note your fabulous B-b-bu TRUMPBUSHPOWELL attempted derail, tho.

I am of course on record for putting Powell in the jail cell right next to Clinton.

Yes, you are on record as claiming that she violated 18 U.S. Code § 793. However, given your demonstrated lack of understanding of these matters, both your claim that she violated it, and your understanding of any punishment arising, don't hold much water.

When you can find your "reasonable prosecutor" to agree with you, perhaps your claims may begin to have any weight behind them. Until then, your empty claims will remain hollow.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, she didn't. Because she is not convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793 unless you can produce a transcript of a court sentence. Don't you understand how a justice system in a state of law works?

That is odd, I did not say she was convicted of it, I said she violated it.

I went 37 in a 25 this morning. I violated the local ordinance regarding speed limits. And I just admitted it and I was not even convicted!

This forum is neither a justice system or a state of law, and I am free to express my incredibly well thought out opinions, just as you are free to insist upon pedantic nonsense.

 

[The Big Dog]

However, given your demonstrated lack of understanding of these matters, both your claim that she violated it, and your understanding of any punishment arising, don't hold much water.

Say can a brother get a laughing dog!

Oh well, we'll chalk this up to another ad hominem fallacy (and a bit of irony from someone who thought the CIA marked the latest round of docs classified, hee hee!)

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'll simply note the hilarious irony of calling me out for using an "emoji" after your fellow travelers have used them so profligately.

I have indeed already answered the question in this thread, she has violated 18 U.S. Code § 793, which requires only gross negligence, not intent. Thus Comey was wrong. Comey gave his reasons, but they were of course wrong, and certainly do not prevent the bringing of charges in the future.

I do believe that is unlikely, as I have already said

Comey, former US Deputy Attorney General, former head of the FBI ... is wrong, and Internet forum poster "The Big Dog" is correct in matters of legal opinion.

OK.

 

[wareyin]

That is odd, I did not say she was convicted of it, I said she violated it.

I went 37 in a 25 this morning. I violated the local ordinance regarding speed limits. And I just admitted it and I was not even convicted!

OMG, that's a criminal offense! You should be locked up! Of course, the fact that you didn't get locked up, and that nobody gets locked up for this "crime" is strikingly similar to Clinton's situation. Her actions have been shown to be rather common at that level, nobody gets prosecuted or jailed for those actions, just like speeding.

This forum is neither a justice system or a state of law, and I am free to express my incredibly well thought out opinions, just as you are free to insist upon pedantic nonsense.

Um, yeah, you are making legal claims which are obviously fundamentally flawed, not well thought out at all. People pointing out the basic errors you are making aren't being pedants.

 

[snoop_doxie]

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Comey said on July 5th,

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.

From the linked article:

Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.

There are some who quote the statute who do not understand the statute
and refuse to understand that willful and clearly intentional mishandling is
required to get a conviction.

There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton ever willfully or intentionally
mishandled classified information.

To keep repeating this statute is to keep misinterpreting the law.

 

[wareyin]

Say can a brother get a laughing dog!

Oh well, we'll chalk this up to another ad hominem fallacy (and a bit of irony from someone who thought the CIA marked the latest round of docs classified, hee hee!)

You know, when you post your "hee hee" type stuff, that is a tell for the rest of us, right? It shows you are posting something you know to be wrong or distorted, only to get a rise out of another poster.

 

[The Big Dog]

What else Clinton did wrong

I have explained repeatedly that among Clinton's many acts of misconduct, that she let out into the wild information regarding targets of Obama's Murder Drone Program.

Some apologists have excused this reprehensible behavior by claiming that the information had been published in the media (based on leaks by pliable Democrats)

Does that excuse carry water? Of course not, because those of us familiar with handling classified data know that personnel handling classified data "shall be careful not to make any statement or comment that confirms accuracy of or verifies the info requiring protection"

here is a a timely update from "FOIA terrorist" Jason Leopold regarding the DoD's guideline for handling such intelligence (some of which made it into the hands of Hillary and her cowboy server):

Timely update

 

[snoop_doxie]

Say can a brother get a laughing dog!

Oh well, we'll chalk this up to another ad hominem fallacy (and a bit of irony from someone who thought the CIA marked the latest round of docs classified, hee hee!)

Sneering contempt for posters with a different (fact based) opinion.

 

[snoop_doxie]

I have explained repeatedly that among Clinton's many acts of misconduct, that she let out into the wild information regarding targets of Obama's Murder Drone Program.

