Parts d - f read as follows:
(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.
FBI Director Comey admitted in his statements that Clinton violated in part, or in whole sections of this, including not providing all requested materials, and the destruction of same (which likely caused a problem with said delivery.):
He also admitted to Congress earlier today that an FBI employee who treated classified information with extreme carelessness would be subject to job loss, loss of security clearance, and be unable to gain future employment in a national security position. His testimony also let it be known that Clinton lacked 'sophistication' about classified information. He also admitted under questioning from Representative Trey Gowdy (R - SC) that Clinton lied when she said that she did not send classified emails, which gets the "Duh" Award for today. It's what she does, but now it's on the record that she lied about her criminal activity. Sounds a lot like her former nemesis, President Richard Nixon. Except he was deleting 'private' recordings and lying about them.
Yet, he still recommended that no charges be filed against her. No one who has witnessed Clinton's political career could ever have expected her to be charged was living in a pie-in-the-sky world. If Benghazi couldn't derail her, a little matter like giving national security items to our items wasn't going to be the thing that undid her. If anything, her actions have become less horrific, if only by a smidge. She lies, then lies some more, then lies again, then pretends like she has no idea why there is any concern about her actions and words. It would be comical, if not for the fact that it is the future of our Republic that is on the line here.
Rather, my interest in her most recent abandonment of the rule of law is the fallout that she has endured. She was ecstatic to once again have escaped any judgment, the Shadow President began his tour and told his pigeons to vote for her, all should be right in the Clinton world.
Except it's not. Living where I do, it's impossible to not know, at a minimum, several hundred hard-core Liberals. It's something in the water that leads to about 90% of voting age persons to lean in that direction. It's sad, but I'm hopeful that it's cyclical. Eventually the Piper's going to come calling, and they'll have to understand that there is a Cost to everything for everything, but I digress.
The fact is, even here, people are outraged by the fact that Clinton is skating by again, when so many others have been, and will be punished (See: General Petraeus, Eric Snowden, Bradley Manning, Kristen Saucier, and Sandy Berger, for starters.)
I'm no big fan of Donald Trump, but this has to be seen as a windfall for him. With everyone piling on to the Hillary situation now, he can just sit back and take potshots as he feels necessary. That's a positive for him, because to date, he hasn't been accused of leaking national security documents, which has to be a plus. While Liberals may not be mad enough to actually vote for Trump, there may be enough angry persons that stay home that it swings the vote in a couple of states (not here. Not since Reagan in '84 has MA voted for a Republican Presidential candidate.)
One last thing that happened today was a group of Republican Senators called for Clinton et al security clearance to be rescinded. If this were to happen, it would seem to be put a huge damper on her ability to hold the office of POTUSA, given all the national security items that the President must deal with on at least a monthly or bi-monthly basis (given Obama's track record, at least.) Perhaps it's not too late for the *super* delegates to change their mind and nominate Bernie Sanders in Philadelphia at the end of the month. Crazy is as crazy does.
FBI Director Comey admitted in his statements that Clinton violated in part, or in whole sections of this, including not providing all requested materials, and the destruction of same (which likely caused a problem with said delivery.):
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that’s not what we’re deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
He also admitted to Congress earlier today that an FBI employee who treated classified information with extreme carelessness would be subject to job loss, loss of security clearance, and be unable to gain future employment in a national security position. His testimony also let it be known that Clinton lacked 'sophistication' about classified information. He also admitted under questioning from Representative Trey Gowdy (R - SC) that Clinton lied when she said that she did not send classified emails, which gets the "Duh" Award for today. It's what she does, but now it's on the record that she lied about her criminal activity. Sounds a lot like her former nemesis, President Richard Nixon. Except he was deleting 'private' recordings and lying about them.
Yet, he still recommended that no charges be filed against her. No one who has witnessed Clinton's political career could ever have expected her to be charged was living in a pie-in-the-sky world. If Benghazi couldn't derail her, a little matter like giving national security items to our items wasn't going to be the thing that undid her. If anything, her actions have become less horrific, if only by a smidge. She lies, then lies some more, then lies again, then pretends like she has no idea why there is any concern about her actions and words. It would be comical, if not for the fact that it is the future of our Republic that is on the line here.
Rather, my interest in her most recent abandonment of the rule of law is the fallout that she has endured. She was ecstatic to once again have escaped any judgment, the Shadow President began his tour and told his pigeons to vote for her, all should be right in the Clinton world.
Except it's not. Living where I do, it's impossible to not know, at a minimum, several hundred hard-core Liberals. It's something in the water that leads to about 90% of voting age persons to lean in that direction. It's sad, but I'm hopeful that it's cyclical. Eventually the Piper's going to come calling, and they'll have to understand that there is a Cost to everything for everything, but I digress.
The fact is, even here, people are outraged by the fact that Clinton is skating by again, when so many others have been, and will be punished (See: General Petraeus, Eric Snowden, Bradley Manning, Kristen Saucier, and Sandy Berger, for starters.)
I'm no big fan of Donald Trump, but this has to be seen as a windfall for him. With everyone piling on to the Hillary situation now, he can just sit back and take potshots as he feels necessary. That's a positive for him, because to date, he hasn't been accused of leaking national security documents, which has to be a plus. While Liberals may not be mad enough to actually vote for Trump, there may be enough angry persons that stay home that it swings the vote in a couple of states (not here. Not since Reagan in '84 has MA voted for a Republican Presidential candidate.)
One last thing that happened today was a group of Republican Senators called for Clinton et al security clearance to be rescinded. If this were to happen, it would seem to be put a huge damper on her ability to hold the office of POTUSA, given all the national security items that the President must deal with on at least a monthly or bi-monthly basis (given Obama's track record, at least.) Perhaps it's not too late for the *super* delegates to change their mind and nominate Bernie Sanders in Philadelphia at the end of the month. Crazy is as crazy does.
