November 4, 20169 yr But there's nothing to see here............. A True November Surprise: The Clinton Campaign at Obama Justice: Emails on WikiLeaks Show a Top Federal Lawyer Giving Hillary a Quiet Heads Up - Fox Nation
November 4, 20169 yr Which specific U.S. Code sections are those? I'm genuninely curious. This thing has so much baggage attached to it that it's hard to find reporting on the actual details of this investigation. Are you talking about 18 USC 1924 or 18 USC 793? Is there another section she's accused of violating? 18 USC 2071 as well. This one even gets a snopes entry - on the disqualification part. Seems they acknowledge her violation but does it actually disqualify her? Or would it be 'held up' in court? Lots of parsing of details when the obvious is in front of all of us. For those who want to see the codes in question 18 U.S. Code SS 2
November 4, 20169 yr But there's nothing to see here............. A True November Surprise: The Clinton Campaign at Obama Justice: Emails on WikiLeaks Show a Top Federal Lawyer Giving Hillary a Quiet Heads Up - Fox Nation What's the procedure for Congressional Hearings as regards the knowledge of witness lists on a given day? Are there different rules in different committees? If witness names are public before a hearing, are any advance statements requested by the committee also public record?
November 4, 20169 yr Fox's Brett Baier says his report was a mistake and there is no truth to a likely indictment. Putting the toothpaste back in the tube never works.
November 4, 20169 yr Putting the toothpaste back in the tube never works. Didn't Hannity have to retract a false story just early this week? Fox News is going to have to get their act together.
November 4, 20169 yr All the President's Men was on commercial free earlier this week. Not even sure it would make the news in today's corruption-laden-ed environment. Watergate was childs play compared to this.
November 4, 20169 yr 18 USC 2071 as well. This one even gets a snopes entry - on the disqualification part. Seems they acknowledge her violation but does it actually disqualify her? Or would it be 'held up' in court? Lots of parsing of details when the obvious is in front of all of us. For those who want to see the codes in question 18 U.S. Code SS 271 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute 18 U.S. Code SS 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute 18 U.S. Code SS 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute These are just 'handling' of records (emails). Of course there is the outright lying to Congress (and may be the FBI as well): So that is perjury. Here is article on that. Again, no question of lying. She did. Just the process and method is in question if pursued. Why Hillary Clinton Will Not be Charged for Lying to Congress — Even Though She Did | Law News The disqualification provisions in Sec. 2071 would seem to be impossible to apply to someone running for the presidency given that constitutional offices have their own set of qualifications and any additions or subtractions to those qualifications would also have to be done constitutionally, yes? I'm also curious as to Sec. 2071 because of the language "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States". Does that provision apply to any documents, files, etc. that aren't court records? Are any of the documents or communications that are part of the e-mails in question court records? Reading through Sec. 793, it looks like the only one that could potentially apply to Mrs. Clinton is subsection (f). That section of the Espionage Act has been adjudicated on several occasions, mostly among military personnel who mishandled physical files and they confessed to certain knowledge that the files were classified and mishandled them anyway. There is also one case, Gorin v. U.S., from 1941 that says these sections of the Espionage Act " . . .requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established." The bad faith requirement is the only thing keeping the Espionage Act from being unconstitutionally vague. While not as strong as specific intent, it would seem to add something to the otherwise less stringent gross negligence standard under that subsection. I haven't had a chance to look into Sec. 1924 yet, but I'm planning on doing some reading in the morning.
November 4, 20169 yr The disqualification provisions in Sec. 2071 would seem to be impossible to apply to someone running for the presidency given that constitutional offices have their own set of qualifications and any additions or subtractions to those qualifications would also have to be done constitutionally, yes? I'm also curious as to Sec. 2071 because of the language "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States". Does that provision apply to any documents, files, etc. that aren't court records? Are any of the documents or communications that are part of the e-mails in question court records? Reading through Sec. 793, it looks like the only one that could potentially apply to Mrs. Clinton is subsection (f). That section of the Espionage Act has been adjudicated on several occasions, mostly among military personnel who mishandled physical files and they confessed to certain knowledge that the files were classified and mishandled them anyway. There is also one case, Gorin v. U.S., from 1941 that says these sections of the Espionage Act " . . .requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established." The bad faith requirement is the only thing keeping the Espionage Act from being unconstitutionally vague. While not as strong as specific intent, it would seem to add something to the otherwise less stringent gross negligence standard under that subsection. I haven't had a chance to look into Sec. 1924 yet, but I'm planning on doing some reading in the morning. I think even Gowdy and Comey came to agreement that had intent been found then the issues would take a more serious turn. 'Intent' is not part of the critical laws. 'Willful' is the operative word usually. Given the revelation that multiple foreign governments have at least attacked if not comprimised the non-secure server back to 2010 Comey's 'lack of intent' may become useful to avoid more serious charges. But laws and rules were broken just with the fact that classified material was on it.
November 5, 20169 yr If you placed a bet that Trump would no longer be claiming that an indictment is close due to Fox News retracting their statement YOU LOST.
November 5, 20169 yr If you placed a bet that Trump would no longer be claiming that an indictment is close due to Fox News retracting their statement YOU LOST. I thought they said likely, not close.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.