Johnson may very well decide this election, for the democrats. While he may be more palatable for some then Trump, a vote for him almost ensures a Clinton win. So when deciding to vote, if you care about the make up of the Supreme Court...do not vote Johnson.

 

Of course Bill won with the lowest percentage of the vote for any President in decades, due to Perot running and taking votes from the middle and far right. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton campaign to started pushing for Johnson to be involved in the debates, heck they are probably going to funnel him some money secretly so that he erodes from Trumps potential votes.

 

I disagree. If not for Johnson I probably wouldn't be voting at all. I really really like Johnson a lot.

 

I do hope they let Johnson debate AND I think the debates is when Hillary will destroy Trump.

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

 

Don't get any ideas BGP friends.

LB ... read Clyde's linked article. Perhaps the key factor in previous cases is criminal intent. That was the factor that determined if charges were filed or not.

 

 

 

Interesting article. Certainly changed my opinion. I challenge anyone who thinks Hillary should have been charged with something (like I did) to read Clyde's linked article.

 

I posted a similar case where there was no criminal intent . Also in the statute it states intent and gross negligence. I read Clyde's article and posted one by lawyer and another proven there was precedent to charge.

You'll have to explain to me why I should support wasting a ton of taxpayer dollars to prosecute something that is likely not going to result in a conviction. That's a waste of money.

 

It happens daily for us common folk.. It happened to me once, I was charged with DUI after clearly exiting from the passenger seat of a vehicle. It cost me, as well the state money, yet when I told my attourney to take it to trial, the state all of a sudden dropped the charges. However this went on for a year or so up until the the day of jury selection, the day that the state dropped the charges. With the stipulation that I would not sue the local agency that charged me.

 

So yeah, it happens a lot more than people think. I would rather waste taxpayers money on something that involves the presidency of the united states as apposed to false misdemeaners though. Either way it's getting wasted if there is no conviction, but I think one takes priority over the other.

It happens daily for us common folk.. It happened to me once, I was charged with DUI after clearly exiting from the passenger seat of a vehicle. It cost me, as well the state money, yet when I told my attourney to take it to trial, the state all of a sudden dropped the charges. However this went on for a year or so up until the the day of jury selection, the day that the state dropped the charges. With the stipulation that I would not sue the local agency that charged me.

 

So yeah, it happens a lot more than people think. I would rather waste taxpayers money on something that involves the presidency of the united states as apposed to false misdemeaners though. Either way it's getting wasted if there is no conviction, but I think one takes priority over the other.

 

I would like to see a jury decide on evidence when the potential president put National security at risk. Regardless of intent. The more power you have the more ignorance is an actual defense.

 

The only conclusion you can take from this entire debacle is Hillary is either serial liar or incompetent. She has to be one or the other.

Contract between HRC and the People of the United States of America....

 

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

I would like to see a jury decide on evidence when the potential president put National security at risk. Regardless of intent. The more power you have the more ignorance is an actual defense.

 

The only conclusion you can take from this entire debacle is Hillary is either serial liar or incompetent. She has to be one or the other.

 

The former has been well, well established - legally, officially.

 

The later is now evident.

 

Sometimes, they are both corrupt and incompetent.

Contract between HRC and the People of the United States of America....

 

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

 

Related...

 

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information | whitehouse.gov

 

 

[h=1]Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

[/h]

"

...

 

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

...

 

 

Sec. 4.1. General Restrictions on Access. (a) A person may have access to classified information provided that:

 

(1) a favorable determination of eligibility for access has been made by an agency head or the agency head's designee;

 

(2) the person has signed an approved nondisclosure agreement; and

 

(3) the person has a need-to-know the information.

 

(b) 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.

 

...

 

Sec. 5.5. Sanctions. (a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.

 

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:

 

(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

 

(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;

 

(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or

 

(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.

 

© Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.

 

(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.

 

(e) The agency head or senior agency official shall:

 

(1) take appropriate and prompt corrective action when a violation or infraction under paragraph (b) of this section occurs; and

 

(2) notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office when a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section occurs.

