Hillary hands over drives - after they've been professionally wiped clean!

If she doesn't go to prison then something is seruouu screwed up with the justice system

http://observer.com/2015/08/the-coun...or-needed-now/

yeah, Newsmax is reputable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...3d3_story.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splits

yeah, Newsmax is reputable.

---

the Newsmax article is based on reporting in NYT and WaPo, fwiw

You can't really get rid of the data unless you format the drive and reload it with dummy data and format it again and reload it with dummy data countless times. Once that's been done I believe the data is really gone.

Good job Shilkary. You crook.

Btw if her drives are SSD she is shit out of luck. SSDs ovewrite data in layers so absolutely EVERYTHING can be recovered.

Be smart don't use ssds for sensitive data

emails!

Acorn!

Benghazi!

Planned Parenthood!

Vince Foster!

Christmas cards!

Govern? Fuck no, we're Repugs, we inflame our (out-of-control base) base non-stop with lies, slander, fabricated outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

emails!

Acorn!

Benghazi!

Planned Parenthood!

Vince Foster!

Christmas cards!

Govern? Fuck no, we're Repugs, we inflame our (out-of-control base) base non-stop with lies, slander, fabricated outrage.

---

The last remaining Spurstalk deflector shilling away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/in...29.h352.2x.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

The last remaining Spurstalk deflector shilling away.

---

All the Repugs do is deflect from governing.

TSA is approaching TB :lol in butt-hurted-ness and in stalking The Great Boutons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

All the Repugs do is deflect from governing.

TSA is approaching TB :lol in butt-hurted-ness and in stalking The Great Boutons

---

:lol stalking
you spam every single thread it's hard not to shit on you daily

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

:lol stalking
you spam every single thread it's hard not to shit on you daily

---

I post wherever and whatever I want, not the same as TB :lol and you spamming my posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

emails!

Acorn!

Benghazi!

Planned Parenthood!

Vince Foster!

Christmas cards!

Govern? Fuck no, we're Repugs, we inflame our (out-of-control base) base non-stop with lies, slander, fabricated outrage.

---

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Shillary has been a scandal a minute for most of her adult life and it's finally catching up to her.

It's hilarious to see libcucks like you spin everything to defend a career politician with almost every single trait you loathe in neocons and establishment Republicans. She's corrupt, a warmonger, a condescending prick, an "evil 1%-er," and an overall loathsome human being. But all of that stops mattering when there's a (D) next to her name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Shillary has been a scandal a minute for most of her adult life and it's finally catching up to her.

It's hilarious to see libcucks like you spin everything to defend a career politician with almost every single trait you loathe in neocons and establishment Republicans.

---

The scandals-a-minute have all been VRWC/Repug fabrications for 30 years, DEFLECTIONS, slander, witch hunting, creating "troublesome" "controversies" when only the VRWC/Repug create the smoke and never find any fire. aka, the politics of personal destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The scandals-a-minute have all been VRWC/Repug fabrications for 30 years, DEFLECTIONS, slander, witch hunting, creating "troublesome" "controversies" when only the VRWC/Repug create the smoke and never find any fire. aka, the politics of personal destruction.

---

Do you know how batshit crazy you sound? I would not be surprised if you have no friends IRL, tbh. You will take this crazy libtard agenda with you to the grave with nothing to show for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunder

Do you know how batshit crazy you sound?

---

batshit crazy a from rigthwingnut weirdo is huge compliment. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

batshit crazy a from rigthwingnut weirdo is huge compliment. Thanks!

---

Not a rightwing nut weirdo. I expected this deflection, though.

Just checking to see if any laws were broken yet.

Any updates on that front?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Just checking to see if any laws were broken yet.

Any updates on that front?

---

I think deleting the data in itself was a crime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

I think deleting the data in itself was a crime

---

Don't be silly. If chump can name a Republican that deleted an email it makes it OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Don't be silly. If chump can name a Republican that deleted an email it makes it OK.

