Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Will Not File Charges Against Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (politico.com)
An anonymous reader writes: After FBI Director James Comey recommended not to indict Hillary Clinton for her email misconduct yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday that the Justice Department has decided not to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton or her aids and that the department will close the investigation into her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. "Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State," Lynch said in a statement on Wednesday. "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation."
Voting for Hillary because she's "not guilty" is like hiring Casey Anthony to babysit your kid.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Snowden blows the whistle on illegal government spying, is forced to flee the country. Clinton violates laws and exposes classified information and will be the next President. There is no justice in America.
John Chefetz is the owner and founder of Christian Times Newspaper. He travels the country speaking about current events and theology. You can find his articles mainly at christiantimesnewspaper.com
can't you post a credible link? a religious rag? seriously??
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I think that is all that needs to be said.
Also probably enough to get you flagged by the paranoid powers that be.
captcha was 'kneeling'... one guess on what you're kneeling to do...
Sucker.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Looks like a really reliable source for breaking news you got there. Surprisingly enough, the story is bullshit:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/s...
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Its only a rumor: http://sourceplanet.net/news/i...
The story is wrong.
We of course knew this was coming when the FBI didn't recommend indictment, given that Lynch said she'd go along with whatever the FBI decided.
But I expect the real reason is simple: they don't feel they're guaranteed a conviction. If you listen to Comey's reasoning, he was quite clear that there was no precedent for such a case - meaning that they don't want to set a precedent until they have iron tight evidence where they can be sure they know how the case will go.
Likewise, "no reasonable prosecutor" would want to be the prosecutor who indicted potentially the first woman president and then lost the case. If the case wasn't a 100%, sure-fire victory, no one would be willing to prosecute it. Which is kind of reasonable: who wants to torpedo their career by killing Hillary's presidential chances only to lose at trial?
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
"I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation."
We know about her crime because Guccifer was involved in exposing it. Will they retract the charges against him? Or the only chargeable crime in America is to expose what the law says is a crime?
Here we go again...
He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting government secrets' etc etc. The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs. If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.
Here's hoping.
So who copied classified into, verbatim, from JWICS to their computer or phone? Seems the FBI or DOJ don't give a shit.
This isn't facebook where you can post any soft of shit and people will believe it without question. People on slashdot will check sources; there are even some heretics who RTFA.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
To believe otherwise is fantasy. On the whole it's hard not to despair.
Although if you want a rumor that may or may not be true and also may or may not be related, Chelsea Manning has apparently attempted suicide.
Or not, the Army won't say either way.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence now. He was forced to end his career for much less. 2 years probation, $100K fine, security clearance revoked. Apparently it's no big deal, not even worth investigating.
Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all.
The same goes for
lack of morality
lack of patriotism
lack of decency
lack of conscience
Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her.
Nice sock puppet... Put down the mod point. (Insightful? THAT is a FUNNY mod.)
Time to reveal the Donald's secret scam:
Step 1: Get the so-called GOP nomination. Easy to fool some of the people all of the time.
Step 2: Pick a VP who loves Ford's pardon of Nixon.
Step 3: Win the election. As Con Man Donald says, "You can fool most of the people on some of the election days."
Step 4: Be himself. AKA Phuck up massively. Start a war, bankrupt the country, whatever.
Step 5: Get impeached, resign, get pardoned. (Step 2 was important.)
Step 6: PROFIT
And you thought Trump was stupid, didn't you? By the way, don't blame me. I'm sure I saw it on Twitter. That's where I get all my important news.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
There needs to be protests in the streets about Hillary Clinton not being charged for violating federal law.
This is where it starts, the selective application of the law to those in power vs those that are ruled. Make a stand now before all is lost.
That "extremely careless" is more or less the definition of gross negligence.
there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us.
While I agree with you in principal, the rush to judgment about this issue leaves behind a simple fact. There are lots of crimes with no punishments. This is one of them.
The one thing that annoys me the most is how they will hang this on the evil Clinton/Democrats. A sufficiently senior Republican get the same benefits. But, that's not going to be the conversation. We're stuck pointing fingers and name calling.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
We see Loretta Lynch as AG under Hilary, that there was probably a bribe.
Nixon was far more honest than Clinton.
Carter is far smarter than Trump.
Clinton married well. Everything else she has done fell from that.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Obviously mentally ill, so a suicide attempt isn't really surprising.
Could you cite a few examples, please? Thank you!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you think Clinton should be charged, then at least sign the petittion:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924
It will likely only result in a mealy-mouthed platitude, but at least it is one way to communicate our disapproval.
There are lots of crimes with no punishments. This is one of them.
This needs to be noted VERY well in this discussion.
Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight of those emails carried top secret information, eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/no-charges-clinton-emails-fbi-director-article-1.2699441
Can you please show how Obama went after Republicans with investigations at the same level Republicans have gone after Hillary?
You assumed the delegates have moral fiber.
People of good character can't this far in the political process.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
The director stated in his news conference that Clinton was "extremely careless" with classified information on at least 110 occasions. It's federal crime to be "grossly negligent" in handling classified information. Essentially, he announced "she's guilty on 110 counts, but we won't prosecute".
