3 ms·

>Impeachable would be when the former Secretary of State did not exercise care when handling classified information Its remarkable that some people are still k

>Impeachable would be when the former Secretary of State did not exercise care when handling classified information Its remarkable that some people are still keeping up this charade, 3.5 years after it was revealed and 2 years after it was put to rest. C'mon, man. It's intellectual dishonesty. Apparently we judge a former SoS by the rules of cricket and the President by the rules of Calvinball.

tomohawk 8y ago
Charade? She sent and received classified emails: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-class... Here's the relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/ https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negli... > Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-title-18-section-793-be-unconstitutional https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-titl...

tomohawk 8y ago

Charade? She sent and received classified emails: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-class... Here's the relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

ceejayoz 8y ago
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/ https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negli... > Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-title-18-section-793-be-unconstitutional https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/11432/why-might-titl...