Elerond

Reports say that estimated death toll has increased to at least 75. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-crash-idUSKCN0ZU2K7

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/13/ahead-of-gop-convention-cleveland-officials-affirm-protesters-may-carry-guns/ Ahead of GOP Convention, Cleveland Officials Affirm Protesters May Carry Guns But water guns, toy guns, knives, aerosol cans, rope, tennis balls are barred

It isn't the use of violence during formation that meant they weren't organic I thought it point of view where organic formation is one where people of nation/area themselves are the ones who behind the formation of state and non-organic formation is where outside forces are ones that are responsible of the formation of the state. Like for example formation of Israel is my opinion an example of non-organic formation of state and formation of USA is an example of organic formation of state.

It isn't anything that I haven't heard in past 21 years multiple times, even from people that know better. But it isn't really different from any other political discussion. It isn't optimal but one learns to live with it. Okay the reason is I can dispute some of what people are saying but its not worth doing unless people like you are upset So I wouldn't want you getting negative about the EU just because of some of the comments. But I know you know a lot about the EU so I would assume you wouldnt believe the negative views I can tell that this conversation is tame, compared to what I have had with my family, as most of them voted against joining EU in 1994.

It isn't anything that I haven't heard in past 21 years multiple times, even from people that know better. But it isn't really different from any other political discussion. It isn't optimal but one learns to live with it.

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other. That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently. If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically. Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations. Elerond can I ask you two questions What laws and control exactly would you have restored to the Finnish government, you guys keep saying you have lost sovereignty so what specifically do you mean? Who are these " elites " people keep referring to...where do they live ? You ask me question that I don't know answers. You probably should aim them towards those who make those claims.

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Not necessarily; the 19th century situation was quite artificial and the EU is effectively an attempt to go back to an even more extreme version of that situation with one 'empire'. Then, Europe was dominated by large multi ethnic empires held together, ultimately, by threat of force; military force probably does not now apply but there's certainly implied economic... leverage that can be applied. Then, even somewhere like Spain (or the aforementioned France) which had 'natural' borders that had been established, more or less, for 500 years were multiethnic, and an amalgam of even older proto-countries that theoretically at least they could revert to. That's largely not true for France nowadays except for some lingering sentiment in Brittany, but is for Spain. However, if you look at the break ups of the empires after WW1 the countries which ended up stable and surviving long term where the ones which formed 'spontaneously' via popular sentiment and which were 'historical' entities. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (~Bohemia) and to an extent Finland all had long term identities prior to ending up in their respective empires. Same for the organic part of the Ottoman break up too, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania (via Wlach/ Moldova) all had long term identities. The 'non organic' approach is always fraught with danger, as with the non organic/ imposed parts of the breaks ups of the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires. From that you got Yugoslavia on one hand and that cretinous artificial arbitrary mess in the middle east that still causes so much trouble on the other. That's why an imposed EU is not just a bad idea but verges on being outright dangerous. If it's going to be done it has to be done via genuine popular approval rather than just acclamation from the political elite. Otherwise it risks springing apart, and potentially springing apart violently. If use of violence to ensure formation of nation state prevents it being organic evolution then most of European nation states didn't born organically. Finland isn't really a nation state, because we are federacy of multiple nations.

Isn't that pretty much the nature of nation states? Meaning that they are single government states that are formed by people who share same history, traditions, or language (usually you can check off multiple options) that live in a particular area. Meaning that nation states have aspect/s that organically unify people to seek live under single government. Although in unification of Germany there were also outside ideologies (like liberal ideology of Free Trade, because German Customs Union [Zollverein] helped German nationalist to sell their idea of unified nation state, which lead eventually to formation of German Empire) that played their part addition to people feeling to be part of same nation.

Are you speaking Trump or Clinton now? Because of according to media scoops that is something that fits both of them.

Chinese, Japanese, Cambodian, Rwandan, etc. nationalist movements have shown that you don't necessary need to be "civilized" European to bastardize said ideology to do justify awful things. Nationalism as ideology has good and bad elements, like all other ideologies known to man kind, which is why extreme nationalism (or extreme in any other ideology) can lead to awful things. So people should try seek balance of ideologies where positives of said ideologies over weight negatives and then seek ways to reduce amount of those negative things even more. But of course such idealism is much easier to say than practice in reality.

