Just Read the Law

They're gripping their deplorable asses offf Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

SNICK

They're gripping their deplorable asses offf Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Gripping? Is it a one handed grip or two hands?

Gripping? Is it a one handed grip or two hands? Originally Posted by pyramider

Assup has got his own little personal joke going on with himself. He thinks if we don't get his lame and incoherent remarks that some how he's smarter than everyone else.

Let the little person have his fun.

these documents are all the same. it does not matter what form they are in; digital or hard copy; espcially if they are copies of the original document. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

That's what I'm asking. To break the law, you would have to go and change the original document, not just change your copy of it. Someone would have to hack into the system where the original is kept and tamper with that, so that all subsequent emails of that document would then be changed.

To say that because she deleted an emailed copy of a document, when she could be sent another, falls under this law, is IMO stretching the intent of the law. The document hasn't changed, only her email was deleted.

That's what I'm asking. To break the law, you would have to go and change the original document, not just change your copy of it. Someone would have to hack into the system where the original is kept and tamper with that, so that all subsequent emails of that document would then be changed.

To say that because she deleted an emailed copy of a document, when she could be sent another, falls under this law, is IMO stretching the intent of the law. The document hasn't changed, only her email was deleted. Originally Posted by papadee

We are talking about tens of thousands of emails that were destroyed to cover up wrongdoing. You can't possibly be this stupid, Poopoodee. Unless you're a Hillary supporter.

We are talking about tens of thousands of emails that were destroyed to cover up wrongdoing. You can't possibly be this stupid, Poopoodee. Unless you're a Hillary supporter. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's not about stupidity, supporting Clinton, wrongdoing, or emails destroyed. It's about the OP stating that Clinton is disqualified from holding office because she violated a section of US Code. I questioned if that code would legally apply to the deletion of emails and would emails/copies be considered the document of record.

Let me help you, PooPooDee. The answer is yes. The law applies to emails. That's why many reasonable prosecutors would charge her in a heartbeat. Even Comey never said the law wouldn't apply. It applies. She broke it. She should be in jail.

Let me help you, PooPooDee. The answer is yes. The law applies to emails. That's why many reasonable prosecutors would charge her in a heartbeat. Even Comey never said the law wouldn't apply. It applies. She broke it. She should be in jail. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why does this particular law apply? I don't know if she violated other laws pertaining to the handling of documents. But for the code stated in the OP, I don't see what documents were destroyed. She destroyed her copy of them, but the original document remains intact.

We are now not a nation of laws, but of men.



Thanks Obama.

So is having an email/copy of a document, the same as having THE document? Is having a copy of the Constitution the same as having the original?

And since we don't know what was on the emails, we're only guessing that they had been filed or deposited.

Are classified documents "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States"? Originally Posted by papadee

It is the information that is classified, not the paper it is printed on.
It is not the same as having a copy of the Constitution, unless the Constitution was Classified. If it were, she would not legally be able to store it on her personal server.
The point is that Classified information must be properly handled to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. It should be stored on a secure server and only electonically transmitted via secure means such as secure email.

It is not the same as a court officer/clerk having access to sensitive information because that information does not fall under the same regulation, unless it was classified by a classification authority as described in the below Executive Order.

If you would actually like to educate yourself, look at the following link. If you would like to continue making excuses for Hillary, disregard it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ty-information

I will highlight a few key points.

"Information" means any knowledge that can be communicated or documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics, that is owned by, is produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

This means the information is classified regardless of the medium. Printed classified material is the same as digital and vice versa.

Every person who has met the standards for access to classified information in paragraph (a) of this section shall receive contemporaneous training on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.

Hillary was required to have training in classified information handling. There should be documentation of this training. I, for one, would like to see it.

An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency's control or direct that information be declassified in order to remove it from agency control.

Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

She should know that she can't take it home and store it on her computer. I have known all of the above since I was an E-3. If I had done what she did, I would have been demoted and punished under the UCMJ. She wants a promotion.

I guess it's true. Fuck up, move up!

Why does this particular law apply? I don't know if she violated other laws pertaining to the handling of documents. But for the code stated in the OP, I don't see what documents were destroyed. She destroyed her copy of them, but the original document remains intact. Originally Posted by papadee

Any document hildebeest prepared in her official capacity as Secretary of State belonged to the taxpayers of the United States government. Hildebeest was required by the laws of this great country to insure that the taxpayers, in some manner, had a copy of each and every document to account for what she did as Secretary of State. That she chose to destroy such documents without insuring that the U.S. taxpayers had their copy is against federal laws, poopoodoo.

I was doing research to rebut some of the arguments here, but decided to let the links do my work.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-disqualified/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d689f0d3d069
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...tthew-j-franck

Bottom line is that a statute can't override the Constitution. The Constitution only has 3 requirements: age (35), citizenship (Native-born), and residency (at least 14 years before election). Other than that, you can be a felon or whatever, Congress can not write a statute to exclude you. Only changing the Constitution can.

I was doing research to rebut some of the arguments here, but decided to let the links do my work.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-disqualified/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d689f0d3d069
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...tthew-j-franck

Bottom line is that a statute can't override the Constitution. The Constitution only has 3 requirements: age (35), citizenship (Native-born), and residency (at least 14 years before election). Other than that, you can be a felon or whatever, Congress can not write a statute to exclude you. Only changing the Constitution can. Originally Posted by papadee

Congress has the power to impeach, poopoodoo. There's no statute of limitation on their power to charge hildebeest and remove her from office.

I was doing research to rebut some of the arguments here, but decided to let the links do my work.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-disqualified/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d689f0d3d069
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...tthew-j-franck

Bottom line is that a statute can't override the Constitution. The Constitution only has 3 requirements: age (35), citizenship (Native-born), and residency (at least 14 years before election). Other than that, you can be a felon or whatever, Congress can not write a statute to exclude you. Only changing the Constitution can. Originally Posted by papadee

So let me get this straight. You are not disputing that she broke the law. You are only arguing that her commission of these crimes does not disqualify her as a presidential candidate. Is that right?

I would agree as long as she is punished for the crime.

So let me get this straight. You are not disputing that she broke the law. You are only arguing that her commission of these crimes does not disqualify her as a presidential candidate. Is that right?

I would agree as long as she is punished for the crime. Originally Posted by goodman0422

Not sure about the first part. I haven't studied it enough.

Yes to the 2nd part because that was the premise of the OP. I've tried to stay on topic.