Some apologists have excused this reprehensible behavior by claiming that the information had been published in the media (based on leaks by pliable Democrats)

Does that excuse carry water? Of course not, because those of us familiar with handling classified data know that personnel handling classified data "shall be careful not to make any statement or comment that confirms accuracy of or verifies the info requiring protection"
here is a a timely update from "FOIA terrorist" Jason Leopold regarding the DoD's guideline for handling such intelligence (some of which made it into the hands of Hillary and her cowboy server):

Timely update

Evidence that "those of us" includes you?

The Department of Defense is not the Department of State.

Try again.

 

[The Big Dog]

Comey, former US Deputy Attorney General, former head of the FBI ... is wrong, and Internet forum poster "The Big Dog" is correct in matters of legal opinion.

OK.

I've cited the statute, it specifically refers to negligence.

hell, look at it yourself:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or bot

It requires gross negligence, Comey himself said she was extremely careless.

He was wrong when he said that intent was a consideration.

Do not take my word for it, read the statute yourself.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That is odd, I did not say she was convicted of it, I said she violated it.

I went 37 in a 25 this morning. I violated the local ordinance regarding speed limits. And I just admitted it and I was not even convicted!

This forum is neither a justice system or a state of law, and I am free to express my incredibly well thought out opinions, just as you are free to insist upon pedantic nonsense.

No, you didn't not violate the law and commit a criminal offence, because you are not convicted in a court of law.
HRC has not commit a criminal offence(crime), because of what follows from the "and":
"a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties."
A criminal offence requires a sentence in a court of law, which established injury to the public or a member of the public.

Nor are you a judge, so you can't decide the guilt of HRC.

Do you understand how the rule of law works?

 

[The Big Dog]

Evidence that "those of us" includes you?

The Department of Defense is not the Department of State.

Try again.

Thanks, no need to try again, because as i already said the DoD intelligence made its way onto her cowboy server.

I look forward to your next excuse of her conduct.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Say can a brother get a laughing dog!

Oh well, we'll chalk this up to another ad hominem fallacy (and a bit of irony from someone who thought the CIA marked the latest round of docs classified, hee hee!)

Please explain the ad hominem in that post.


In my opinion, you offer a fallacy instead of a reply.

Adding the hee hee is a strange and child like way to respond.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nor are you a judge, so you can't decide the guilty of HRC.

Do you understand how the rule of law works?

Hi! This forum is not a court, and is not subject to the rule of law.

Listen, i get it, you really want to shut down the discussion by insisting on some totally irrelevant standard that has no application here.

It is fine. I get that you want to do that.

Now I am just going to go ahead and continue to educate people on the law and its application, and I am going to acknowledge your objection.

OVERRULED

 

[NoahFence]

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Comey said on July 5th,



From the linked article:



There are some who quote the statute who do not understand the statute
and refuse to understand that willful and clearly intentional mishandling is
required to get a conviction.
There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton ever willfully or intentionally mishandled classified information. To keep repeating this statute is to keep misinterpreting the law.

Stupid workplace error.

That's all it is, all it was, all it will ever be.

 

[snoop_doxie]

I've cited the statute, it specifically refers to negligence.

hell, look at it yourself:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793



It requires gross negligence, Comey himself said she was extremely careless.

He was wrong when he said that intent was a consideration.

Do not take my word for it, read the statute yourself.

I will not take your word for it, because you have shown yourself to be
wrong about this statute.

Gross negligence is not extremely careless.

Try reading the article I posted.
It might clear up some things for you.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi! This forum is not a court, and is not subject to the rule of law.

Listen, i get it, you really want to shut down the discussion by insisting on some totally irrelevant standard that has no application here.

It is fine. I get that you want to do that.

Now I am just going to go ahead and continue to educate people on the law and its application, and I am going to acknowledge your objection.

OVERRULED

So you are a judge!!! Fine, then sentence HRC!!!

Oh no, you are neither a prosecutor nor a judge, so your understanding of the law has no barring as to the innocence or guilt of HRC.
That is not something you decide, that is left to the justice system.

Do you understand how a justice system works?

 

[The Big Dog]

So you are a judge!!! Fine, then sentence HRC!!!

Oh no, you are neither a prosecutor nor a judge, so your understanding of the law has no barring as to the innocence or guilt of HRC.
That is not something you decide, that is left to the justice system.
Do you understand how a justice system works?[
/QUOTE]

International Justice System Forum.

This is not a justice system.

Do you understand how an internet forum works?