18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(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 both.
>>74085321
no, they need to find criminal intent
>>74085394
Looks like gross negligence is sufficient according to (1)
>mfw a trumpfag leaves his Trump General containment thread
>>74085468
Don't you faggots have a fire to put out?
Shoo
>>74085464
>Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard
they need to figure out if she did this on purpose
>>74085570
So she set up a server and proceeded to act in violation while she was sleepwalking? Is that your defense?
>>74085570
There's an email where she instructs one of her aides to remove a confidential header and send an otherwise confidential email over unsecured channels. Considering Comey's history with the Clintons I think he is tying to nail her down.
>>74085394
No they don't. The only difference between criminality and negligence when it comes to classified material is whether you get hit with espionage and treason as well.
>>74085624
let me just copy and paste a source:
------
This law was written in 1948. The law was intended to prevent people from taking physical objects from a secure site. That is, they didn't want someone taking the blueprints or a prototype for the atomic bomb home in his/her briefcase.
In many ways, the statute is an artifact from a world without computers, photocopiers, and cell phones.
Each and every clause of the statute has to be proven. If there is no evidence to support the clause, then there is no offense.
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,
This clause is supported. Hillary had access to information about 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
This clause is not supported.
The clause has three parts...either (a) the information had to be removed from its proper place of custody or (b) delivered to anyone in violation of the trust or (c) lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the information was delivered to someone who shouldn't have received the information...that is, Hillary was sending emails to people in the State Department who had a right to receive the information. There is also no evidence that the information was stolen, destroyed, etc. So, (b) and (c) are out.
PART 1
>>74085570
Didn't matter if she did it on purpose.
She's been in politics over twenty years, she's responsible for knowing what is/is not legal.
If she "forgot" that is the definition of gross negligence.
>>74085860
So, the only possibility is under (a): "the information had to be removed from its proper place of custody."
This part of the statute says REMOVED. It doesn't say copied. It doesn't say sent. So, the prosecution has to prove that the information was "REMOVED" from its proper place of custody.
REMOVED has a definition. "Removed" means, "to move from a place or position occupied."
Did Hillary "remove" the information? No. It was still on her computer after the email was sent. The information was never "removed" from Hillary's custody.
The second part of the clause ("proper place of custody") makes no sense when dealing with electronic documents in possession of a high ranking government official. The documents were always in "their proper place of custody" because Hillary always had custody and control over the documents.
Finally, there is the "gross negligence" part of the statute. Again, the prosecutor would have to *PROVE* that Hillary acted with gross negligence. There is no evidence that the emails were ever intercepted or delivered to someone who should not have received the emails. Therefore, there is not even evidence of "negligence", let alone "gross negligence".
So, in sum there are three huge problems with charging Hillary:
Proving that the information was removed.
Proving that the information was not in the "proper place of custody".
Proving that there was gross negligence.
PART 2/2
>>74085977
>to move from a place or position occupied
Sounds like "copy" fits the bill to me.
So if I took a photocopy of a blueprint and physically gave that away, then, according to you I would not be guilty. Don't mind me, just getting out my James Bond microfische bowtie so I don't get in trouble, lol!
>>74085570
>they need to figure out if she did this on purpose
She directed her staff to remove classification labels and send through unsecure means.
Write your representative and ask they to demand an independent prosecutor.
but she's a womyn
Just so you guys know. The military is abuzz with how much they hate Hillary for this shit.
The media sweeps this under the rug because to normies it isn't a big deal.. but what she did pisses off every single person that's been butt fucked by the OPM.
I've spoken with prior, active, reservists, etc. in the USN, Army, and USMC. They fucking hate this bitch. And don't even get me started on people working as gov't employees or contract work.
Hillary has a large industry she will never get to vote for her over the single issue of how this classified document mishandling went.
>>74085977
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-14/you-know-those-missing-hillary-emails-russia-might-leak-20000-them
Shit source, but the fact remains Russia has those emails. That's enough to jail her.
>>74085624
>>74085726
>>74085887
>>74086130
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
>>74086204
pic related
link?
>>74086240
Can confirm.
We even made some pretty dank memes about it
>>74086578
One begins to wonder if everybody who wittingly helped her to wittingly do what she did now counts as an accessory.
>>74086719
LMFAO.
I can't blame her for falling asleep through that DISA cyber awareness crap.
>>74086578
She probably won't be arrested. All I care is that the world sees her for the criminal she is.
>>74086578
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/
these links are from January ...
>>74087214
Seems to me only sensible that a person who might be compromising national security on a vast scale ought to be arrested until the exact nature of the situation can be determined.
That's a lot nicer than what the NDAA would allow for on mere suspicion.
>>74086578
http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/
The absolute worst part that isn't being told, it that by virtue of this server linked into the SIPRNet.
It made the entire system vulnerable as fuck for years.
And the Guccifer arrest illustrated that the server had been penetrated.
>>74087741
Would there be an basis for subpoenaing the NSA to see if they might have known anything about this? Or even just getting some testimony at a Congressional Hearing?
>>74085570
Lol no
This is a shill line
Like on the news how they report that the FBI has found no evidence that she knowingly broke the law
The common retard will here this and think she didn't do anything wrong.
But you and I and even the shill posters know that what she did is wrong and illegal and what she didn't threatens the security of our nation.
>>74086578
The "plus" factor will be that state secrets made their way into the hands of foreign hackers and agents only as a direct result of Clinton's conscious decision to circumvent handling protocol.
That she set up the server and left it so open to breach, ignoring standards and practices already in place is gross negligence. Foreign agents getting their hands on information as a direct result of that will be the plus factor that leads to prosecution.