You have quite the hard-on for Trump. Why do you love Fascism?
> but we haven't been told if it's just classified, secret, top secret, or higher...
The FBI director announced that several emails contained documents which were already marked "top secret". Other emails included information classified "special access", which is higher than top secret.
Agree with your general sentiment.. My question is: just how bad was what she did? I've seen some interviews where officials discuss 'classified' and 'classified' information. A lot of information is 'classified', but still pretty accessible, and really not a 'threat' to anything if it were to get out. I'm curious just how much harm could have actually happened with what she was doing? If many other 'high ups' were investigated, I would be curious to see how many also use 'inappropriate' email accounts and have also shared classified data inappropriately? I bet there'd be quite a lot...this is probably the tip of the iceberg, not an isolated case. (Reminding me of doping in sport. A few get caught, but typically MANY more are doing it.)
For me, what's more troubling is the number of emails that were deleted and didn't get investigated/exposed..? Hopefully at least this will be a lesson to all, and they clamp down on tolerating *anyone* who does this.
Hillary is one of the smartest people in the room / world.
Look at all the scandals she has been involved with and escaped rather easily because of how she structured it. Her entire public life has been a double dutch Irish sandwich or whatever it was called (Apple's tax avoidance schemes ) that has legally violated the law for her own gain.
Most slashdot readers probably lean toward being democrats. I think i've said enough.
(and I never thought I do say this) that Nixon has more integrity than the Clintons.
Nixon did give us the EPA, Peace Corps, Title IX, and ending the draft.
Clintons... DMCA, deregulated banking (see 2008 disaster), deregulated "health food" industries... theft of furniture from the White House (among other things.)
FBI Director Comey said that there was no evidence of any guilty intent, so "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges. So why were charges filed against Kristian Saucier, who unwisely took photos of a classified area on a nuclear submarine? No intent was proven or needed to file charges against him; he had photos of classified stuff on his phone, charges filed.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/06/saucier-attorney-on-hillary-non-indictment-clearly-a-double-standard/
I am disturbed that there is clearly one standard for ordinary people, and another standard for Hillary Clinton. I sincerely hope that Mr. Saucier appeals his verdict on the grounds that the FBI Director said "no reasonable prosecutor" should have filed the charges, and he clearly didn't get equal protection under the law as Hillary Clinton got.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Maybe you should consider that to people outside your little bubble, your particular brand of insulting comments about those who disagree with you may not be particularly insightful.
Calling everyone who moderates you down a "sock puppet" account is neither a rational nor intelligent comment.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Stop getting so worked up over each individual case of injustice and start getting worked up to change the root cause of it all.
Just another case of Progressive Privilege. The utterly amazing thing is how blatant and public it all is....and how little shame the Progressives have over it. Nevermind the fact that between Comey's punt and the Benghazi report, virtually everything the Right has been saying for the last three years has been vindicated. But, who cares, right? As long as we stick it to those "horrible Republicans", right? Who cares if we elect the most flawed corrupt person ever to seek the office. It's all about getting those evil rightwingers!
On the one hand, what Hillary Clinton did was wrong and she should face some punishment for it.
On the other hand, watching the die-hart Republicans, Trump supporters and other people who hate Hillary flip their shit over the lack of charges is the best entertainment I've had all year.
Such a motion would render Hilary dead in the water, forcing the convention to ask her to step aside. He's then the only alternative. Of course this assumes that there's any honour in a convention....
who cares
the world will change because of your witty ripostes!!
STFU, and go do something about it.
US$0.02++
Pointing out that Hillary is incompetent, arrogant, and dishonest has nothing to do with Trump.
It's people like you who keep making this about sex and how measures men and women by different standards.
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server. She lied about only deleting personal E-mails, and she destroyed evidence.
He was very, very careful in his phrasing (and then large on hyperbole) with what he stated. He claimed two emails carried 'confidential markings' (which was only sorta true) and then switched gears on confidential emails (which is, in fact different). There are maybe 30-40 emails that were sent that had confidential or higher (most were just confidential). So about .006% error rate on humans using email and sent something through email they shouldn't have.
One of the confidential emails... was to a lawyer and "confidential" in the sense that lawyer-client privileges applied. There were a couple of (C) markings in a few emails, but the top actually didn't have the markings for Confidential/Secret or whatnot. An incredibly huge percentage of emails were marked confidential expo-facto (and by other agencies that tend to try and classify _everything_, including public knowledge of the weather at times).
James Comey just did a public hatchet job of "selling" that Hillary should have been indicted, then basically admitted he didn't have a case that any competent prosecutor would attempt to take before a judge. Congrats, partisan hack, you pulled the wool over most of the viewers and readers.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
What exactly do you want to "investigate" them for? What are you accusing them of?
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel." https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said.
If this was said by their local version of FBI anywhere in Russia, China, Brasil, etc., everyone would be crying foul how that country is corrupt and how FSB, PSB, "FBI", etc. is clearly intimidating prosecutors not to bring any cases against an oligarch, even though there is evidence they violated the law (gross negligence). And how "important figures" in those countries are above the law. I'm so glad USA is not one of "those countries"!
