Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:.
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence
Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:.
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence
Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:.
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence
Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.
You're right about the pros-non-pros decision. The decision to prosecute or not was made the DoJ. Comey was right that this would be a tough case to prove up - and he has the background to make that recommendation.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:.
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence
Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.
WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.
The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.
WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.
The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:.
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence
Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:.
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence
Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.
Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.
Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.
If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.
the media is not his problem
I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?
Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.
Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!
Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.
HTH
It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!
Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?
Mens rea?
I have a one word answer. Ready?
Training.
They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.
Hope this helps:.
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence
Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.
How did this Russia thing morph isn't to collusion or whatever
Wasn't the original thing that supposedly Russians showed some shady dnc emails
Now it's turned into them manipulating votes or who the fuck even knows
I think it was originally:
1. Russia hacked the DNC 2. Russian media bots spammed US with fake news during the election cycle
then
3. RUSSIANS!!!???
I'm almost totally sure 1 happened. 2 absolutely happened, but 3 is where we're at now. Nobody knows if Trump and associates colluded on 1 and 2, that remains to be seen. It would be stupid AF for Trump to ask Russia to keep hacking (as he did very publicly) if he was somehow colluding with them. Then again, I do think he's a megalomaniacal jackass who believes himself bulletproof and might be stupid enough to do just that.
That being said, it's clear that he and his associates like to talk to Russians a lot and it's clear that they try to hide it. Nobody knows what they talk about, and it could be the weather for all we know now, but they aren't doing themselves any favors under this level of scrutiny.
If there was no collusion, the conversations were truly innocent, and they all go down for obstruction and perjury when their hands were clean all along but they were from the gas-and-match school of crisis management, then el o fucking el.
When has Trump ever hided his affinity for talking to the Russians.
How did this Russia thing morph isn't to collusion or whatever
Wasn't the original thing that supposedly Russians showed some shady dnc emails
Now it's turned into them manipulating votes or who the fuck even knows
I think it was originally:
1. Russia hacked the DNC 2. Russian media bots spammed US with fake news during the election cycle
then
3. RUSSIANS!!!???
I'm almost totally sure 1 happened. 2 absolutely happened, but 3 is where we're at now. Nobody knows if Trump and associates colluded on 1 and 2, that remains to be seen. It would be stupid AF for Trump to ask Russia to keep hacking (as he did very publicly) if he was somehow colluding with them. Then again, I do think he's a megalomaniacal jackass who believes himself bulletproof and might be stupid enough to do just that.
That being said, it's clear that he and his associates like to talk to Russians a lot and it's clear that they try to hide it. Nobody knows what they talk about, and it could be the weather for all we know now, but they aren't doing themselves any favors under this level of scrutiny.
If there was no collusion, the conversations were truly innocent, and they all go down for obstruction and perjury when their hands were clean all along but they were from the gas-and-match school of crisis management, then el o fucking el.
When has Trump ever hided his affinity for talking to the Russians.
How did this Russia thing morph isn't to collusion or whatever
Wasn't the original thing that supposedly Russians showed some shady dnc emails
Now it's turned into them manipulating votes or who the fuck even knows
I think it was originally:
1. Russia hacked the DNC 2. Russian media bots spammed US with fake news during the election cycle
then
3. RUSSIANS!!!???
I'm almost totally sure 1 happened. 2 absolutely happened, but 3 is where we're at now. Nobody knows if Trump and associates colluded on 1 and 2, that remains to be seen. It would be stupid AF for Trump to ask Russia to keep hacking (as he did very publicly) if he was somehow colluding with them. Then again, I do think he's a megalomaniacal jackass who believes himself bulletproof and might be stupid enough to do just that.
That being said, it's clear that he and his associates like to talk to Russians a lot and it's clear that they try to hide it. Nobody knows what they talk about, and it could be the weather for all we know now, but they aren't doing themselves any favors under this level of scrutiny.
If there was no collusion, the conversations were truly innocent, and they all go down for obstruction and perjury when their hands were clean all along but they were from the gas-and-match school of crisis management, then el o fucking el.
