quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Poor, poor, Hillary. Always the victim. So largely understood. It's not like she has a 20+ year history of lying to the American people. Oh, wait! She does!

Why the fuck would ANYONE take her word for anything?



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Let's not mince words: Clinton screwed up. Instead of using the State Department's email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

The law:
.....requires that the offender knew the material was classified and
.....either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or
.....removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

All anyone has is precedent:

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, (and it doesn't) it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.

Fucked up ? Yes !! Indictable ? No !!

HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Let's not mince words: Clinton screwed up. Instead of using the State Department's email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is “no.” While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

The law:
.....requires that the offender knew the material was classified and
.....either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or
.....removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

All anyone has is precedent:

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, (and it doesn't) it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.

Fucked up ? Yes !! Indictable ? No !!

HERE

She couldn't break the law. If she does something contrary to the law then the law is wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.

Could you give us a list of politicians who have not?

I haven't seen the perjury. Nobody and certainly the DOJ isn't even close to proving the lie.

History shows us unequivical evidence that all politicians of all parties are liars,cheats and thieves.

quote:

"Of course, we do not want our internal review to complicate or impede the progress of their ongoing law enforcement investigation," Trudeau told reporters. "Therefore, the State Department at this time is not moving forward with our internal review." Trudeau said the department would "reassess next steps" in the internal review process once the FBI completes its probe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver
Some precedents, an Army General and a CIA director, like Hillary(ABOVE THE LAW), you had better believe that if a lowly secretary had done the same thing with the same material she`d be locked away now.

Other SoS's used private email servers, too. I don't recall if Condoleeza Rice did, but Colin Powell did.

It's not the use of a private email server that is the problem. She's allowed to do that. It's the use of the private server for classified documents that's the problem.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver
Some precedents, an Army General and a CIA director, like Hillary(ABOVE THE LAW), you had better believe that if a lowly secretary had done the same thing with the same material she`d be locked away now.

Other SoS's used private email servers, too. I don't recall if Condoleeza Rice did, but Colin Powell did.

It's not the use of a private email server that is the problem. She's allowed to do that. It's the use of the private server for classified documents that's the problem.
...

Is she, or any public official, allowed to have a private email server? What would stop public officials using private servers to bypass FOIA requests?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
They work for us supposedly. They should be on camera 24/7 with the fucking benefits they get. Every dollar they get or spend should be a matter of pubic record.
Period. Otherwise it is them controlling us and not the way it is supposed to be.
What, everyone forgot that ?
T

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver
Some precedents, an Army General and a CIA director, like Hillary(ABOVE THE LAW), you had better believe that if a lowly secretary had done the same thing with the same material she`d be locked away now.

Other SoS's used private email servers, too. I don't recall if Condoleeza Rice did, but Colin Powell did.
It's not the use of a private email server that is the problem. She's allowed to do that. It's the use of the private server for classified documents that's the problem.
It's been shown that there were (maybe still are, who knows?) emails with classified materials stored on her private server, that weren't classified at the time. While the use of that server may not have been the wisest move, documents that were classified after being on her server are not evidence of any wrongdoing.
There are still questions remaining about other emails and classified materials. Those questions need to be sorted out, and I don't think it's looking good for Hillary on that front. I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.

since you mentioned other secretaries of state, this seems worth posting again:

quote:

Team Clinton seized on this report yesterday, claiming it was an email scandal "game-changer" that shifts the terrain of a controversy that has plagued Hillary's campaign for months. It is, and does, nothing of the sort, for reasons we'll address in a moment...
(1) Yesterday evening, Hillary said, "I never sent or received any classified material," without her (legally irrelevant) "marked" caveat. This is a flat falsehood. It is an established fact that she personally sent and received classified material. The State Department's review has discovered more than 1,600 classified emails on her server thus far, with another batch still outstanding -- to say nothing of the 32,000 messages she unilaterally deleted, some of which we now know did pertain to official business.
(2) She also blames this controversy on the issue of retroactive classification, which Powell complains about, too. This gripe may apply to some of Hillary's emails, and to both of Powell's, but Hillary is being deeply disingenuous here. The nonpartisan IC Inspector General has determined that a number of her classified emails were absolutely classified at the time they originated, including top secret and beyond-top-secret intelligence. There was nothing "retroactive" about these classifications. News organizations have also confirmed that scores of her emails were, in fact, classified at the time. It was her duty to identify and protect highly sensitive information, regardless of markings, a responsibility she acknowledged and swore to uphold upon assuming office:

quote:

quote:

