28 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

You can read all the details as needed, wiki pages, etc.

In addition to that, numerous government policies on email use of, maintenance of and transmission of.  Violation of any of those are punishable.

By no means is Wikipedia a reliable source, nor do most government policies carry criminal sanctions. The prime source for federal crimes is Title 18 of the United States Code. Again, which actions undertaken by Hillary Clinton constitute prosecutable crimes?

4 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

By no means is Wikipedia a reliable source, nor do most government policies carry criminal sanctions. The prime source for federal crimes is Title 18 of the United States Code. Again, which actions undertaken by Hillary Clinton constitute prosecutable crimes?

i provided the title of the statute as you repeated. I never said wiki was a reliable source.   I mentioned it along with etc.  Feel free to research more if you want for the details of the statute. 

16 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

i provided the title of the statute as you repeated. I never said wiki was a reliable source.   I mentioned it along with etc.  Feel free to research more if you want for the details of the statute. 

I have read and researched Section 798 many times over the course of my career, so I am well-versed in application of its provisions.

 

For the third time, which actions of Hillary Clinton violated one or more of those provisions, or any other federal criminal statutes, in order to justify a criminal prosecution, as you state?

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

He was a left wing hero when he announced no charges against Hillary. Not so much when he decides the case is still in progress. 

Last time Comey appeared before Congress he mentioned that he was no longer a Republican. Methinks he has had a change of mind since then. Of course he might have since then had extreme thoughts of self preservation. In this every man for himself world why should he be any different. 

1 hour ago, alocacoc said:

Hang her.

 

The USA is a civilised country; lethal injection surely ?

3 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

It just validates the idea that both candidates are a complete joke and that neither of them have any business running for President.

 

Yes the Donald the Groper jumped all over this. Worse than Watergate blah blah blah. Forget fact checker it is entirely useless and is really irrelevant. Until any charges are laid and proven this amounts to pure slander. Presidential candidates should still be held to some standard of honesty and civility.  All this shotgun style of politics to see what will stick to their opponent is deplorable but then the Gropers groupies are in the "basket of the deplorables" 

Is that the new form of democracy (under a President Trump)? Lock up before a legal conviction? What about the most sacred principle of democracy, everybody is innocent until proven guilty (in a court of justice)???

Why do you think bail exists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, Clinton is toast. For Comey to act as he did means one of two things. Either there is something really serious which will sink HRC, or her party and behind the scenes backers think she bring the system down with scandal if she were ever elected.

Even the legacy media are tearing her a new one, all she has left are the diehard rags such as Vox, Slate and Being liberal. Not forgetting some of our esteemed members who will go down with the ship rather than face facts.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

2 minutes ago, Steely Dan said:

Look, Clinton is toast. For Comey to act as he did means one of two things. Either there is something really serious which will sink HRC, or her party and behind the scenes backers think she bring the system down with scandal if she were ever elected.

Even the legacy media are tearing her a new one, all she has left are the diehard rags such as Vox, Slate and Being liberal. Not forgetting some of our esteemed members who will go down with the ship rather than face facts.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Which legacy media would those be? Are you referring to Breitbart.com?

Isn't it wonderful?  Another totally transparent administration to look forward to.  Yay.

Who's voting for Aleppo Johnson?

To Sydebbole- Probably the best and most amusing post I have read to date- As an American- I must admit the British penchant for great humor is masterful. 

On a serious note: When will the Queen be making her first visit to the reconstituted American colony. I may want to return for the event. Of course, I'll need to visit the British embassy in Bangkok to obtain my British Passport.

 

Good Lord:  I'm actually starting to hope it is all true!!!

2 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

I have read and researched Section 798 many times over the course of my career, so I am well-versed in application of its provisions.

 

For the third time, which actions of Hillary Clinton violated one or more of those provisions, or any other federal criminal statutes, in order to justify a criminal prosecution, as you state?

That Code Section/Statute  states:

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person ...

 

 

3 hours ago, thaihome said:

Please get your facts straight .  Hillary's email server was not hacked and the FBI investigation into classified material in her email system made it explicit that there was no evidence that any of the "very small number of emails had classified markings when they were sent" (Comey's words) or the 2,000 that were  classified confidential information a subsequent review were ever available outside the system. None of those emails were included in the emails published as required by a court order in a law suit by Judicial Watch .  Those publicly available mails have been published by Wikileaks and other organizations . 