---

dubya/dickhead's WH deleted Ms of emails, Repugs shrugged.


Rick Perry automatically deletes all staffer emails after seven days

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...er-seven-days#



Jeb Bush and Scott Walker among 2016 hopefuls who have used private emails

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...private-emails

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

dubya/dickhead's WH deleted Ms of emails, Repugs shrugged.


Rick Perry automatically deletes all staffer emails after seven days

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...er-seven-days#



Jeb Bush and Scott Walker among 2016 hopefuls who have used private emails

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...private-emails

---

Because that's the exact same thing as Hillary sending emails with top secret satellite photos to China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursforSix

Because that's the exact same thing as Hillary sending emails with top secret satellite photos to China.

---

:lol you rightwingnuts are so self-indicting as incredibly stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursforSix

Because that's the exact same thing as Hillary sending emails with top secret satellite photos to China.

---

lol, wut?

AP Story Demonstrates Weak Claims Against Hillary On E-mails

In an AP Story sourced by Intelligence Community officials, the extreme weakness of the claims against Hillary Clinton are well explained. AP writes:

The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that an auditor deemed "top secret" include a discussion of a news article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence told The Associated Press. [My emphasis]

The idea that an email discussing a news article could be deemed "Top Secret" is ludicrous of course. But the IC is nothing if not ludicrous when it comes to classification issues.

The story continues:

The sourcing of the information in the emails could have significant political implications as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up [. . .]

The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies.

They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level.Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing. [My emphasis]

Let's review this again -

(1) Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself and

(2) nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

Frankly, this puts Clinton completely in the clear. This story SHOULD be over as far as Hillary is concerned. IS that true for other State personnel? I think so. But there can be no doubt as to Clinton.

The AP story continues:

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous.

This passage is unclear in this phrase - "The copy makes reference to classified information." This could mean, as I think it does, the copy from the news article. In which case, huh? A news article can be TOP SECRET? Just ludicrous. If "copy" means something else, I have no idea what it could be.

The story continues:

[A] second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — different people knowing the same thing through different means.

This seems to be a part of the interagency food fight where the IC thinks everything is classified, even though everyone knows from various sources and normal reasonable people say that's nonsense. And again, none of this implicates Hillary.

The rest of the article is a basic retelling of the controversy.

If this AP story is accurate, it's pretty clear there is no there there in this story.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2015/8...ary-On-E-mails

Benghazi!

Vince Foster murdered (in fact the Clintons murdered LOTS of people all through the 80s and 90s)!

ACORN!

Benghazi!

Planned Parenthood!

Christmas card list!

Benghazi!

Bill Clinton shooting at OBL only to distract from impeachment! ( Repugs then take office and totally ignore OBL and Muslim terrorism )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

I think deleting the data in itself was a crime

---

Show me the law. I said I am waiting for updates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Don't be silly. If chump can name a Republican that deleted an email it makes it OK.

---

CC knows it's only OK when a Republican does it because he knows no Republican has ever broken a law in the history of the US.

You're a hack, CC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Show me the law. I said I am waiting for updates.

CC knows it's only OK when a Republican does it because he knows no Republican has ever broken a law in the history of the US.

You're a hack, CC.

---

I'll do some research and get back to you but I just had to laugh at you calling anyone a partisan hack, too funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Show me the law. I said I am waiting for updates.

CC knows it's only OK when a Republican does it because he knows no Republican has ever broken a law in the history of the US.

You're a hack, CC.

---

I never claimed that republicans never broke laws and you are a vacuous straw man building asshole, chump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

the Newsmax article is based on reporting in NYT and WaPo, fwiw

---

It's completely mis-characterizing the WaPo article. The lady who handed over the "old server" said the data was migrated to the new server in 2013 and then her company wiped it. Newsmax is making it sound like Hillary ordered the machine wiped in order to cover something up. Which is why the titles of the actual news articles vs the hackjob article are so different.