Hillary vs Trump. The rest of the world is shaking its head at the stupidity of the Americans for letting things get to this point.
18 U.S. Code 793 (f)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
this is how prosecution works. You don't bring forth a case you know you're gonna lose. I'm not huge fan of Hilary. I've got buddies that live and breath because the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid enough for them to get their Meds. She's pretty much guaranteed to leave it alone so she gets my vote. But whatever side your on it'd be silly to try and prosecute her.
All that said to be completely fair think about _why_ a prosecutor isn't confident with getting a conviction: because a jury wouldn't convict her. This is a criminal matter, so that's how these things work. This isn't the ruling class per-se. This is how our jury system works. It sometimes ignores law in favor of feelings. If you want to see an example of America's two tiered justice system ask any dirt poor man in jail for pot possession why he didn't get diverted to drug treatment like a pop star or even an attorney's son.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's not lying, that's just being extremely careless with the truth :)
This is a lesson in controlled opposition and whitewashing; by having the FBI refuse to recommend an indictment brushes aside the damning evidence that has already surfaced into public knowledge and allows propaganda groups like Correct The Record and DNC pundits to chalk up the whole exercise as merely just another attack by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
We can't be surprised, because even nine supreme court justices at one time were involved in obstructing justice and suppressing evidence in order to benefit the Clintons, such as the original polaroids taken at Vince Foster's crime scene. The entire mass of DNC elites wants nothing more than to continue on with their coronation.
We know the mafia has 'made men', and just like the mafia our government has their chosen ones. This is why HRC was able to perjure herself, was allowed to attempt destruction of evidence, and obstruct Judicial Watch's lawful FOIA requests at every turn. This is why all of Brian Pagliano's emails were 'lost' by the State Department and he was able to plead the 5th over a hundred times. This is why Bill Clinton was able to meet directly with the attorney general in private the week before this announcement came out. We'll never know the nature of the leaked TS and SAP level confidential information and what consequences that info may have had, such as revealing the security status of certain embassies.
I'll save my seditious speech for when I'm AC.
Slashdot is the best place for serious political discussion.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Petraeus gave his g/f 8 binders of classified information and told here they were classified. Hard to argue lack of intent after that.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You lost me when you said Trump is likeable.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." --Hillary #DemDebate
https://twitter.com/HillaryCli...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
I'm of two minds: on the one hand, HRC clearly violated Federal Law. Nevermind that the law is stupid (overspecific) and capriciously enforced (how tough is it to write a flagging filter for classification strings [NOFORINT] and non.gov addr?)
On the other, HRC could easily have been disgusted by the electronic tools imposed upon her, and worked around. If State's email servers are anything like the corp.servers I've seen, who could blame her for wanting more reliable and secure? Or do whe have a .gov netadmin who can say their servers are faultless? The geek in me says "BRAVO"!
Otherwise, the notion of secure email without e2e tools like PGP is a delusion. Sure, officials have to turn over offical papers, but afterwards -- they never had to cc'in some central office.
An unsecure e-mail server makes Hillary worse than Nixon? Do you guys actually believe this shit, or are you just mindlessly repeating what you see in Youtube comments?
Hillary isn't a great candidate, but this issue isn't on the radar for me. The FBI itself has gotten hacked, so had the CIA. The US military has gotten hacked. The FBI buys zero day warez to hack one of the largest US companies. The IRS recently stopped using 5 digit pins because they were getting hacked. I'm sure every large US company and government organization has fallen victim. It's like extreme Republicans arbitrarily took something that happens all the time and started yelling that it's a felony offense that disqualifies Hillary from being President.
In normal life, this wouldn't disqualify her from being head of the IT department.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
The constitution would need to be modified, however.
His billions laugh at you, while winking at the "average citizen".
All you need to know about Trump's business savvy: If he had taken his inheritance and invested it in a simple index fund he would be a richer man today than he currently is.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hillery gave all her emails to her attorney with some of that being Special Access, higher than Top Secret which was classified at that time of the email being sent, I think that shows she did that willfully.
The FBI is not supposed to make recommendations on the indictment or prosecution of someone, they are supposed to provide the facts and just the facts to the Department of Justice. The FBI over stepped their bounds and the DOJ is not doing their job in indicting Hillery for the breach of law, 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.
Prisons are full of people who didn't "intend" to violate the law.
If you find yourself declaring that the lack of evidence of wrongdoing is, in fact, evidence of wrongdoing, it's time to take a break and realize that you've become trapped in a self-referential delusion loop.
its_time_to_stop_posting.jpg
You do know what a lawyer is, don't you? Hillary is a good lawyer and several other oxymorons. Okay, so "skilled lawyer" is probably a "better" way to say it.
Actually, she, like everyone else, has a bunch of personal identities. One of the things I like least about Hillary is that "lawyer" or "corporate lawyer" might be her top personal identity. Obviously it isn't "politician", though "politician" is probably in her top ten (and I definitely think it's Bill's #1). I doubt that "philosopher" is on her top 10 list, but "feminist" is probably in there somewhere (and I don't regard it as a terrible thing, though it isn't so high in my own priorities). She's an unusually complicated person, and it's hard to figure her out. For example, I think that "grandmother" might be a higher ranked personal identity for her than "mother" (whereas I think that "father" is definitely one of President Obama's top 10).
