I thought ignorance of the law wasn't a defense.

However they MUST have known that meeting with a hostile foreign government was, at the least, reportable to the CIA/FBI and they did not report that meeting

 

Actually...campaign finance is the one area where ignorance of the law IS a defense.

My understanding is that in order to be prosecuted it must be shown that you knew the applicable law

 

Therefore, we need to hold meetings, where ALL the folks are required to attend, and then sign.

 

Wrong about EVERYTHING again!

 

Explain how I am wrong. There is nothing in there which is wrong.

But, since we are talking primarily about classified information. I will explain a very fundamental aspect of protecting classified information.

The value of classified diminishes with time. What is highly classified today, will become common knowledge over time and there will be no need for that information to be classified. Conversely, if it is classified at some time in the future, it should have been classified to start with. The fact that it was not considered classified and marked classified means that someone failed in their fundamental duty to protect classified information.

 

For the UMPTEENTH TIME here it is AGAIN!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ut-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html

That is FACTUALLY DOCUMENTED!

No amount of hissyfit kneejerk denialism is going to make those FACTS go away!

 

Did you even bother to read the NY times article. "The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that a very small number of emails had classified markings when they were sent."

" 8 chains included “top secret” information" In general, anyone who is even vaguely educated on classified information will recognize material which is top secret, that it is classified. It was her duty to protect that information. If it was not marked, she should have marked and protected it.

 

None of which were sent by Hillary herself!

You are trying to make Hillary guilty for what other people did.

Should you be held accountable as a BLOTUS supporter for his ABDUCTION of small children?

 

Once she realized that she was receiving classified information, she should have shut down her server or notified everyone that it was not certified for classified information. That is also, very fundamental and part of her responsibility.. You don't just ignore a situation. She failed miserably to protect classified information.

 

So you are now taking 100% RESPONSIBILITY for your BLOTUS abducting all of those small children from their parents.

Got it!

 

No. The subject at the moment is Hilary.

 

UM, the OP is about Trump, and his criminals.

 

Go back and take a look at the title. "
" I thought ignorance of the law wasn't a defense." It says nothing about Trump. I gave an example where "ignorance of the law" was used as a defense.

 

Wrong!

You made the subject into ANYONE who might have put those classified emails on the server which means that you are now taking responsibility for what your BLOTUS has done to the children that he ABDUCTED.

You can't have it both ways.

You are blaming Hillary for what other people did therefore you must accept the blame for what your BLOTUS has done.

 

It works for Illegal Mexicans, so there is precedence set for that sort of defense these days..

 

Actually the subject is a question asked in the header

Unless the header is a flagrant bait to bash Trump and Conservatives?

 

I am not taking responsibility for anything. Hilary was grossly negligent in her handling of classified information. That is true regardless of what Trump did or did not do.

 

She's guilty because she retained the classified documents on an illegal and unsecure sever.

It's hardly the lowly State Dept employees fault that Clinton hand an illegal, unsecure server. If I send my boss an email, I expect they are going to handle it lawfully. You trying to pass the buck to some civil servent is mindblowing

 

Said the kettle to the pot...

 

CRAPOLA. She is NOT guilty for things changing status, post posted. And, it is NOT an illegal server. Just not a very good idea.

 

The State Dept IG said the server was illegal in his report. I am not sure what else you are trying to say.....

 

Her server and her actions broke RULES...not laws.

This whataboutism is a huge fail

 

It was a violation of US Codes 18 US Code 1924, 10 US Code 949 and 18 US Code 798. Those are not rules. Those are the law and apply to anyone handling classified information.

 

That was only in, IIRC, The Shadow radio show.

 

So entrapping an opposing candidate to get surveillance is fine? Just wanna get you on the record for 2020 I’m sure Kamala Harris might have ties fisa Court should look into