Regardless, I hope they find thousands of top secret emails were passing through her server, she won't be able to survive that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

I'll do some research and get back to you but I just had to laugh at you calling anyone a partisan hack, too funny

---

lol research

You'll never speak of this again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I never claimed that republicans never broke laws and you are a vacuous straw man building asshole, chump.

---

I couldn't dream of matching your straw man construction capacity, asshole.

boutons I must apologize. I said you were the last remaining Hillary shill and I was incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

boutons I must apologize. I said you were the last remaining Hillary shill and I was incorrect.

---

Don't be an asshole too.

Just answer my question -- have any laws been broken? I haven't been following this much and I'm sure the super conservative internet sleuths of SpursTalk have investigated this thoroughly.

Or are you too busy fapping at newsmax to tell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Don't be an asshole too.

Just answer my question -- have any laws been broken? I haven't been following this much and I'm sure the super conservative internet sleuths of SpursTalk have investigated this thoroughly.

Or are you too busy fapping at newsmax to tell?

---

I didn't say ChumpDumper was shilling, you must feel like you are with your response. I do not believe you have not been following it you are literally online 20 hours a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

I didn't say ChumpDumper was shilling, you must feel like you are with your response. I do not believe you have not been following it you are literally online 20 hours a day.

---

So you didn't mean me?

OK.

Have any laws been broken?

Quit stalling and answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So you didn't mean me?

OK.

Have any laws been broken?

Quit stalling and answer.

---

You will get your answer when the investigation is complete. Since you aren't following it maybe check back in here in a few weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

All the Repugs do is deflect from governing.

TSA is approaching TB :lol in butt-hurted-ness and in stalking The Great Boutons

---

The obsession continues. Get a hobby, moonbat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

You will get your answer when the investigation is complete. Since you aren't following it maybe check back in here in a few weeks.

---

I'll just take for granted you are too upset to give a simple answer, so I can safely assume no law has been broken.

Thought I had read she was being criminally instigated by the fbi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Thought I had read she was being criminally instigated by the fbi

---

that was LIE leaked by the Repugs, totally refuted, nobody punished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

that was LIE leaked by the Repugs, totally refuted, nobody punished.

---

well if the investigation isn't complete, there wouldn't be a punishment yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

well if the investigation isn't complete, there wouldn't be a punishment yet

---

there was never a referral to DoJ for a CRIMINAL investigation, and the LEAKER of the lie was not punished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'll just take for granted you are too upset to give a simple answer, so I can safely assume no law has been broken.

---

Odd to assume anything after saying you weren't following the story. Even odder that abother user named ChumpDumper (alt?) has been following the story.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245102

or are you just following those who are following the story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Odd to assume anything after saying you weren't following the story. Even odder that abother user named ChumpDumper (alt?) has been following the story.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245102

or are you just following those who are following the story?

---

Since the last post in that thread was June, I will now assume you are a complete idiot who cannot perceive the passage of time.

Jesus, when did you get so stupid? Did you finally shoot yourself in the head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Since the last post in that thread was June, I will now assume you are a complete idiot who cannot perceive the passage of time.

Jesus, when did you get so stupid? Did you finally shoot yourself in the head?

---

Looks like that's when the thread died, does that mean everyone in it stopped following it? In this thread are we all following it again? Are you following it more than me because you have more posts ITT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Looks like that's when the thread died, does that mean everyone in it stopped following it? In this thread are we all following it again? Are you following it more than me because you have more posts ITT?

---

Are these serious questions?

I'm worried about you, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Are these serious questions?

I'm worried about you, man.

---

Yes please answer them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Looks like that's when the thread died, does that mean everyone in it stopped following it?

---

Not necessarily everyone.

Quote:

---

In this thread are we all following it again?

---

Not necessarily all.

Quote:

---

Are you following it more than me because you have more posts ITT?

---

No.