Just for reference I do think that "philosopher" is in Bernie's top 10, but I can't figure out if it's above or below "politician". Maybe "wise man" is his #1, but there's zero chance America would elect one of those to the presidency, even in the backlash from a fiasco like Dubya or the even worse mess that Trump might leave behind.
The Donald? His #1 has to be "con man" or "salesman". Or maybe he switches back and forth depending on the weather. Actually, I think it possible that "authoritarian" might be his secret #1.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Good. That would have been silly. The decision Comey made was correct. The record shows she was innocent of any legal wrongdoing!
Let me first say that I do regard Sanders as the best candidate of the entire crowd, even including the entire clown car that started on the so-called Republican side. I even donated my poll tax to him, but in retrospect I am saddened to conclude that no matter how broken the system is, it is still incapable of electing a candidate who has any prominent philosophic streak. (No, Reagan had senility, NOT a philosophy.)
However, as regards Hillary's popularity, how much of it do you think that she actually earned? Seems quite obvious to me that she has been aggressively targeted for decades for primarily partisan political reasons, and even that much of the hateful rhetoric is displaced from other targets. Mostly stuff that would have been targeted at her husband if Bill hadn't whupped all their arses in the unfair fight. (However, I still haven't made up my mind if he was a good or bad president. Actually much easier to see the obviously bad ones such as Dubya.)
All of this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. The problem is that there is only one "most casual observer", and it usually isn't me.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Why do you love it?
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Not all of them. Just you [aardvarkjoe].
Just kidding nothing special about you [aardvarkjoe today, and 37 other names next week].
However, the negative mods are actually quite helpful in figuring out which points that the trolls hate most. Then those points can be published more aggressively in forums that the trolls can't censor by gaming the system.
Now you might say that I shouldn't have given it away, but the problem is the trolls are also too stupid to learn from any of their MANY mistakes. That's why Trump is their perfect candidate.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Different record keeping laws at the time and handled entirely in house by competent IT people with no public facing web server access. They were not running all government communications through the server and none of the material was thought to be classified at any level..
Honestly I'll be voting for Trump just in the hope that in 2020 the Democrats will put up a real progressive and not warhawk who has more in common with George W Bush than with FDR.
Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.
This is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves intent :)
let alone a country of 340 Million.
340 million guns, slightly fewer people.
You're either opening a can of worms or you're a more clever troll than most. I'll go on the first theory, because the second would be a waste of keystrokes.
I think that secrecy is fundamentally hard to justify except in cases of prior secrecy. Not a full blown analysis, but let's backtrack a little on the Snowden case because he's a whistle-blower and that's a case where anonymity is often demanded. Well, if the crimes he revealed were already known, then he wouldn't have had to reveal them and his anonymity wouldn't have mattered.
Okay, but we need to act in secret to protect ourselves from the terrorists, right? Well, if we had sufficiently good information about the potential terrorists and their activities were visible in real time, then they wouldn't be very dangerous would they?
I could go deeper in a couple of directions (or even dimensions), but I suspect that most of this is a transient problem. As cameras and microphones and various other surveillance equipment becomes completely ubiquitous, there are only two long-term futures. (1) None of us will have ANY privacy in any recognizable sense, or (2) ALMOST NONE of us will have any privacy and a few overlords will be pulling the strings of everyone else.
Sorry to report that it looks like we (mostly in the form of giant inhuman corporations, with the actual human beings being dragged along for the ride) are trying to open Door #2. Doesn't matter much to me if it's Hillary or the Donald on the other side. Still bad.
I'm mostly trying to imagine what life would be like if we open Door #1 instead. I really think it's one or the other, and the people who are born on the other side (assuming we're still reproducing at all) are going to feel quite differently about these topics.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Carter is more educated than Trump, and maintains the faux modesty common among academics. He's more intelligent than average. He gives the appearance of intelligence. Alas, his timidity in foreign relations made him a poor president.
Trump had about as much formal education as Carter, but business studies is almost as undemanding as an education major. His brash personality makes it difficult to judge his intelligence, but I suspect he's sharper than Carter. If he's president, he won't be cowering to tinpot dictators.
Neither has a clue about economics or private property.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Do youself a favor.... Stop following the teachings of Bill Hicks (AKA Alex Jones).
He is a shill for the government. His job is to stir up the crazies every few months to see who runs to wallmart to buy all the guns before the government takes them all away forever.
A lot of the stuff he says is true... but if you keep following the pied piper, you won't like where he leads you.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
We have the message where Hillary instructs a subordinate to remove classified markings from a secure fax and then transmit it "nonsecure."
Intent and proof. But, hey, go ahead and move the goal post. You're going to anyway.
Heh, captcha is "dishonor." Seems appropriate for the subject.
Actually Colin Powell did exactly the same thing with his email and it was not seen as a big deal.
Sarah Palin did something similar, it was seen as a big deal for a while and then it fizzled out.
