One thing to consider/fear is that his supporters are coming out like flies to shit. ...what I do fear is that they may just say "fuck it" and stay home. Originally Posted by austin_voyI expect that Hillarious-No-More will carry Travis County.
So is Patreaus a "spy" or a "leak"? Originally Posted by LexusLoverPatreaus got in trouble because he knowingly gave (leaked) "Classified" information to someone who not Authorized to see it. That someone was his mistress. Perhaps she gave him a MSOG as a reward. For those who do not hobby, MSOG translates to multiple shot on goal.
Hillary and her staffers were authorized to see classified information.Have you read any of the statutes, regs, and case law interpretation of them or do you rely on anecdotal reports from the news media who burned Patreaus to the stake while minimizing the coverage regarding Hillarious-No-More's "HANDLING" of "CLASSIFIED" information and documentation?
The staffers should have put the correct classification label on the emails, but that is not Hillary's problem, since the BURDEN is on the sender not the recipient. Originally Posted by flghtr65
Have you read any of the statutes, regs, and case law interpretation of them or do you rely on anecdotal reports from the news media who burned Patreaus to the stake? Originally Posted by LexusLoverLL, I read rules USC 1924 and USC 793. It does not take a law degree from Harvard Law School to figure out that Patreaus was in violation of the rules by leaking "Classified Information" to some one "WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED"
The staffers should have put the correct classification label on the emails, but that is not Hillary's problem, since the BURDEN is on the sender not the recipient. Originally Posted by flghtr65So you're saying Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and the rest of the staff are the ones who should be prosecuted for mishandling and failing to properly label classified information found in over 2,000 emails, flighty? Is that your argument?
LL, I read rules USC 1924 and USC 793. It does not take a law degree from Harvard Law School to figure out that Patreaus was in violation of the rules by leaking "Classified Information" to some one "WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED" Originally Posted by flghtr65Avoiding the obvious are you?
So you're saying Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and the rest of the staff are the ones who should be prosecuted for mishandling and failing to properly label classified information found in over 2,000 emails, flighty? Is that your argument?There are a lot of problems with his mindless spewing of Gruberized bullshit...
There's just one wee little problem with your desperate attempt to shield hildebeest by throwing her staffers under the bus, flighty.
Originally Posted by lustylad
So you're saying Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and the rest of the staff are the ones who should be prosecuted for mishandling and failing to properly label classified information found in over 2,000 emails, flighty? Is that your argument?Where do you think the information that was on these 104 emails originated from? The information came from the server on the secure network. However, before it was sent to Hillary it was copied to a server on a non-secure network. This information was then sent to Hillary with a classification label of "NONCLASSIFIED". All of the emails from the staffers were sent to Hillary as "NONCLASSIFIED".
There's just one wee little problem with your desperate attempt to shield hildebeest by throwing her staffers under the bus, flighty.
According to the WaPo link YOU provided and asked us to read, hildebeest was the SENDER for 104 emails that should have been designated as classified (according to the State Department's own review). So the BURDEN was on her (as you just told us) and SHE failed to exercise the proper diligence as SENDER of at least 104 emails. In other words, she is just as guilty of negligence as you say her staffers are, flighty.
Of course, I already pointed this out to you in post #312 of this thread. I can understand how you chose to ignore my previous post. It's painful and embarrassing to admit when you are tripped up by your own link and your argument falls apart based on WaPo's own accounting of the emails. What I don't understand is how you can be so colossally stupid as to regurgitate the same argument again in the same thread after I thoroughly discredited it.
I suppose it is just another sign of how desperate you are to protect hildebeest – the congenital liar and presumptive nominee of your party – from the consequences of her own criminally negligent behavior. The more desperate you become, the more ridiculous you look, and the more you hasten her impending downfall, flighty.
Read your own link and weep, you fool!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...clinton-email/ Originally Posted by lustylad
Avoiding the obvious are you?No. Do you? The rules USC 1924 and USC 793 are not complicated. The rules were put in for spy's and leaks. The Prateus case is pretty simple. HE GAVE CLASSIFIED information to someone who WAS NOT AUTHORIZED.
Do you have a law degree from ANY LAW SCHOOL? Originally Posted by LexusLover
No. Do you? Originally Posted by flghtr65And if you can comprehend "the rules" ....
LL, I read rules USC 1924 and USC 793. It does not take a law degree from Harvard Law School to figure out that Patreaus was in violation of the rules by leaking "Classified Information" to some one "WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED" Originally Posted by flghtr65That's right, flighty, Patreaus girlfriend had a Top Secret clearance as a Major in an Army Military Intelligence unit, but even at that level she wasn't "authorized" to see some of the classified intel Patreaus gave her access to. But you mendaciously continue to deflect from the fact that Hildebeest willfully and intentionally set up an insecure operation that gave at least one peon foreigner -- Guccifer -- access to classified material, and he didn't have a security clearance, flighty.
There are a lot of problems with his mindless spewing of Gruberized bullshit...Either should couldn't comprehend the rules, and is not competent to serve, or she willfully broke the law, and should be ineligible to serve.
.. the least of which is his inability to comprehend "the law" on the subject, since he is relying upon "proponents" of Hillarious's alleged "innocence" to justify his bullshit .... let's see ...
Huma and Cheryl .... those are women, right?
She is throwing the FEMALES under the bus, but not the MALE IT guy?
This SHIT can't get any better!!!!!
Once LITTLE FLIGHTY digs up all the paper work that memorializes the AUTHORITY of all the speed bumps he is placing in front of the BUS to DECLASSIFY documents that contain CLASSIFIED INFORMATION so that they can be sent to a PRIVATE SERVER and then digs up the INSPECTION AND AUTHENTICATION of the INTEGRITY and SAFETY of the PRIVATE SERVER of HILLARIOUS that was CERTIFIED according to the REQUIREMENTS of her BOSS on December 29, 2009, while SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE .... then perhaps we can start getting to the bottom of HER COMPETENCE to serve as POTUS. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Patreaus got in trouble because he knowingly gave (leaked) "Classified" information to someone who not Authorized to see it. That someone was his mistress. Perhaps she gave him a MSOG as a reward. For those who do not hobby, MSOG translates to multiple shot on goal.
Hillary and her staffers were authorized to see classified information. Big Difference. If you go back and look at rules in USC 1924 and USC 793, Patreaus was in violation of those rules.
The staffers should have put the correct classification label on the emails, but that is not Hillary's problem, since the BURDEN is on the sender not the recipient. At this point in time a Grand Jury has not been convened.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/clinto...une&yptr=yahoo Originally Posted by flghtr65