Don't think there was a law in place for this when she was in office.Originally posted by WVPATX:
She violated federal law. She violated Obama Administration policy. She violated State Department policy.
What law and what policy?Originally posted by WVPATX:
The law was in place during her tenure as was Obama's policy. Google is very easy to use.
That's an assumption not a fact.Originally posted by bamaEER:
She was obviously stupid in doing what she did, but no law was broken.[/B]
It's the truth. If a law was broken, everyone would be citing the law. They would be able to quote or cite 18 USC $ 953 (used as an example).Originally posted by DvlDog4WVU:
That's an assumption not a fact.Originally posted by bamaEER:
She was obviously stupid in doing what she did, but no law was broken.[/B]
It's an assumption based on not having the knowledge of whether she violated statutes by unwittingly providing classified information. There is no way to determine that at this point. They will need time to comb through every document to see if she did or did not. You are assuming she did not and if that is the case what you said would be factual. You are basing your fact off of an assumption.Originally posted by countryroads89:
It's the truth. If a law was broken, everyone would be citing the law. They would be able to quote or cite 18 USC $ 953 (used as an example).Originally posted by DvlDog4WVU:
That's an assumption not a fact.Originally posted by bamaEER:
She was obviously stupid in doing what she did, but no law was broken.[/B]
Well, it is an assumption that didn't break any laws, but it also certainly isn't a fact that she did. She is required to turn over the emails for archival purposes. As long as she turns them all over, then she didn't break any law. I assume that she probably didn't turn them all over, or isn't going to turn them all over, but until somebody can prove that she didn't you can't claim that she broke the law.Originally posted by countryroads89:
It's the truth. If a law was broken, everyone would be citing the law. They would be able to quote or cite 18 USC $ 953 (used as an example).Originally posted by DvlDog4WVU:
That's an assumption not a fact.Originally posted by bamaEER:
She was obviously stupid in doing what she did, but no law was broken.[/B]
Please. She knows what's classified and what's not, and she knows what's personal and what's not. Gowdy is just frustrated because there's no e-mail from Hillary directing the terrorists to attack that "consulate" in Benghazi.Originally posted by mneilmont:
Hill has been on all networks saying she/we have removed the personal transmissions. She might want to keep quiet on the subject. She is not the person to make the call as to the classification of personal or professional. She probably needs to allow an independent to make that call for the period of time she was serving.
Gowdy acts like he is getting frustrated with her attempting to tell him what is pertinent.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!Originally posted by mneilmont:
He has been a Southern gentleman.
Zero? Really? That would depend on what's in the emails wouldn't it?Originally posted by WVPATX:
There is zero question that she endangered national security.
You're a piece of work.Originally posted by mneilmont:
Before addressing me....