Hillary Clinton

[elfmotat]

 

As I now understand, those 30,000 deleted emails were recovered. Of those 30,000, just 3 emails bore classified markings and the investigators believed it was possible that Mrs. Clinton lacked the technical sophistication to know those documents were classified, which is plausible because they were marked with a symbol commonly used to designate copyrighted publications--an encircled small "c". Mrs. Clinton culpability resided in her detection of a copyright symbol on 3 of 30,000 documents. The clear distinction between Mrs. Clinton's actions and those provided in your link is that she was likely not aware that the deleted documents were classified as the other accused were and the republican led FBI investigators believed her.

 

18 USC §793. Malintent isn't required for prosecution, only negligence. See for example the case of General Petraeus, who was prosecuted in 2015 for mishandling classified materials.

 

 

As I understand, multiple documents were stored on a government computer Mr. Deutch had taken home and he new they were classified. Those 3 of 30,000 recovered documents were not on government property Mrs. Clinton secreted in her home and she was not aware they were classified. The two cases are dissimilar.

 

18 USC §1924. She stored classified materials on an unauthorized computer. It seems like you're reaching to find technicalities that excuse what she did.

 

 

It is certainly your choice to believe in a conspiracy within the US government to usurp law and justice, indeed there could be many.

 

Of course there are conspiracies to usurp law and justice. There are many confirmed cases of just such a thing, as a quick google search will demonstrate for you. It's almost as if powerful people do shady things to stay in power .

 

 

However, there are people in government with considerably more influence and power than candidate Clinton and they are likely the same sort of people who exposed her husband misdeeds as POTUS.

 

Who? Clinton is the establishment personified. Name a single person who you think has considerably more power and influence. Also note that I never claimed the Clintons don't have powerful enemies.

 

Read here what you've provided. Where does Comey said that individuals who commit these offenses are subject to criminal prosecution? Her offenses obviously doesn't rise to the level of punishment and outrage, according to Comey, you seem to be expressing.

 

It doesn't say that, nor did I claim it did. I provided that quote to establish that the decisions regarding her punishment were clearly politically motivated.

Edited September 6, 2016 by elfmotat

[Delta1212]

Well yes, in terms of official punishment, I think this qualifies as someone important having a finger shaken at them for something that would land an underling in much hotter water.

 

On the other hand, I think the unofficial response as been on the level of very many people trying to claim that rolling through a stop sign should be treated as proof of a DUI with a few cries from the peanut gallery demanding a charge of vehicular manslaughter thrown in for good measure.

[elfmotat]

Well yes, in terms of official punishment, I think this qualifies as someone important having a finger shaken at them for something that would land an underling in much hotter water.

On the other hand, I think the unofficial response as been on the level of very many people trying to claim that rolling through a stop sign should be treated as proof of a DUI with a few cries from the peanut gallery demanding a charge of vehicular manslaughter thrown in for good measure.

I want justice, not exaggerated charges. She should be in prison for not more than 11 years, or fined, or both, as per the law.

[DrmDoc]

Ok, let see if we can address these issue specifically and put them to rest.

 

 

18 USC §793. Malintent isn't required for prosecution, only negligence. See for example the case of General Petraeus, who was prosecuted in 2015 for mishandling classified materials.

 

Here is the portion of that code that pertains to negligence:

 

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.

 

There was no indication that those 3 of 30,000 documents of Mrs. Clinton were related to "national defense" or that the handling and destruction of those 3 documents constituted "gross negligence" according to this code. The FBI recovered those document and is likely aware of their content and found no gross negligence. Again, this code is not applicable to Mrs. Clinton.

 

18 USC §1924. She stored classified materials on an unauthorized computer. It seems like you're reaching to find technicalities that excuse what she did.

 

From this code:

 

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both

 

As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was authorized to receive and transport documents related to her government position in the commission of her duties as Secretary. It's my understanding that deletion of those 3 documents occurred during a period prior to calls for an investigation, which affirms that they were not maintained on her server. So...where is the violation.

 

Who? Clinton is the establishment personified. Name a single person who you think has considerably more power and influence. Also note that I never claimed the Clintons don't have powerful enemies..