 

The DNC's email system was hacked and Podesta's private gmail account was also hacked. Those emails contained no classified material as well as no admissions of any criminal behavior .  They were purely political discussions between various Democratic officials and members of Hillary's staff.  Evidence, including Cyrillic header information and similar tools used, point towards Russian Intelligence service involvement in the hacks.   

 

Suggest you look at this link for a review of the entire saga.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html

TH 

 

 

The NYT is the last source, if never, i will look at. Intercept (Glenn Greenwald and partners)  for me.

You are a idiot that has no place running a country. A cheating old war horse. 

6 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

 I have a security clearance and have had one for 35 years and work in the defense industry.  If anybody had done any little piece of what she had done, they would have been stripped of their security clearance, fired, and most likely prosecuted.  The arrogance to even consider using ones own mail server and email address is still to me un fathomable.  Not to mention that all government employees are given security briefings, and email accounts.  Her motives, while not necessarily criminal in nature, show ridiculous judgement.  Her actions certainly were criminal and she should be prosecuted.  Sentencing may be light but she should be prosecuted.

CORRECT and she certainly should be not on a podium. What is wrong with the USA. Oh I forget Obama.

Can someone please tell me when the next question time is in Parliament and if Teresa May has appointed an American Governor-General?  

 

Pretending we are part of the British Empire again is much more fun than what is presently taking place.

5 minutes ago, performance said:

English is not your strong suit Sir.

I assume you're referring to this post since you don't specify:

I am curious as to which federal statutes you believe she transgressed which would justify prosecution.

Thai visa frowns on such criticism for a reason. People write these things on the fly and often unknowingly make errors. That said, what is the problem with the sentence you refer to?

And since you brought up the subject of correct English, aren't you the party who wrote ""a idiot".  

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I assume you're referring to this post since you don't specify:

I am curious as to which federal statutes you believe she transgressed which would justify prosecution.

Thai visa frowns on such criticism for a reason. People write these things on the fly and often unknowingly make errors. That said, what is the problem with the sentence you refer to?

And since you brought up the subject of correct English, aren't you the party who wrote ""a idiot".  

 

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I assume you're referring to this post since you don't specify:

I am curious as to which federal statutes you believe she transgressed which would justify prosecution.

Thai visa frowns on such criticism for a reason. People write these things on the fly and often unknowingly make errors. That said, what is the problem with the sentence you refer to?

And since you brought up the subject of correct English, aren't you the party who wrote ""a idiot".  

 

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I assume you're referring to this post since you don't specify:

I am curious as to which federal statutes you believe she transgressed which would justify prosecution.

Thai visa frowns on such criticism for a reason. People write these things on the fly and often unknowingly make errors. That said, what is the problem with the sentence you refer to?

And since you brought up the subject of correct English, aren't you the party who wrote ""a idiot".  

 

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I assume you're referring to this post since you don't specify:

I am curious as to which federal statutes you believe she transgressed which would justify prosecution.

Thai visa frowns on such criticism for a reason. People write these things on the fly and often unknowingly make errors. That said, what is the problem with the sentence you refer to?

And since you brought up the subject of correct English, aren't you the party who wrote ""a idiot".  

 

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I assume you're referring to this post since you don't specify:

I am curious as to which federal statutes you believe she transgressed which would justify prosecution.

Thai visa frowns on such criticism for a reason. People write these things on the fly and often unknowingly make errors. That said, what is the problem with the sentence you refer to?

And since you brought up the subject of correct English, aren't you the party who wrote ""a idiot".  

For Queen and country Sir.

 

Read his story he gave you the reasons. She should be fried and skinned alive. That old fossil is a left over office furniture in Obamas antique section of the White House. 

Hopefully the Dems will have held something else back in the bag to swing the pendulum back in their favour again.

 

They did the "woefully unfit".

They did the non-payment of taxes.

They did the misogyny and groping.

Did they keep any ammo back?

2 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Hopefully the Dems will have held something else back in the bag to swing the pendulum back in their favour again.

 

They did the "woefully unfit".