Are you aware that a person can stop following a story for six weeks and then can say he hasn't been following that story?

And in your following this story, have you concluded any laws were broken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Not necessarily everyone.
Not necessarily all.No.

Are you aware that a person can stop following a story for six weeks and then can say he hasn't been following that story?

And in your following this story, have you concluded any laws were broken?

---

I haven't been following the story closely. As I told you earlier I'll be waiting for the conclusion of the investigation to see if any laws were broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

I haven't been following the story closely. As I told you earlier I'll be waiting for the conclusion of the investigation to see if any laws were broken.

---

You didn't answer the questions.

Please answer the questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You didn't answer the questions.

Please answer the questions.

---

1. Yes
2. Already answered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

1. Yes

---

Then you'll agree it was stupid for you to act like it's not possible.

Quote:

---

2. Already answered

---

Cop out duly noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Then you'll agree it was stupid for you to act like it's not possible.

---

disagree. For other people surely possible, not possible with your most epic log of spurstalk time. I simply just don't believe you that is all, no hard feelings.

Quote:

---

Cop out duly noted.

---

being consistent is not a cop out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

disagree. For other people surely possible, not possible with your most epic log of spurstalk time. I simply just don't believe you that is all, no hard feelings.

---

Repeated hard feelings ad hominem duly noted.

Quote:

---

being consistent is not a cop out.

---

You consistently cop out, I'll give you that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Repeated hard feelings ad hominem duly noted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Jesus, when did you get so stupid? Did you finally shoot yourself in the head?

---

It seemed to be an especially stupid question for him; so much so that I voiced concern for his health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splits

It's completely mis-characterizing the WaPo article. The lady who handed over the "old server" said the data was migrated to the new server in 2013 and then her company wiped it. Newsmax is making it sound like Hillary ordered the machine wiped in order to cover something up. Which is why the titles of the actual news articles vs the hackjob article are so different.

---

yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splits

Regardless, I hope they find thousands of top secret emails were passing through her server, she won't be able to survive that.

---

No, she wouldn't. Wouldn't break my heart if that happened, but the alternative is Biden. Not sure I like that much better.

:lmao raising Al Gores dead corpse as a backup plan :lmao :lol

who mentioned Al Gore?

Hillary has bigger problems to worry
about that running for president. I bet Biden or someone else jumps in soon, sanders is too much of a fringe candidate and can't win in a country that is seeing a massive shift in its views to conservatism. Maybe if sanders was fringe right wing but not in America as a socialist.

18 U.S.C. 1924 - UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL AND RETENTION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security

18 U.S.C. 793
United States Code, 2009 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
Sec. 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(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.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, §18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, §1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on sections 31 and 36 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title I, §§1, 6, 40 Stat. 217, 219; Mar. 28, 1940, ch. 72, §1, 54 Stat. 79).
Section consolidated sections 31 and 36 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense.
Words “departments or agencies” were inserted twice in conformity with definitive section 6 of this title to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section.
The words “or induces or aids another” were omitted wherever occurring as unnecessary in view of definition of “principal” in section 2 of this title.
Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
Amendments

1996—Subsec. (h)(1). Pub. L. 104–294 inserted at end “For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘State’ includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.”
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000” in undesignated par. after subsec. (f).
Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 103–359 substituted “(p)” for “(o)” in two places.
1986—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 99–399 added subsec. (h).
1950—Act Sept. 23, 1950, divided section into subdivisions, inserted laboratories and stations, and places where material or instruments for use in time of war are the subject of research or development to the list of facilities and places to which subsection (a) applies, made subsection (d) applicable only in cases in which possession, access, or control is lawful, added subsection (e) to take care of cases in which possession, access, or control, is unlawful, made subsection (f) applicable to instruments and appliances, as well as to documents, records, etc., and provided by subsection (g) a separate penalty for conspiracy to violate any provisions of this section.
Indictment for Violating This Section; Limitation Period

Limitation period in connection with indictments for violating this section, see note set out under section 792 of this title.