 

How about the Senate Judiciary chairman, Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

It doesn't say that, nor did I claim it did. I provided that quote to establish that the decisions regarding her punishment were clearly politically motivated.

 

You also said you want justice and, as far as Comey has commented, justice in this case doesn't amount to prosecution.

 

 

 

[Delta1212]

I want justice, not exaggerated charges. She should be in prison for not more than 11 years, or fined, or both, as per the law.

She was imprisoned for not more than 11 years, if you want to get technical about it.

[swansont]

Yes. Have you read any of her leaked emails? She's like Machiavelli's wet dream.

 

https://therationalists.org/2016/03/27/hillary-clinton-versus-the-world/

No. Have you? Your link is to an article about the emails, not to the emails.

 

 

T

 

The emails are criminal. What she did was criminal. If she wasn't Hillary Clinton she would be in prison, and rightfully so.

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

The article is bogus. The key distinction in almost all of them is that they were willfully and knowingly removing classified material. Stuffing classified material down your pants or removing it from a safe and taking it out of the building show clear intent to remove the material. Another one had the perpetrator passing information to a newspaper, another thing never established with Clinton.

 

Hatchet job.

 

Oh, and as for this:

 

 

 

-18 USC §793

Gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. I'm not sure how this can be argued.

-18 USC §1924

Unauthorized retention of classified materials. She stored classified information on an unauthorized private server.

 

The first cites intent to harm the US or aid its enemies. Not established, not guilty. The second says knowingly removed with an intent to retain. Not established, so again not guilty.

 

If you disagree, where's your evidence?

[Endy0816]

I remember growing up with these same sort of allegations that went nowhere. :|

 

I knew a guy who tossed classified material and the penalties were not especially severe. Intent is the main thing. You sell secrets or leak Intel, then they'll pound you.

[iNow]

BENGHAZI!!

Nope. Fail.

WHITEWATER!!

Nope. Fail.

TAVELGATE!!

Nope. Fail.

FILEGATE!!

Nope. Fail.

VINCE FOSTER!!

Nope. Fail.

REVENGE VIA I.R.S!!

Nope. Fail.

CHIEF OF STAFF IN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!!

Nope. Fail.

FAKED CONCUSSION!!

Nope. Fail.

CHINAGATE!!

Nope. Fail.

IRAN DEAL!!

Nope. Fail.

EMAIL SERVER!!

Nope. Fail.

 

SECRET KENYAN MUSLIM SOCIALIST PINKO COMMIE WHO'S GONNA CONFISCATE YOUR GUNS AND FORCE YOUR DOCTOR TO PERFORM ABORTIONS AND OUTLAW FREE PRACTICE OF RELIGION!!!!

Oh, wait. That last one was Obama. Never mind. My bad. There's obviously no trend here...no use of weapons of mass distraction.

 

[Willie71]

The right wing certainly is liberal with the truth and facts. However, the Clintons do have connections to many very influential people around the world. I'm not naive enough to believe there haven't been many back room deals, bribes, or other forms of corruption. It's a dirty game, and the most likely reason conservatives don't hang Clinton for corruption is because they benefit from the same system. How do you draw attention to the evidence without exposing the whole system? People in glass houses and all that. Citizens United legalized much of this crap, and that's not even all of it. How anyone could look at that system and not shake their head puzzles me.

[DrmDoc]

The right wing certainly is liberal with the truth and facts. However, the Clintons do have connections to many very influential people around the world. I'm not naive enough to believe there haven't been many back room deals, bribes, or other forms of corruption. It's a dirty game, and the most likely reason conservatives don't hang Clinton for corruption is because they benefit from the same system. How do you draw attention to the evidence without exposing the whole system? People in glass houses and all that. Citizens United legalized much of this crap, and that's not even all of it. How anyone could look at that system and not shake their head puzzles me.

 

Of course there's corruption, have you seen the list of perks our congress has over the average citizen? Like the latter days of the Roman empire, ours is a system destined for failure in a few hundred years or less. However, it's the system we have now and it won't change overnight no matter what well intentioned politician we elect. Our job as citizen of this corrupt system is to effect change where possible and, if not, choose the lesser evil. Given our choices, do we really want Lex Luthor Donald Trump as POTUS?