I'm actually astonished that people were making such a huge fuss about this despite the Manning leak listing far worse stuff about Clinton and the Pfizer bribe should have been taken ten times more seriously than the email thing.
Clinton married well.
I have to assume you're talking about Bill.
I'm sure you know the story. When told of a report that Hillary once said said that Bill has a small penis. He replied, "That's just like the press to distort things. The truth is that she has a big mouth".
In another interview back in the 90s, Hillary was asked who she would be married to if she hadn't married Bill, and she said, "I would be married to the President of the United States".
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Much less? He did far more than Snowden did and for far worse motives.
The problem here is making a huge deal out of something that was not considered anything worse than poor practice at the executive end of town. Those with powerful connections, such as those two, were considered above the rules applying to mere Peons.
Yes neither of them should have done it but both parties like to take an almost Feudal approach despite George Washington revolting against a King.
Indeed. Not as it should be.
Billions? More likely he is in debt. He's a con man, not a rich man. A common swindler... pure flim-flam.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Comey's failure to recommend prosecution smells of corruption. He's either being promised a reward or threatened with destruction. Nothing else makes sense.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I suspect he owes more than he has...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What bugged me was he then made the point that if someone else broke the same statutes, they could be prosecuted. Basically confirming that she's safe, but anyone else would likely be prosecuted.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
Sure, all he'd have had to do is never spend any of his money for 50 years... No problem. the S&P 500 averaged 11% over the last 50 years, his $4M would grow to $738M.
Based on third party research, Trumps miserly campaign spending, Trump's funneling campaign spending into his own pocket, and Trump's refusal to reveal his tax returns (while asking his VP candidates to reveal their tax returns to him), it is reasonable to conclude that Trump does not have billions. In fact, i seriously doubt he even has 100 million dollars.
I think his tax return might even show that is liabilities are greater than his assets ( so he's technically broke ).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Says the guy waffling and handwaving in an attempt to steer the discussion away from the facts.
Sexual Reassignment Surgery patients 'enjoy' a 20-fold increase in their suicide rate.
Sorry, link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/pa...
That email about the fax proves only that a particular message was requested to be transmitted in an insecure manner. That does not mean the contents of the fax were sensitive or that removing the markings was improper. As I understand, the subject of the fax was a set of talking points for a speech, which were sensitive only in that they were not yet publicly released. If there was indeed a classified piece of information in the fax, it could have been sanitized prior to the insecure transmission. Without seeing the classified version, it is impossible to tell.
It's not "moving the goal post" to point out that your kick fell far short. Again, consider that a prosecution would be arguing before a court of law. Nothing is obvious, and nothing is beyond question. If you want to prove something, you have to show your entire case.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The words "extremely careless" were chosen carefully to avoid saying "negligent". To be careless is to be ignorant of the required security procedures, while to be ignorant is to know what's proper and required, and choosing to not attempt to follow it. If you're going to go down that road, you'll need to establish that the sysadmins responsible for that server were aware of the that the system could hold classified information, and they knew the security requirements necessary to protect a system holding classified information, and chose willingly to leave it unsecured.
What proof is there that the sysadmins were competent, beyond the faint hope that they should be?
What proof do you have that she personally put classified information on her server?
What proof is there that, at the time the server was built, it was intended to hold classified information?
There are an awful lot of bad things here... certainly enough to say the handling was careless. Unfortunately, without an absolutely solid case for a particular and completely-provable allegation, a successful prosecution is extremely unlikely, and would not serve the cause of justice in any meaningful way.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Just because a classified fact ends up in a regular email does NOT necessarily mean the writer got that fact from a classified source. It's known that classified info often can be obtained from the press and other public sources.
How can the FBI know the ACTUAL source of classified facts ending up in the emails at issue? Comparing text to text doesn't necessarily tell you the source, only that two facts are the same or similar.
Table-ized A.I.
The legal definition of "gross negligence" sounds pretty damned close to "intent" to me.
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both."
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
Table-ized A.I.
The Department of Injustice wanted 50 years for Aaron Swartz. All he did was download some articles. Nothing classified or secret.
I'm sick and tired of hearing about the damned emails!
- Bernie Sanders and lots of us others
But once again you're ignoring how things work "in the trenches". The trouble is with "Possession" and how it's defined. If you stock a lot of the stuff (it's not like it doesn't have decent shelf life) then you'll get charged with trafficking. If you're poor, especially black, you'll plead and take jail time rather than risk going in front of a Jury and facing mandatory minimum sentencing.
In the stats all these folks show up as plea bargaining for possession.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think it's fair now to see how Colin Powell's team did.
Table-ized A.I.
Well, that's the game, isn't it? Made you look! Made you look!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because we are better than they are. Okay, I admit it, you wouldn't know by the people we vote for. But if we follow their example then what does that make us?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence office with Top Secret clearance and had served in the war zone. She used the infomation (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)
As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.
Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.
Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If I was asked to vote between a crook and a dangerous demagogue, I vote the crook.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Outside of the fine Patraeus got off light. I know someone who is in federal prison for lying to the FBI about whether they hit someone or not. IIRC he got 5 years in prison, plus a fine, plus lost a major lawsuit with the victim.
