You were given the source and the quote from Gowdy. If you can show he’s lying do so.
Look, I apologize if I missed it but I simply don’t see where this quote is in our exchange. Can you point me towards it please.
And again.
That’s your quote that proves Clinton claimed to know nothing about classified markings?
Seriously?
I didn’t say it proves anything and I didn’t make it up as you asserted.
If you can show he’s lying about her testimony do so.
How do I prove that she never claimed to know nothing about classified markings?
That’s not possible.
Your blogger (not Gowdy, by the way, which you clearly said just to make it seem more credible) made an unsubstantiated claim. Sorry. That’s what you get when you rely on crappy right wing blogs too much.
The part that I bolded is the stupidest thing I’ve heard. It does not strongly suggest any such thing.
Just give up. He doesn’t know how to read a statute. He’ll cut and paste a section that makes him feel good, without understanding that the preceding parts of the statute matter. He’ll decide the case as a one-man jury. And he’ll end by continuing to pretend that he understands the Constitution.
He’ll literally just do this until death. No subject is beneath his pretense at expertise.
(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
If you can show the author is lying do so.
You claimed I was lying and I clearly was not.
As for the rest, we get it, you will deny she did anything wrong till hell freezes over in spite of knowing better.
It’s not my obligation to disprove unsubstantiated claims from bloggers. If Clinton claimed to know nothing about classified information markings, you should be able to provide a quote of her saying so.
But you can’t.
I posted legitimate legal analysis which you ignored because it doesn’t fit your narrative. You make an argument, it crumbles, and then you move onto the next argument.
I’m not going to go searching through hours of testimony to satisfy you. I didn’t make anything up and you know it, if you’re going to assert he’s lying the onus is on you to show it.
I’ll go with Levin’s take on her violations until someone can actually show his reading of the statute is faulty.
Of course, you will.
I’ll certainly take his opinion over anything you have to offer.
Of course, you will.
Of course you’re not going to dig through hours of testimony because you know that it didn’t happen.
I’ll repeat my particularly prescient point. Your over reliance on right wing blogs is one of your biggest weaknesses.
They make you look foolish. Over and over again.
Not that it’ll stop you from doing it again in the future because you never admit it.
Levin apparently hasn’t looked up the legislative and judicial records not to mention the case law.
Admit it. Prosecuting Clinton under the gross negligence standard would be unprecedented.
I have an official email. That email is to be used for all work related communication - just as it is not to be used for any personal communication. It does not matter the content.
This is not rocket science.
Maybe someone can just pull out all the laws and rule books and mark which ones are to be followed and by whom and list the exceptions as well.
It is a question for a jury and we the people deserve to see her answer it - to a jury.
There is no law on the book which forbids a federal employee from using their personal email to conduct official business.