Edited September 7, 2016 by DrmDoc

[DrmDoc]

For all you partisans feverously clamoring for justice over Mrs. Clinton's alleged email mishandling, why aren't you just as outraged over our former republican Secretary of State email mishandling? Colin Powell, according to this USA Today article, has not given investigators access to the classified emails he maintained on a non-sanctioned AOL server. Further, despite his denials, Former Sec. Powell did advise Mrs. Clinton on the handling of her emails according to recent evidence this article discusses.

[swansont]

However, the Clintons do have connections to many very influential people around the world.

 

 

True of many politicians and business people. This is what I mean by using the same scale to measure the candidates. You aren't doing that if you hold one candidate in contempt for doing the same exact thing other candidate is doing. (Or by falsely equating incidents that aren't equivalent, which is also happening)

[tar]

swansont,

 

True, one tends to frame the exact same thing in a good light when first person, a neutral light when second person, and a negative light, when third person, but there is also an objective difference between buying access and selling it. Or an objective difference between using an AOL email server years ago and a private server more recently when the skills and abilities of hackers has increased since.

 

Regards, TAR

The other day, I brought some cans of root beer out to a crew working on some trees next door and struck a deal for the removal of a branch that had been bothering me. Bribery? Cash deal? Underhanded dealings or a good exchange were everybody benefits?

[swansont]

True, one tends to frame the exact same thing in a good light when first person, a neutral light when second person, and a negative light, when third person, but there is also an objective difference between buying access and selling it. Or an objective difference between using an AOL email server years ago and a private server more recently when the skills and abilities of hackers has increased since.

Could you point me to the part of the security rules that is contingent on the skills of hackers?

 

The other day, I brought some cans of root beer out to a crew working on some trees next door and struck a deal for the removal of a branch that had been bothering me. Bribery? Cash deal? Underhanded dealings or a good exchange were everybody benefits?

quid pro quo is bribery. This has been established in some recent court cases. You have to draw a direct line between the offered favor and the resulting behavior. If it's not there, it's not a bribe. Such as illegally giving money to an AG's PAC and then having them drop the investigation into your alleged fraud (and covering the donation up on government forms)

 

Donating money and gaining access is what happens with every freaking elected official in the federal government. And that goes to the politician's campaign, not a charity.

[tar]

Swansont,

 

I am not privy to the current security rules, but I would bet that they have evolved as cyber criminals have gained in ability.

 

I had a secret clearance in the Army and was very cautious with what I said to who about what I knew. Even non secure info, like what unit I was with and when I was going on leave, was something you did not share in public in Germany in 1980 because there were Soviet agents around, whose job it was to get little pieces of info, that when put together would paint a picture of our troop strength and capability.

 

Hilary did government business on a private server that she did not always keep properly encrypted. That was careless. The FBI said it was careless and could not prove it was hacked, but a hacker would not have to leave evidence of the hack. Not having a case against her, does not clear her of wrongdoing.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 8, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

Not having a case against her, does not will never clear her of wrongdoing in my eyes.

 

For the Republicans I know personally and see here on the forums, this amendment is more accurate.

 

That tweet was true. More and more it's looking like a choice between a white supremacist who wants to hold office for the first time as POTUS, and a qualified woman who rubs you the wrong way.

[DrmDoc]

Not having a case against her, does not clear her of wrongdoing.

 

Regards, TAR

 

If you accept and believe in the integrity of the laws of our nation, then you should accept and believe in a major tenet of that law, which is an accused person is innocent until proven guilt. This is unlike the laws in other nations (e.g., Japan) where there is a presumption of guilt. It seems you've declared Mrs. Clinton guilt without benefit of trial or evidence, which isn't the American way. This type of vigilantly mentality can ruin and cost the lives of innocent Americans and we should all endeavor to rise above this type of thinking to our better nature.

Edited September 8, 2016 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

I am not privy to the current security rules, but I would bet that they have evolved as cyber criminals have gained in ability.

No? I thought someone linked to the laws just a few posts back.

 

You may not be privy to the best security measures, but the laws are fully available to the public, AFAIK. They say nothing about getting a pass because hackers weren't as sophisticated.