That has been and still seems to be problem. Like for example ex-prime minister of Finland who had to resign because she leaked confidential documents about Iraq war and lied about it to our parliament is now one of our longest running MEPs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36745862 The suspect, named by US media as Micah Johnson, 25, said he was upset about the recent police shootings of black people, Police Chief David Brown said. Five Dallas police officers were killed and seven wounded by snipers during a march against the shooting of black men by police, officials say. Three people are in custody. Mr Brown said the suspect had been killed when police used explosives placed by a robot to end a tense stand-off in a building where he was holed up. Before that he had spoken to a negotiator. "He said he was upset about Black Lives Matter [protest movement]; he said he was upset about the recent police shootings," Mr Brown told a news conference. "The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers." Mr Brown added that the man had said he was not affiliated with any groups and he acted alone. However, police had previously said they believed that more than one gunman was involved.

European Commission consist of 1 President, 7 Vice-Presidents and 20 Commissioners A new team of 28 Commissioners (one from each EU Member State) is appointed every five years. The candidate for President of the Commission is proposed to the European Parliament by the European Council that decides by qualified majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. The Commission President is then elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members (which corresponds to at least 376 out of 751 votes). Following this election, the President-elect selects the 27 other members of the Commission, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States. The final list of Commissioners-designate has then to be agreed between the President-elect and the Council. The Commission as a whole needs the Parliament's consent. Prior to this, Commissioners-designate are assessed by the European Parliament committees. The current Commission's term of office runs until 31 October 2019. Its President is Jean-Claude Juncker.

I went to secondary level college (Opisto, which teach lots of same things that gymnasiums do, but they have specialized subject that they specifically focus, like writing, music, acting, husbandry, information technology, etc,) instead of gymnasium (which is the institution that is more typical for secondary level schooling in Finland and the one which is often called high school when Finns speak about our school system in English, it is comparable to preparatory high schools in US).

I have also always find it is excellent way to stand up against unelected bureaucrats and megalomaniacs, by changing them to another group of unelected bureaucrats and megalomaniacs PS. I always wonder why people bother to put unelected before bureaucrats, as bureaucrats by their nature are unelected First of all, you stand up to someone, not against them. Second - it is absolutely necessary to emphasize that they are unelected, as the technocrats of the EU act as elected rulers. J. All the people in EU that have political power are elected. Don't trust your high-school teacher.. J. I didn't as I didn't go in high-school. But that don't change the fact that all people in EU that hold political power are elected.

Mostly masses have accepted changes or they are indifferent about them, because people keep vote politician driving in those changes in their national parliaments and in European parliament, meaning that even though there is no referendums most people have accepted those changes. And interestingly public trust towards EU has increased significantly from 2013, when it was in all time low, also trust towards national governments has increased from that low point. Of course that trust may have plummeted during current year, for multiple reasons, refugee crisis being top contender. Referendums about EU's constitutional changes has been demanded and organized only minority of EU countries and eventually there has been always agreements that even those countries accept (like for example people of Ireland are currently holding most positive outlook about EU of all member countries even though in past they voted against it in referendums). Brexit will probably be first time when there will not be compromise in the issues, because ultimate nature of it. Eurobarometer also show interesting change in public opinion in 2014, percentage of people that say that their voice isn't heard in EU went from 66% to 52% to 50% in 2015. (In UK, Italy, Spain, Czech, Latvia, Cyprus and Greece over 60% people are holding opinion that their voice isn't heard in EU, in Cyprus and Greece percentage is over 70%. Sweden has highest percentage (69%) of people that feel that their voice is heard in EU, followed by Denmark (68%) and Croatia (67%), Eu averages in this issues are 50% of people think that their voice isn't heard in EU and 42% think that their voice is heard in EU, 8% answered don't know). 58% of people in EU have optimistic view of EU's future and 36% have pessimistic view of its future. People of UK were most pessimistic after People of Greece and Cyprus (which in hindsight foretell results of this referendum). Like I said earlier people of Ireland have most positive outlook about EU's future with 77% of them holding positive outlook about EU's future. People of UK told in barometer named same issues as EU's biggest problems that they told after referendum, immigration being #1, economy #2 and unemployment #3. Same three issues are also biggest problems for rest of EU. Surprisingly for Portugal and Finland biggest issue is other member states Financial state, even though both are suffering from their own economic issues. And not so surprisingly Germany and Malta are most worried about immigration in EU. And Greece, Spain and Cyprus are most worried about economy and Ireland fear most of unemployment. From national point of view unemployment is biggest issues with large margin and immigration is second. Not so surprisingly euro countries like euro and non-euro countries don't like it. Estonia as new euro country has most positive view about monetary union and UK has most negative view. 67% of people said that they feel that they are citizens of EU. in UK only 56% hold that opinion. In Cyprus, Greece, and Bulgaria only 50% held that opinion. In Luxembourg 88% of people said that they feel like citizens of EU. People of UK and Finland are least interest to know more about their rights as citizens of EU. Nearly all people in Cyprus were interested to know more about their rights as citizens of EU. Free movement of people, goods and services is seen as most positive thing in EU, peace between member states is close second. 56% people of EU see free trade agreement in favorable light although its supports seem to be decreasing. In short public opinion seem to regard EU in OK light, but there has been clear sign for several years that people of UK have different direction in their mind that rest of EU. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_first_en.pdf