They did the non-payment of taxes.

They did the misogyny and groping.

Did they keep any ammo back?

You forgot Trump;s fake charitable foundation. The one for which he seems to be the neediest case.

The Democrats definitely have another item in the bag regarding Trump that will be in play shortly. The voters will decide if it is true or note.  

18 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Hopefully the Dems will have held something else back in the bag to swing the pendulum back in their favour again.

 

They did the "woefully unfit".

They did the non-payment of taxes.

They did the misogyny and groping.

Did they keep any ammo back?

 

I am sure they can find a few that are still in the weeds. How about a few that have not really been talked about?

 

Donald Trump Used Campaign Donations to Buy $55,000 of His Own Book

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/24/donald-trump-used-campaign-donations-to-buy-55-000-of-his-own-book.html

 

Hispanic Woman Claims, “Donald Trump Paid Me For Sex In Cancun, This Is Our Love Child”

http://theracketreport.com/hispanic-woman-claims-donald-trump-paid-me-for-sex-in-cancun-this-is-our-love-child/

 

Donald Trump 'hosted wild parties with sex, cocaine and underage models' when he owned the Plaza Hotel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3869504/Donald-Trump-hosted-wild-parties-sex-cocaine-underage-models.html

 

48 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Hopefully the Dems will have held something else back in the bag to swing the pendulum back in their favour again.

 

Not likely.

They've shot their wad.

Say Goodnight Irene 

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

          One former senior DOJ official, told NPR that Comey's first mistake came in July, when he held a press conference to announce the findings of the FBI's investigation into Clinton's email use.

"You don't hold press conferences to announce that someone should not be charged with a crime and then proceed to dump all over that person and to publicly discuss the evidence against them," he said. "That's kind of one of the 10 commandments for being a federal law enforcement officer."

 

   "And another commandment would be — you don't publicly announce that you're conducting a criminal investigation against someone. And you especially don't do it if that person is a candidate, 11 days before an election. That's true whether it's a presidential election or an election for dog catcher."

 

source

How far would we have to go back to find a time when that was true? Have you forgot about Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon? All they talked about was whether or not they would bring charges against them or not. And yes I mean the department of justice. I would find it a dereliction of duty for them not to make an attempt to clarify a possible crime of a candidate running for any office. We the people can decide if allegations may or may not be justified but if there are facts that apply they should be explained before any said election. If he isn't going to say whether or not he is considering criminal charges then I agree he should have kept a lid on it.  I think the only reason Hillary is demanding the facts is that she knows he has to show his hand anyway. When I say facts I mean are they or are they not considering criminal charges based on evidence they have gathered.  I would like to know that before and not after the election, as this could effect my choice. I also think Hillary had a chance to be much more forthright about all this from the beginning, which may have put an end to it a long time ago.

7 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

A challenging year and years for governmental elections both in the USA and Thailand

Elections?

7 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

The roof is due to finally collapse on crooked Hillary on 1st November, unless she and Barry can start a war with Russia before then.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fgbEj-YyEIQ


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

WOW please don't say that, there may be some truth to it.

5 hours ago, WaywardWind said:

I have read and researched Section 798 many times over the course of my career, so I am well-versed in application of its provisions.

 

For the third time, which actions of Hillary Clinton violated one or more of those provisions, or any other federal criminal statutes, in order to justify a criminal prosecution, as you state?

I don't know but possibly destruction of evidence in an ongoing investigation? 

Hillary Clinton violated no law and it never went to a grand jury becuae there was no evidence which would warrant the grand jury to hear.  The same with the current uproar. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing and the worst part is that the FBI Director never even saw the emails he claims may be part of the former email case. He has definitely done a diservice to Clinto and the country by even speculating in writing without a shred of evidence. That is partisanship at its worst. He should immediately resign.

Trump doesn't want anyone to believe the 12 women who have come forth because there is no 'evidence'. Why should I believe Hillary is guilty of anything as there is no 'evidence' that has been presented.

In all fairness- I believe none of the allegations against either candidate. My decision to vote for Clinton is based purely on who will do the best job as President. She is the most qualified.  To me, a bigger issue is how a person working for Hillary allowed emails to get on her husband's computer which were proprietary.