RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 8:40:58 AM)

are you now in the circlefelch coven? It just got stupider.

you fucking donkeys.




Real0ne -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 8:42:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

show me the crime against the state, I am sure you have actual law statute at your disposal.
here let me help you out imbecile.

18 USC 764-765 and 768.

Go to it you fucking retard.

insofar as your factless unsecured shit is concerned who amongst these have no evidence of a server being hacked?
NSA
FBI
State
Hillary.

answer is 1. Hillary.



at least get an applicable law.



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

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

(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).


(Added Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 24(a), 65 Stat. 719; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3439; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 602(c), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3503.)




mnottertail -> RE: Clinton Foundation Pay-For-Play Indictment "Likely" (11/7/2016 12:35:12 PM)

You dont have the A... but now you got to do that and give me a 1, 2, 3, or 4.

cuz you got no unauthorized person in evidence, no proof of publishing, no proof of providing information to foreign government or detrimental to the United States (but you got Snowdon on that one)
so, you got no A.

And now to the specification
1. Evidence? and/or;
2. Evidence? and/or;
3. Evidence? and/or;
4. Evidence?





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125