 

...'

 

Emphasis added.

Couldnt be further from reality as far NOT calling Trump an outsider . The R establishment has fough tooth and nail to defeat the guy , they just couldnt do it .

 

Trump's money has provided him with access to the elitist of elites in the top echelon of politics since at least the dawn of the '80s. He's had Mitch McConnell, Bill and Hillary, the Bushes, etc., on speed dial for decades. So stop with that. The only difference now is he's asking those folks to spend money on him, and it's not working as well.

My fear is that Putin or someone else has info that he can use against Clinton that will never come to light, although he will use this info, if he has it, to the detriment of the U.S. via blackmail.

I posted a similar case where there was no criminal intent . Also in the statute it states intent and gross negligence. I read Clyde's article and posted one by lawyer and another proven there was precedent to charge.

 

OK. Must have missed them. I'll go back and look for them.

My fear is that Putin or someone else has info that he can use against Clinton that will never come to light, although he will use this info, if he has it, to the detriment of the U.S. via blackmail.

 

Indeed. The American in me hopes that he doesn't, but also does, in the hopes that something productive might come out of it. Ugh.

Hillary Clinton email scandal follows John Deutch - Business Insider

 

Here is another case , this one connected to a Bill Clinton pardon. Any chance Bill may of mentioned he pardon someone doing something similar ?

My fear is that Putin or someone else has info that he can use against Clinton that will never come to light, although he will use this info, if he has it, to the detriment of the U.S. via blackmail.

 

Indeed. The American in me hopes that he doesn't, but also does, in the hopes that something productive might come out of it. Ugh.

 

Hillary Clinton's emails in Vladimir Putin's hands? - Washington Times

 

Russian intelligence agencies are suspected of cyberintrusions that obtained sensitive political information contained in Democratic National Committee networks. Last week, reports surfaced that computer networks of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation were also compromised, also by Russian hackers.

 

Russian intelligence is considered to be the most capable nation-state cyberespionage and cyberwarfare power, and its intelligence-gathering operations in the U.S. are said to be going at Cold War levels.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer schooled in the black arts of covert operations,

 

Naval Engineer Prosecuted For Mishandling Classified Info In 215 | The Daily Caller

@Habib you ask and I deliver. Maybe if that Navy reservist had a different last name.

 

Fair enough. This would seem to constitute evidence that a reasonable discussion can be based around.

 

Now, I will quibble with that website's write-up. They write that Nishimura mishandled the classified data without "malicious intent," implying it's the same conclusion Comey reached when he said there wasn't evidence Clinton intended to violate the laws surrounding classified information. But, Nishimura most certainly intended to violate the law when he stole the data and snuck it off base, which he admitted, he just didn't plan to sell it or give it to anyone, therefore there was "no intent to distribute" or "no malicious intent" as that website strains to put it. So, I reason the level of intentionality in each case - so far as Comey's explanation goes - are quite different.

 

But, I'll grant this is a start. How many more are there? I assume that some number of people have been fired, lost their clearances, or were otherwise reprimanded due to mishandling classified information, how many were charged?

 

So how would you classify putting classified material on a non US government server or device. Clinton ignored direction not to do this , I fail to see the difference . Of a one time encounter , as opposed to doing it over the course of majority of her tenure as SOS.

 

Why should she be given clearance again ? That's not even to talk scale of her negligence. The fact that her negligence on unsecure devices on foreign soil led to those devices being hacked.

 

I don't understand your point on how many more ?

 

I agree with Habib.

 

If you don't see the difference, it is because you choose not to.

 

Hillary setting up email at her home is clearly different than downloading classified information onto media devices and carrying that material around with you in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That action raises far more questions and suspicions for me than Hillary's actions. There is nothing in Hillary's actions that suggest she ever thought about or had the intent to share information with outside parties. While the naval reservist's actions cause me to wonder what he was going to do with that classified information even if intent could not be discovered.