So are you saying Hillary broke these laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So are you saying Hillary did broke these laws?

---

break

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

break

---

Thanks

We'll find out when the investigation is complete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

We'll find out when the investigation is complete.

---

At this point with everything you know, do you think she broke the laws you posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

At this point with everything you know, do you think she broke the laws you posted?

---

I hope so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

I hope so.

---

That wasn't the question.

No one from the FBI has briefed me on their findings. Why is the concept of an ongoing investigation so difficult for you to grasp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

No one from the FBI has briefed me on their findings. Why is the concept of an ongoing investigation so difficult for you to grasp.

---

You're the one posting laws you think are applicable here. Why would you post laws you don't think were broken?

Jesus, when did you become afraid to express an opinion? This is Darrin level snarkiness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You're the one posting laws you think are applicable here. Why would you post laws you don't think were broken?

Jesus, when did you become afraid to express an opinion? This is Darrin level snarkiness.

---

Highly ironic coming from you, David. You never express any takes of your own, you just nitpick everyone else's to death with your 500 Questions schtick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

Highly ironic coming from you, David. You never express any takes of your own, you just nitpick everyone else's to death with your 500 Questions schtick.

---

Highly ironic coming from you, David. You never express any takes of your own, you steal everyone else's shticks and drive them to death.

I doubt she broke any laws, but quite frankly, I don't care.

She handles everything so poorly including this situation. I'm tired of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

She handles everything so poorly including this situation. I'm tired of it.

---

This makes her Republican.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You're the one posting laws you think are applicable here. Why would you post laws you don't think were broken?

Jesus, when did you become afraid to express an opinion? This is Darrin level snarkiness.

---

You repeatedly asked what laws could have been broken, you now have laws that could have been broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

You repeatedly asked what laws could have been broken, you now have laws that could have been broken.

---

I repeatedly asked you if you think any laws had been broken.

I have a lot of dodging from you.

BENGHAZI!! will be back, probably closer to Dem convention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I repeatedly asked you if you think any laws had been broken.

I have a lot of dodging from you.

---

That's been repeatedly answered as well. I don't have access to the information to form such an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

That's been repeatedly answered as well. I don't have access to the information to form such an opinion.

---

Repeated dodge duly noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

I doubt she broke any laws, but quite frankly, I don't care.

She handles everything so poorly including this situation. I'm tired of it.

---

Agreed. Doubtful there will be criminal charges from this.
The Republicans are looking desperately for anything to use as ammo and Hilary stupidly gift wraps this for them. A pox on both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Repeated dodge duly noted.

---

That's wonderful dear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...ed-121438.html

up to 305 possible emails now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

That's wonderful dear.

---

:lmao

Florida Gov. Rick Scott Picks The Public’s Pockets

No other sitting governor has used tax money to end public-records cases that were caused by his own secretive misbehavior. Scott couldn’t care less.

He paid off in one case to avoid producing thousands of emails from private Google accounts on which he and staff members conducted public business, against the law. Scott said such accounts didn’t exist, which was a flat-out lie.

The stealth emails came to light in a lawsuit by Tallahassee attorney Steven R. Andrews, who was trying to buy an office building on property that Scott wanted to use as a “legacy park” around the governor’s mansion.

Once Andrews learned about Scott’s undisclosed emails, he pushed hard to obtain them. After a court recently ruled that Google had to turn over all relevant correspondence in the governor’s accounts, Scott quickly decided to settle the case rather than reveal the contents of his messages.

He agreed to pay Andrews $700,000 to end the case.

More accurately, he agreed to pay $700,000 with state funds. The governor personally won’t be writing the check, even though he’s the one who broke the law.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/florida-gov-rick-scott-picks-the-publics-pockets/#

Did Chris Christie Forget About the Time He Deleted Bridgegate Text Messages?


apparently it was long ago enough that New Jersey governor and ardent Springsteen stan Chris Christie doesn’t remember the details of his worst political scandal.