I have also always find it is excellent way to stand up against unelected bureaucrats and megalomaniacs, by changing them to another group of unelected bureaucrats and megalomaniacs PS. I always wonder why people bother to put unelected before bureaucrats, as bureaucrats by their nature are unelected First of all, you stand up to someone, not against them. Second - it is absolutely necessary to emphasize that they are unelected, as the technocrats of the EU act as elected rulers. J. All the people in EU that have political power are elected. European Parliament is elected in direct election, by citizens of EU. European Council consist on heads of state or government of EU countries and European Commission President Council of the European Union consist on government ministers from each EU country, according to the policy area to be discussed. European Commission consist on a team or 'College' of Commissioners, 1 from each EU country. The list of nominees for Commissioners has to be approved by national leaders in the European Council. Each nominee appears before the European Parliament to explain their vision and answer questions. Parliament then votes on whether to accept the nominees as a team. Finally, they are appointed by the European Council, by a qualified majority. It is perfectly acceptable not like work they do, or them as persons or even way they are elected, but they are all official elected by various democratic systems, in direct or indirect elections. But EU is also full of bureaucrats whose job is do the day-to-day pencil pushing, like any other government, country, organization, etc.. European Parliament: Role: Directly-elected EU body with legislative, supervisory, and budgetary responsibilities Members: 751 MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) President: Martin Schulz Established in: 1952 as Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community, 1962 as European Parliament, first direct elections in 1979 Location: Strasbourg (France), Brussels (Belgium), Luxembourg What does the Parliament do? Legislative Passing EU laws, together with the Council of the EU, based on European Commission proposals Deciding on international agreements Deciding on enlargements Reviewing the Commission's work programme and asking it to propose legislation Supervisory Democratic scrutiny of all EU institutions Electing the Commission President and approving the Commission as a body. Possibility of voting a motion of censure, obliging the Commission to resign Granting discharge, i.e. approving the way EU budgets have been spent Examining citizens' petitions and setting up inquiries Discussing monetary policy with the European Central Bank Questioning Commission and Council Election observations Budgetary Establishing the EU budget, together with the Council Approving the EU's long-term budget, the "Multiannual Financial Framework" Composition The number of MEPs for each country is roughly proportionate to its population, but this is by degressive proportionality: no country can have fewer than 6 or more than 96 MEPs and the total number cannot exceed 751 (750 plus the President). MEPs are grouped by political affiliation, not by nationality. The President represents Parliament to other EU institutions and the outside world and gives the final go-ahead to the EU budget. How does the Parliament work? Parliament's work comprises two main stages: Committees - to prepare legislation. The Parliament numbers 20 committees and two subcommittees, each handling a particular policy area. The committees examine proposals for legislation, and MEPs and political groups can put forward amendments or propose to reject a bill. These issues are also debated within the political groups. Plenary sessions – to pass legislation. This is when all the MEPs gather in the chamber to give a final vote on the proposed legislation and the proposed amendments. Normally held in Strasbourg for four days a month, but sometimes there are additional sessions in Brussels. Petitions One of the fundamental rights of European citizens: Any citizen, acting individually or jointly with others, may at any time exercise his right of petition to the European Parliament under Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Any citizen of the European Union, or resident in a Member State, may, individually or in association with others, submit a petition to the European Parliament on a subject which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects them directly. Any company, organisation or association with its headquarters in the European Union may also exercise this right of petition, which is guaranteed by the Treaty. A petition may take the form of a complaint or a request and may relate to issues of public or private interest. The petition may present an individual request, a complaint or observation concerning the application of EU law or an appeal to the European Parliament to adopt a position on a specific matter. Such petitions give the European Parliament the opportunity of calling attention to any infringement of a European citizen's rights by a Member State or local authorities or other institution. European citizens' initiative As of 1 April 2012, EU citizens have a new tool allowing them to participate in shaping EU policy. Put in place by the Lisbon Treaty, the citizens' initiative allows 1 million citizens from at least a quarter of the EU Member States to ask the European Commission to propose legislation in areas that fall within its competence. The organisers of a citizens' initiative - a citizens' committee composed of at least 7 EU citizens, resident in at least 7 different Member States - have 1 year to collect the necessary support. Signatures must be certified by the competent authorities in each Member States. Organisers of successful initiatives will participate in a hearing at the European Parliament. The Commission will have 3 months to examine the initiative and decide how to act on it. European Commission Role: Promotes the general interest of the EU by proposing and enforcing legislation as well as by implementing policies and the EU budget Members: A team or 'College' of Commissioners, 1 from each EU country President: Jean-Claude Juncker Year established: 1958 Location: Brussels (Belgium) What does the Commission do? Proposes new laws The Commission is the sole EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the Council that: protect the interests of the EU and its citizens on issues that can't be dealt with effectively at national level; get technical details right by consulting experts and the public. Manages EU policies & allocates EU funding Sets EU spending priorities, together with the Council and Parliament. Draws up annual budgets for approval by the Parliament and Council. Supervises how the money is spent, under scrutiny by the Court of Auditors. Enforces EU law Together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member countries.Represents the EU internationally Speaks on behalf of all EU countries in international bodies, in particular in areas of trade policy and humanitarian aid. Negotiates international agreements for the EU. Council of the European Union (also called Council of Ministers) Role: Voice of EU member governments, adopting EU laws and coordinating EU policies Members: Government ministers from each EU country, according to the policy area to be discussed President: Each EU country holds the presidency on a 6-month rotating basis Established in: 1958 (as Council of the European Economic Community) Location: Brussels (Belgium) What does the Council do? Negotiates and adopts EU laws, together with the European Parliament, based on proposals from the European Commission Coordinates EU countries' policies Develops the EU's foreign & security policy, based on European Council guidelines Concludes agreements between the EU and other countries or international organisations Adopts the annual EU budget - jointly with the European Parliament. Composition There are no fixed members of the EU Council. Instead, the Council meets in 10 different configurations, each corresponding to the policy area being discussed. Depending on the configuration, each country sends their minister responsible for that policy area. For example, when the Council meeting on economic and financial affairs (the "Ecofin Council") is held, it is attended by each country's finance minister. How does the Council work? All discussions & votes take place in public. To be passed, decisions usually require a qualified majority :55% of countries (with 28 current members, this means 16 countries) representing at least 65 % of total EU population. To block a decision, at least 4 countries are needed (representing at least 35% of total EU population) Exception - sensitive topics like foreign policy and taxation require a unanimous vote (all countries in favour). Simple majority is required for procedural & administrative issues European Council Role: Defines the general political direction and priorities of the European Union Members: Heads of state or government of EU countries, European Commission President, High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy President: Donald Tusk Established in: 1974 (informal forum), 1992 (formal status), 2009 (official EU institution) What does the European Council do? Decides on the EU's overall direction and political priorities – but does not pass laws. Deals with complex or sensitive issues that cannot be resolved at lower levels of intergovernmental cooperation Sets the EU's common foreign & security policy, taking into account EU strategic interests and defence implications Nominates and appoints candidates to certain high profile EU level roles, such as the ECB and the Commission On each issue, the European Council can: ask the European Commission to make a proposal to address it. pass it on to the Council of the EU to deal with Composition The European Council is made up of the heads of state or government of all EU countries, the European Commission President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy. It is convened and chaired by its President, who is elected by the European Council itself for a once-renewable two-and-a-half-year term. The President represents the EU to the outside world. How does the European Council work? It usually meets 4 times a year – but the President can convene additional meetings to address urgent issues. It generally decides issues by consensus – but by unanimity or qualified majority in some cases. Only the heads of state/government can vote.