(3) "See? Condi and Colin did it, too!" relies on a thoroughly bogus equivalency. Above all else, neither Rice nor Powell set up and used a recklessly unsecure private emails server on which they conducted all of their official business, against "clear cut rules" implemented in 2005....Beyond her exclusive use of an improper and unsecure server, Sec. Clinton was personally and specifically warned about the vulnerability of her email scheme in 2011, when a State Department security expert sounded the alarm over foreign hackers seeking to infiltrate US secrets by targeting high-ranking officials' private emails. Mrs. Clinton carried on with her arrangement anyway.

quote:

quote:

In summary, Hillary Clinton's server is the scandal. It's possible that Rice's aides and Sec. Powell may have acted improperly (though the email rules were set forth after Powell left office). They may have been sloppy with a small number of low-level classified information on an ad hoc basis. The rules and laws pertaining to the US government's data security must be followed. By everyone. But Clinton mishandled hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails, which held state secrets at the highest classification levels. In fact, just this week, the State Department deemed another seven Clinton emails too sensitive to release in any form, even with redactions, bringing that total to 29. Intelligence officials who've seen some of the documents in question say they betray operational intelligence, the leakage of which puts covert missions and lives at risk. A former NSA official has intelligence community sources who say Clinton's emails included the true identities of CIA operatives and assets, including foreign nationals working for the agency.
...unlike Powell and Rice, Hillary has consistently lied about this scandal. Her smug assertion that the (twice expanded) FBI investigation won't go anywhere amounts to waving a red flag in front of career investigators and intelligence officials, who are reportedly fuming over her irresponsible, and likely criminal, conduct. Remember, the probe reportedly entails more than just her email misconduct, Gen. David Petraeus was charged for classified intelligence spillage that was far more limited and contained, and a former US Attorney General says there's already sufficient evidence to justify an indictment. Clinton seems confident that her political power and privilege will shield her from accountability in the end, sending a less-than-subtle message to the Justice Department, which has already been influenced by two public White House statements. [http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/02/01/hillary-emails-latest-n2112080]

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver
Some precedents, an Army General and a CIA director, like Hillary(ABOVE THE LAW), you had better believe that if a lowly secretary had done the same thing with the same material she`d be locked away now.

Other SoS's used private email servers, too. I don't recall if Condoleeza Rice did, but Colin Powell did.

It's not the use of a private email server that is the problem. She's allowed to do that. It's the use of the private server for classified documents that's the problem.

It's been shown that there were (maybe still are, who knows?) emails with classified materials stored on her private server, that weren't classified at the time. While the use of that server may not have been the wisest move, documents that were classified after being on her server are not evidence of any wrongdoing.

There are still questions remaining about other emails and classified materials. Those questions need to be sorted out, and I don't think it's looking good for Hillary on that front. I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.

Could you give us a list of politicians who have not?

I haven't seen the perjury. Nobody and certainly the DOJ isn't even close to proving the lie.

History shows us unequivical evidence that all politicians of all parties are liars,cheats and thieves.

Well when looks objectively at Washington in general and presidents in particular, at least just since Nixon, as far as one should be concerned, this whole issue is...small potatoes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I remember GW Bushs administration, and several before it. Key Staffers, interestingly enough are the purview of the Secretary, its like they dont have to take the civil service drones left over from nutsucker administrations.

So....................thats pretty much a wtf nutsuckerim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I believe, at the very least, she's proven herself to be a liar, and perjured herself.
Could you give us a list of politicians who have not?

I haven't seen the perjury. Nobody and certainly the DOJ isn't even close to proving the lie.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)