Christie recently compared himself to democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton on CNN’s News Day, implying that Clinton’s behavior with her email server smacks of a coverup:

“Can you imagine, if after the bridge investigation began, I came out and said ‘Oh, I’ve done all my business as governor on a private email server. And, I’ve deleted now 30,000 of those emails. But trust me none of it had to do with the bridge.’ Give me a break”

Christie made the same comparison on CNBC in May, arguing that the media’s treatment of Clinton was biased in her favor and that he would’ve been excoriated far harsher for a similar scandal.

This comparison is bizarre. It’s bad politics for Christie to voluntarily draw attention to “the bridge investigation”—aka Bridgegate—aka the time Christie’s team deliberately caused a traffic jam for political gain. It’s one of the most flagrant embarrassments of his career. It’d make more sense if Christie never even uttered the word “bridge” again, but aside from that, arguing that he’d be pilloried for deleting digital communications related to Bridgegate is a weirdo move for Christie because his team did delete digital communications related to Bridgegate.

Christie and a top aide deleted 12 text messages exchanged on the day of a legislative hearing into the bridge—the beginning of an investigation that yielded resignations from his staff, indictments of government officials close to Christie, and a guilty plea from a Port Authority ally.

After initially insisting he didn’t know if the aide— his current chief-of-staff Regina Ega— had ever sent him a text message, this is how the governor responded to questions about the fishy missing texts: “If it was of any moment or import I would have remembered it.”

Sounds an awful lot like “trust me none of it had to do with the bridge,” no?

http://gizmodo.com/uh-did-chris-chri...+%28Gizmodo%29

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...ed-121438.html

up to 305 possible emails now.

---

And still no one cares

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

And still no one cares

---

You can bet your ass Bernie cares.

The investigation should just be finishing up and indictments going out just in time for the primary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

This makes her Republican.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

You can bet your ass Bernie cares.

The investigation should just be finishing up and indictments going out just in time for the primary.

---

They're not going to Hillary. That's all that matters.

Benghazi!

death panels!

ACA will destroy America, if Ebola and ISIS don't do it first!

Benghazi!

Vince Foster!

Christmas cards!

Hillary's email server was in bathroom closet!

Benghazi!

whitewater!

Benghazi!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

They're not going to Hillary. That's all that matters.

---

Don't underestimate Obama's hate for the Clintons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Don't underestimate Obama's hate for the Clintons.

---

He made Hillary Secretary of State.

I'm not sure if I should be happy 2016's most likely president-elect is a ruthless cold hearted two faced lying cun t or not. Maybe she'll get some shit done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

I'm not sure if I should be happy 2016's most likely president-elect is a ruthless cold hearted two faced lying cun t or not. Maybe she'll get some shit done.

---

She won't get anything done because the Repugs will obstruct everything to maintain America's rigged status quo for the oligarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

He made Hillary Secretary of State.

---

You never heard the expression "keep your friends close and your enemies closer?"

He did that to avoid getting stabbed in the back by the Clintons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

She won't get anything done because the Repugs will obstruct everything to maintain America's rigged status quo for the oligarchy.

---

:cry "Never mind the fact that Bill Clinton got shit done with an adversarial Congress, never mind the fact that Obummer squandered a Democratic supermajority, Obummer failed because of obstruction!" :cry

:cry "Don't those Repugs know that the legislative branch is supposed to roll over and allow the President to do whatever he wants? Unless the POTUS is a Repug, then they shouldn't be allowed to do anything!" :cry

Obama is actually currently having the best second term of any President I can think of offhand.

Bill Clinton signed a bunch harmful shit the Repugs passed. He didn't really get much progressive stuff done. His initiative to try to kill bin Laden was trashed by the Repugs as distraction from him impeachment.

"this is amazing", not. it's just another BENGHAZI.