Talks with Russia are always so nice, especially because it isn't always that easy interpret what they mean http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/52312 Question (English translation by presidentti.fi):A question to President Putin. It seems to us here in Finland that it is Russia that is pushing Finland toward NATO. At any rate, here the prevailing attitude was against NATO but now this issue is being discussed seriously enough. Why is Russia behaving like this? Perhaps you have some specific proposals on enhancing the security of Finns? This question is for President Putin. And a question for President Niinistö. Finland and the United Kingdom, and Finland and the United States, are currently signing some kind of defence cooperation agreement; could you tell us a little more about the contents of the agreement? Vladimir Putin: We don’t quite understand what could have caused the concern of Finnish citizens. I’ve already said that we made a decision and carried it out by withdrawing all our armed forces to the depth of 1,500 km from the Finnish borders. Despite all the tensions in the Baltic Sea region or other parts of the world, we have done nothing that could have prompted the Finns to worry. Incidentally, we are doing this in recognition of Finland’s neutral status. Imagine if Finland joins NATO. In this case the Finnish troops will cease to be fully independent or sovereign. They will become part of NATO’s military infrastructure, which will emerge overnight on the borders of the Russian Federation. Do you think we are going to continue acting like that: since we have withdrawn our troops to a depth of 1,500, they will stay there? But in any event we’ll respect whatever choice the Finnish people make. It is up to them how to guard their independence and ensure their security. We cherish and respect Finland’s neutral status but this issue is not up to us. Paraphrasing a statement by one of my Finnish friends, I could say that NATO would probably be happy to fight Russia to the last Finnish soldier. Is this what you need? We don’t, we don’t want this but you decide for yourselves what you need.