 

I had a secret clearance in the Army and was very cautious with what I said to who about what I knew. Even non secure info, like what unit I was with and when I was going on leave, was something you did not share in public in Germany in 1980 because there were Soviet agents around, whose job it was to get little pieces of info, that when put together would paint a picture of our troop strength and capability.

 

Hilary did government business on a private server that she did not always keep properly encrypted. That was careless. The FBI said it was careless and could not prove it was hacked, but a hacker would not have to leave evidence of the hack. Not having a case against her, does not clear her of wrongdoing.

 

The law here is innocent until proven guilty, so as long as this is framed in the context of whether she should be thrown in jail (or that BS link about 10 people who were punished more harshly for lesser offenses), then this is moot.

 

Some people are acting like classified material showing up on an unclassified system is unprecedented, and that's bogus. It's a known problem, called spillage. Back when the Snowden documents were released we were warned not to read anything on the internet with a government computer that might contain them, because they were classified. Putting them on an unclas computer would be spillage

 

 

The vast majority of security incidents do not result in prosecution. The ones that are are when the material is marked and removed, and especially when it's knowingly passed along to people that shouldn't have it.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

Your edit might reflect how some people feel about Hilary but I meant exactly what I said.

 

Trump rubs me the wrong way too, more so than Clinton in some ways, less so in others.

 

It rubbed me the wrong way when Clinton said the FBI director cleared her of any wrongdoing, when he did not. He just said no reasonable prosecutor would file criminal charges because there was no evidence of her willfully breaking the law. I am not chanting "lock her up", but while watching the FBI director talk about the investigation, I thought he was ready to recommend action against her, and was surprised as many others were, when he recommended not bringing charges. I was wondering at the time whether her security clearance would be downgraded, making her ineligible for being president, but no public action at all was taken against her. This "near miss" in my estimation was good for Clinton, and she should have been relieved that she was let off the hook. Instead she came out and bragged the FBI cleared her of any wrongdoing. She even admits she did a bad thing, why are you jumping on me for being a Hilary hater, because I am blaming her for wrongdoing.

 

If your only defense is that she is better than Trump then your standards are way too low for me.

 

Regards, TAR

Trump gave to Hilary's campaign for senator as I understand.

 

Is this payment for access, to have friends in high places? If it is, or was and somebody looked the other way, or said a thing at a pivotal moment concerning any of Trump's dealings it would be hard to prosecute for bribery, because the quid pro quo was not obvious and recorded, but that does not make it right. It is still wrongdoing.

In my business we were not allowed to take gifts from dealers of ours worth more than 25 dollars, to prevent us from showing any favoritism toward one dealer over another.

What Hilary did as secretary of state is not comparable to what Trump did as a private business man. She had the Public's Trust. Trump was acting like a private business man.

Hilary rubs me the wrong way because she was for regime change in Syria and backed the Arab Spring in Syria, yet takes zero responsibility for the quarter million dead and millions of refugees her stance helped to cause. Not because of any damn e-mails.

Hilary rubs me the wrong way because when asked who she was proud to have as enemies, she listed the Republicans, the drug companies and the Iranians. I am registered Republican, and the statement rubbed me the wrong way. Not a stance the leader of my country should have. How do you lead the world in pharma if your president views the drug companies as the enemy, on par with the Iranians? How do you run a country when you view a third of the population as the enemy?

Edited September 8, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

It rubbed me the wrong way when Clinton said the FBI director cleared her of any wrongdoing, when he did not. He just said no reasonable prosecutor would file criminal charges because there was no evidence of her willfully breaking the law.

Is there any other sort of wrongdoing over which the FBI director has jurisdiction?

 

I am not chanting "lock her up", but while watching the FBI director talk about the investigation, I thought he was ready to recommend action against her, and was surprised as many others were, when he recommended not bringing charges. I was wondering at the time whether her security clearance would be downgraded, making her ineligible for being president, but no public action at all was taken against her. This "near miss" in my estimation was good for Clinton, and she should have been relieved that she was let off the hook. Instead she came out and bragged the FBI cleared her of any wrongdoing. She even admits she did a bad thing, why are you jumping on me for being a Hilary hater, because I am blaming her for wrongdoing.