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
Why does it bug you? Did you really assume that USA was a nation of laws and not a nation of men?
There are men and women like the Clintons, who are above the law.
Then there are men (and possibly some women) like Irwin Schiff, who actually were severely punished for bringing up the real law.
You can't handle the truth.
Trump is certainly more clever than Carter, but that is not intelligence. His cleverness lies in spotting and exploiting opportunities. To do that as well as he does requires such a large amount of self-interest that there is no brain left for an objective assessment of the current situation, whatever that happens to be.
Trump's cleverness is that even when he steps into a shithole, he will emerge smelling like a rose. He would bring that into the oval office, and if that occurs,,,, well, just sux to be USA. Especially when Trump climbs out of the hole by trampling on everyone he dragged in with him.
Petraeus did "far more" than Snowden? Could you expand on that? Snowden stole thousands of Top Secret Australian defense documents and made some number of them available through intermediaries to the world. There was at least one, maybe more, serious diplomatic problems that came from that. The Australian government probably assesses everything Snowden touched as having fallen into the hands of foreign adversaries intelligence agencies as do the British and US for their respective documents that Snowden stole.
I don't recall a couple million Top Secret documents being in the wind due to David Petraus. Can you back that up?
Snowden screwed Australia, and you didn't even get a lousy windcheater out of it.
You might find this interesting. Or maybe not.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
A significant part of his "billions" is apparently the marketing value he assigns to his own name. Market value is whatever you think you can get when you sell something. Book value is the value of your assets and inventory by their cost. If you are smart, you pay your taxes by book value, not by what you think you will be able to make from their sale.
Trump's tax returns would show his book value. Which could easily be one-tenth or less than what he estimates his market value to be.
Gotta rev up that "showers" to get rid of the mysoginy and bigotry, right?
If /if/ a criminal is intelligent.... Do you want him/her in control of your lifelyhood? Your life? Your country's life? A criminal is interested only in his/her interests.... In getting high... In having promiscuous relationships with.... Abadeens or whatever.... In making billions at the expense of everyone else (especially the poor and disadvantaged) -- and above all else in POWER. The more intelligent the criminal, the more he/she will shaft all about them, and the more intelligently murderous they will be.
"extremely careless" == "gross negligence"
They're literally synonyms in legal dictionaries.
Hillary is an unprosecuted criminal, pure and simple.
"extreme carelessness" == "gross negligence"
They're literally synonyms in legal dictionaries.
Okay, so she's guilty under that as well :)
You can't setup a private server "unknowingly", she can't possibly claim the private server was an "authorized location", and she had every intent to retain those documents there by mere fact of ordering it set up.
As for 18 U.S. Code 793 (f), " through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody " - the proper place of custody was secure government networks, not her private servers.
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true but have no direct evidence to prove it so there is nothing they can do to her. That probably added to the obvious frustration that Comey showed in the speech.
The only thing that died is your ability to tell truth from fiction.
Maybe the internet is not the right place for you.
From what I gather, Hillary tried to get permission to use a secure mobile device to access her email but was denied. Condolezza Rice was able to use a BlackBerry but the NSA phased those out with no solution for Hillary. She was expected to read email on a laptop or desktop computer in a secure office, something rather difficult for someone who is frequently traveling.
According to several articles, Hillary spent a lot of effort to get a secure smart phone to use like Obama's BlackBerry. The NSA refused. Later they wanted her to use this beast. It was not a user friendly or very useable device. It was based on late 1990s and early 2000s technology, about 10 years out of date.
As I recall, the IT budget for the State Department was quite limited and they used antiquated equipment since the Republican House controlled the purse strings.
Here are a few quotes from the articles I linked to above:
"After the NSA turned down her request for a secure smartphone for email, and her staff determined that the existing State Department technology infrastructure was nonexistent for such tasks, Clinton ultimately decided to get down to work by installing her own fully functional email server and tying it into her own BlackBerry for email."
"Reid wrote that each time they asked the NSA what solution they had worked up to provide a mobile device to Obama, "we were politely told to shut up and color.""
"Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office, according to the summary."
"Mills also asked about waivers provided during the Bush administration to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her staff to use BlackBerrys in their secure offices. But the NSA had phased out such waivers due to security concerns."
Basically there weren't any options but to use a laptop or desktop computer in her office for email, not a very good option for someone who is frequently outside of the office.
It looks like she was screwed no matter what she did if she wanted to access her email away from her office.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
You take joy in the fact that people who expected justice are upset that a clearly guilty person is "getting away with it", and you are ok with a person you like getting away with serious crimes if his/her politics are the same as yours.
It says far more about you and your character (or lack thereof) than about anybody involved in this whole affair.
If people you hate are unjustly made angry, you are just FINE with the blatantly guilty going free... just... WOW. Situational ethics on full display.
So much for 2000 years of progress in Western Civilization and the ideal that truth and justice should prevail without regard to the station of the accused.
Do you mean the FDR that sent over one hundred thousand Americans to concentration camps?
Why would you want a president like that?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
"People like you" is actually code for "I'm a racist who thinks it's clever to project my racism on other people." Unless you're a bigot projecting bigotry.