Here is two laws that I have seen mentioned in media about Clinton's email server 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information (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 “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution; The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications; The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States; 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. © 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). (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), ©, and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), ©, and (e)–(p)), shall apply to— (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection; (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and © any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection. (4) Notwithstanding section 524© of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law. (5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States. 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or © Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or (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. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. (h) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (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) of this subsection. (3) The provisions of subsections (b), ©, and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), ©, and (e)–(p)) shall apply to— (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection; (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and © any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection. (4) Notwithstanding section 524© of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law. Gross Negligence A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages. Bolded part is the section that I have seen different media outlets to cite as most likely subsection that Clinton would have broken.

Who you think is best to lead UK out from EU May - We will sent notice to leave as early as next year maybe, ask me again in December 2077 after I have secured my position as PM. Gove - I am not sure what to do, but I love my country I even had to backstab put friendship aside to become Conservative leader and then new PM Leadsom - I will make sure that UK is out from EU next year and she will make Britain "the greatest country on earth" with her. I am Trump Thatcher lite.

I have also always find it is excellent way to stand up against unelected bureaucrats and megalomaniacs, by changing them to another group of unelected bureaucrats and megalomaniacs PS. I always wonder why people bother to put unelected before bureaucrats, as bureaucrats by their nature are unelected

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI

You know guys that all countries in Europe, except Belarus have signed same rights for humans (european convention on human rights) and abide by rulings of same human rights court (european court of human rights)? This includes all EU member states, Russia and Turkey. Which of course don't mean that all people in those countries care about human rights or aren't willing to take them away from other people, but at least still they can't do so freely and without opposition.

Polls show that even though overwhelming majority of non-white people vote for remain they were only able to influence final result 1% towards remain from 53% (percentage of white voters that supported leave) to 52% leave. Non-Christian identified voters were able to move result 6% from 58% to 52% Under 65 years olds were able to move result 8% towards remain. People younger than 35 and people over 45 negated each others votes. If half of those under 35 that didn't vote had voted with similar split as those of them that vote then remain would had won. And then small lightening in form of somebody analyzing current situation in political leadership fight https://www.buzzfeed.com/saraspary/this-guy-tried-to-sum-up-the-****show-that-is-british-politi?utm_term=.efz6aelDp#.kuJPBVlYG

Extreme nationalism is in rise and in past it has had habit to create conflicts between nations.