Does the FBI have control over the security clearance of government officials? Is there any action other than criminal charges that the FBI can take? If no, then you have applied unreasonable expectations to the situation, so it's no wonder she disappointed you. She also won't give you a unicorn, but that would be another thing for which she should not be held responsible.

 

If your only defense is that she is better than Trump then your standards are way too low for me.

In a two-party system, that's really the only thing that matters, isn't it?

[tar]

Hilary rubbed me the wrong way when she said she was going to let her husband run the economy. Really? You are qualified to be President, and you are going to hand off responsibility for the economy to your husband?

[Phi for All]

If your only defense is that she is better than Trump then your standards are way too low for me.

 

You probably missed the part where I claimed she was fully qualified to be president. She's got more time in foreign policy and politics in general than the last three presidents had. She's not just better than Trump, she could do the job and not destroy our relationships with the non-white world.

[tar]

swansont,

 

What "she" disappointed me? The AG? Well yes, matter of fact she did. She met with Bill and then said she would take the FBI recommendation, and then the FBI did not recommend criminal charges so she did not pursue any.

 

The same day Hilary was on the stump with Obama. If they did not know what the FBI was going to recommend, it would be pretty risky to plan the joint appearance. So I think the FBI director was somewhat influenced, in terms of what he was going to recommend, by the fact that the AG was going to take whatever he said and go with it. It would be fair to say that Hilary has an "in" with people in high places.

 

Regards, TAR

Phi for All,

 

Oh we are doing real swell with Assad, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Russia, now, aren't we.

 

What makes her tenure as Secretary of State a qualification? Maybe she did not do such a good job.

 

Regards, TAR

I remembegr reading that our invasion of Iraq was just the first part of a regime change plan that included Syria, Libya and several other African countries. Whether the regime change plan was good for us or not is a matter of debate, but having Hilary for it, shows she is with the program, and knows way more about it than us civilians, including Trump, but it does not guarantee that the plan is the right one, for us to pursue.

Another thing that rubs me the wrong way about Hilary is the way she and her party just expected her to be the nominee with all the super delegates already in her column. Any burps or issues on her part are automatically ignored. Her concussion for instance, iNow lists as a failed attempt by the Republican witch hunters to burn her at the stake. Why are you as a democrat not concerned that her cognitive abilities might be somewhat challenged. My dad fell on his head and was on Cumidin and the fluids in his head would have killed him had they not done brain surgery to suck the fluids out. Afterward he was not allowed to drive, and he sold his riding lawnmower because he was not 100% sure his sensory-motor skills would not fail him and cause a balance issue. I am 62 and have lost a few steps in terms of sharpness and quickness and memory abilities. And I have not fallen on my head recently. But its OK, right? Because she is to be the first female president, and that will be a victory.

[DrmDoc]

It would be fair to say that Hilary has an "in" with people in high places.

 

Regards, TAR

 

If I understand your position correctly, Mrs. Clinton has an "in" with the highest placed republican FBI investigator (James Comey), who was, until his politically unfavorable recommendation, endorsed by our republican led congress possessed of such significant power that it could impeach or dethrone the most powerful man (POTUS) in the free world? Mr. Comey could have recommended otherwise with the power of congress backing him--but he did not. Are you suggesting that Mrs. Clinton has an "in" with this powerful so-called "republican" enemy? Isn't that a ludicrous suggestion?

Edited September 8, 2016 by DrmDoc

[tar]

swansont,

 

No, we still have write in votes. If CharonY would give her real name, we could start a write-in campaign and save the country from Trump, Hilary, Johnson and Stein.

 

Regards, TAR

DrmDoc,

 

Yes, I am suggesting that he was asked to "recommend" something.

 

If you remember, he did not actually recommend anything, he just said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, given the evidence.

 

The AG still could have been unreasonable and brought charges.

 

Regards, TAR

That is if CharonY meets the requirements to be a candidate for U.S. president.

"There are no statutory restrictions on the authority of the President to remove the FBI director. One director has been removed by the President since 1972."

Edited September 8, 2016 by tar