When has Trump ever hided his affinity for talking to the Russians.
How did this Russia thing morph isn't to collusion or whatever
Wasn't the original thing that supposedly Russians showed some shady dnc emails
Now it's turned into them manipulating votes or who the fuck even knows
I think it was originally:
1. Russia hacked the DNC 2. Russian media bots spammed US with fake news during the election cycle
then
3. RUSSIANS!!!???
I'm almost totally sure 1 happened. 2 absolutely happened, but 3 is where we're at now. Nobody knows if Trump and associates colluded on 1 and 2, that remains to be seen. It would be stupid AF for Trump to ask Russia to keep hacking (as he did very publicly) if he was somehow colluding with them. Then again, I do think he's a megalomaniacal jackass who believes himself bulletproof and might be stupid enough to do just that.
That being said, it's clear that he and his associates like to talk to Russians a lot and it's clear that they try to hide it. Nobody knows what they talk about, and it could be the weather for all we know now, but they aren't doing themselves any favors under this level of scrutiny.
If there was no collusion, the conversations were truly innocent, and they all go down for obstruction and perjury when their hands were clean all along but they were from the gas-and-match school of crisis management, then el o fucking el.
When has Trump ever hided his affinity for talking to the Russians.
How did this Russia thing morph isn't to collusion or whatever
Wasn't the original thing that supposedly Russians showed some shady dnc emails
Now it's turned into them manipulating votes or who the fuck even knows
I think it was originally:
1. Russia hacked the DNC 2. Russian media bots spammed US with fake news during the election cycle
then
3. RUSSIANS!!!???
I'm almost totally sure 1 happened. 2 absolutely happened, but 3 is where we're at now. Nobody knows if Trump and associates colluded on 1 and 2, that remains to be seen. It would be stupid AF for Trump to ask Russia to keep hacking (as he did very publicly) if he was somehow colluding with them. Then again, I do think he's a megalomaniacal jackass who believes himself bulletproof and might be stupid enough to do just that.
That being said, it's clear that he and his associates like to talk to Russians a lot and it's clear that they try to hide it. Nobody knows what they talk about, and it could be the weather for all we know now, but they aren't doing themselves any favors under this level of scrutiny.
If there was no collusion, the conversations were truly innocent, and they all go down for obstruction and perjury when their hands were clean all along but they were from the gas-and-match school of crisis management, then el o fucking el.
When has Trump ever hided his affinity for talking to the Russians.
Once again the orange buffoon completely undermined the official WH statement by throwing a tantrum on Twitter.
Statement from the WH regarding the appointment of the special counsel yesterday: "As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know – there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity," Mr. Trump said in a statement issued by the White House. "I look forward to this matter concluding quickly. In the meantime, I will never stop fighting for the people and the issues that matter most to the future of our country."
Once again the orange buffoon completely undermined the official WH statement by throwing a tantrum on Twitter.
Statement from the WH regarding the appointment of the special counsel yesterday: "As I have stated many times, a thorough investigation will confirm what we already know – there was no collusion between my campaign and any foreign entity," Mr. Trump said in a statement issued by the White House. "I look forward to this matter concluding quickly. In the meantime, I will never stop fighting for the people and the issues that matter most to the future of our country."
Over one year later still posting the same lame shit with no collusion or obstruction
Trump was right. You all were wrong
LIPO. I don't recall you and your Trumptard buddies declaring the Benghazi investigation was wrong after nothing substantial happened within the first year.
Just cause he tweets no collusion and no obstruction every day asif he has tourettes doesn't mean it's true. He admitted on live TV that he fired Comey cause of the Russia investigation ffs.
Comments
I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.
U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.
Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.
Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.
So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.
Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.
The real issue is the person leaking this true information
Would you call Obama President N Word?
Didn't think so.
And very lonely.
Trump was right. You all were wrong
Just cause he tweets no collusion and no obstruction every day asif he has tourettes doesn't mean it's true. He admitted on live TV that he fired Comey cause of the Russia investigation ffs.