The distinction is that racists hate other people for how they were born, while bigots hate them for acquired characteristics. I just feel sorry for both groups. Over the years, I have met quite a few of them, and they are always so miserable that it's painful even to watch them as they continuously mangle their miserable lives.
I think one of the most despicable characteristics of Trump is that he exploits and manipulates such weak people. One cannot actually believe anything that Trump actually says, since he has been on every side of every issue, but I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he is just a sociopath with authoritarian tendencies. He might be a racist and bigot, too, but I doubt it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You are lying again, but I know you're just a Hillary hater or misogynist, so that's the probably the sincere best that you can come up with. Pitiful.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.
Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence. When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you promise to not be careless with it.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
They don't need to be delivered. The fact that the classified information was put on the unclassified network is the crime. Regardless of whether anyone ever saw it.
The only thing that needs to be proven is that classified information was put onto her email account on her server. And that was done/
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified on it.
You don't get to be careless with classified information.
The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?
This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.
The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified networks.
But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
SHE WAS TRAINED IN THE REQUIRED SECURITY PROCEDURES!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.
Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefor we have Gross negligence.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
793 (f) also applies and has a steeper penalty as well.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
This isn't facebook where you can post any soft of shit and people will believe it without question. People on slashdot will check sources; there are even some heretics who RTFA.
And then if the information does not support the popular view or prejudice they will often down mod the post, lie about what is there, impugn the source, or simply state that they don't care about the truth - they believe what they want to believe.
There are a lot of smart people on Slashdot, too many of which are willing to misuse their intellect to mislead, misdirect, or obscure the truth if they don't like it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That is not what i said at all. It is well known that the spirit of laws can be violated based on technicalities. Look up the bullet button magazine for an example.
Hillarious is just Tricky Dick in a pantsuit. Missing tape segment or missing emails. Didn't Nixon say that if the president does it, it must be legal? The thought process behind both is the same. And as for an "enemies list" and the use of government against her political enemies, expect the same. Get ready for a wild ride if she is elected president.
E Proelio Veritas.
So Powell sent classified material to his email account?
Also Powell had written permission to use the email account, Hillary did not, she had been told not to do it, and had worked to keep her serverS hidden.
The reports on this cover the actions of the former secretary of state and explain why she was unique.
Powell did not transmit classified data on his personal account. And all emails were turned over as soon as he left office, not years later after trying to ignore the law until hit with congressional subpoena's. Very different situations. The private server isn't the issue. It's the classified information on the server.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
No these types of situations are usually handled with criminal charges and convictions. This was not accidental. You don't accidently transfer TS level information to an unclassified system.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
I can't help but feel like the people calling others idiots for not dropping the issue now wouldn't be as comfortable putting Darren Wilson back in a badge in Ferguson despite him having pretty much the same credentials of innocence.
There are lots of crimes with no punishments. This is one of them.
This needs to be noted VERY well in this discussion.
Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.
Well in this case we have someone who the FBI has acknowledged has committed a crime and then tried for years to cover it up. So how is your point relevant to this discussion? In fact, your point suggests that we should indict Clinton to emphasize that it is better to admit you made a mistake than to cover it up
There are lots of crimes with no punishments. This is one of them.
This needs to be noted VERY well in this discussion.
Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.
It should also be noted that there's no telling what was in the "classified" information. I put classified in quotes because I once had a government security clearance. I can tell you that they typically error on the side of better safe than sorry. i.e. A lot of stuff gets tagged as classified/secret that probably doesn't need to be. I have doubts as to whether or not she really put any truly sensitive information in jeopardy. If they found that she had, I'm guessing that she probably would be facing charges.
Snowden is one of us little people. He is not part of the elite ruling class. Therefore, unlike Hillary, Snowden is not above the law.
I'm pretty sure Trumps assets are of the emporer's new clothes variety.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
According to Chris Christie "Clinton could have committed obstruction of justice by deleting emails or ordering emails to be deleted while she was under subpoena by the House of Representatives."
Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information was included in her product.
Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.
The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
"Economically incapable".
He had a grand total of four businesses (3 if not all 4 of them casinos), out of the *hundreds* of businesses he runs/owns, go into Chapter 11 (not Chapter 7) during the '80s when all NJ casinos were doing very, very poorly? Chapter 11 isn't failure and closure of business, it's a suspension of payments to creditors until the company gets back on it's feet; it actually saved jobs and the casino, at the time.
You can not like Trump for various reasons (a lot of people would argue your "likable" label as well) but the argument that he is economically incapable only indicates complete ignorance of economics.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
How about that thumb drive of emails that she turned over to her attorney?
I like how it didn't even slow you down that those are (purposely) two completely different phrases.
No he did not. He used a personal account, not a private server. But that's not even the issue. He did put classified information onto the internet. The FBI just stated they found 110 emails with verified Classified information that was classified at the time she sent it. At most a review of Powell's emails found two emails that contained calendar information that the State Dept classified after he had sent it. It was not classified when he transmitted it, thus there was no wrong doing on his part.
Hillary sent 110 emails containing classified information 8 instances of which had TOP SECRET information. All this classified information has been verified with the owning agency as being classified at the time the emails were created. She broke the law. She put classified data on the internet. Classified information does not touch the internet. We have physically separate networks for that data. Colin Powell doesn't come anywhere close to what she did.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
30k emails? About 10 months volume for me.
If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.
110 is nothing
Please tell me you don't work in IT.
In this case, it was simply referring to "people who accuse others of being misogynists"; that's why I quoted you right above it. That is, people who charge others with misogyny are usually simply sexists. (I suggest you look up the terms "sexism" and "racism" since you seem to be a bit fuzzy on their meanings.)
Probably, since that's the prerequisite for wanting to be president in the first place. What Hillary adds to that baseline is a proven track record of incompetence, corruption, sexism, and lying. With Trump, we don't know yet since, as you pointed out, he is pretty cagey and hard to pin down.
And you know that how?
I guarantee you it wouldn't have made any difference. They wouldn't have had to get her for lying to the FBI; what she admitted to was more than enough to indict and convict her.
Typically, just mishandling classified information (without intentionally handing it off to others) is handled with an administrative slap on the wrist, and maybe losing clearance. There are rarely any criminal proceedings, because the higher-ups never want a subordinate to fear revealing a data spill. Instead, self-policing and self-reporting are praised, and mistakes are often just cleaned up and forgotten.
OMG. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and they got modded up. My heart! Ethel, I'm coming to meet you!
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying, or in Manning's case, whistleblowing. In other words, PURPOSELY mishandling the information in a deliberate effort to spill the secret. The only other case I know of was also one of a Democrat in the Clinton camp that Republicans wanted to go after politically.
So there are basically 2 ways that this kind of thing can become a criminal issue:
1) You are actually trying to deliberately leak classified information.
2) You are standing within the blast radius of a Clinton while Republicans control Congress.
I'm looking forward to serving on jury duty now.
If the defendant committed a crime due to gross negligence, or they didn't intend to commit the crime, then they're not guilty.
Of course that would only come into play if there was an "unreasonable prosecutor" handling the case.
His career is over either way because of the affair. It's a very Victorian attitude, but that's how the US Army is with its officers.
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server.
She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her. I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying. Those are two different things. Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.
I'm sure this is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to prosecute, even when the letter of the law has been definitively broken. Obviously, this is how it should work, but in many cases laws regarding handling of protected information are prosecuted with extreme discretion. In other words, charges are often not brought unless there is intent and/or aggravating factors, even when the law has clearly been broken as written. Really we need someone with substantial legal experience in this specific area to comment (I won't hold my breath for that). Despite the fact that the above code is fairly straight forward, I don't feel qualified to assess the FBI's conclusion: "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," (James Comey). I'm not addressing whether or not it makes sense to use discretion in these cases. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate and sets a double standard; it's not like someone selling drugs will not get prosecuted because there was no intent to cause addiction. That said, I don't make the rules, and I really don't think most people in this forum are qualified to judge whether she is getting preferential treatment by applying the letter of the law, combined with the way that other laws are prosecuted (and the way laws should be prosecuted). The reality is that, right or wrong, this is not how laws regarding handling of sensitive information are applied. For the record, I despise Hillary & the Clintons and will not vote for her, even though the alternative is at least as terrible.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
This needs to be noted VERY well in this discussion.
And unfortunately, it isn't at all. So many people think they can be armchair lawyers, read the law, interpret it to the letter, and decide whether it is appropriate to bring criminal charges. I don't have a problem with people giving an amateur opinion, but so many people in this forum seem completely certain on something that seems to me to be a shaky, inconsistent area of the law. Reading the law and applying simple logic, it seems like she clearly violated it and should be charged, but that's just not how these laws are interpreted; prosecutors use heavy discretion when decided whether to bring charges. I think this sets up an unjust system, but then it's the system that needs to change.
When the information was substantial enough that they can not only verify that it was classified but identify the Owning agency and get their independent verification that the information was in deed classified at the level indicated and at the time the email was sent indicates that the data was not pulled from unclassified sources. Nice try to cover-up for Hillary. The fact that there was sufficient text to identify sources tells us that it was not incidental information.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them."
I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal.
She has said that. She has also made the same statement without the word "marked".
The fact that she phrased her statement so carefully actually shows the opposite: even if literally true, that statement is intended to deceive.
I don't disagree much with Clinton politically as far as I know (it's hard to know what she really believes); I actually used to be a registered Democrat until a few years ago.
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
I want to say FDR's financial and economic actions were terrible, but... I kind of understand why he did what he did. Fractional reserve banking, the social security system, and the whole span of the New Deal were the best he could do at that time; and the FRS on fiat currency model is the best monetary system currently known.
The concentration camp thing, however, is more America-is-Hitler-beta.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
How does that indicate that "the data was not pulled from unclassified sources"?
I agree if the fact in question is something that can ONLY come from a USA agency or ONLY from a given source, then it's probably clear-cut. But that hasn't been establish, at least not in the way the public can verify.
Please elaborate. Can you provide a specific example/instance? Are you talking about the "markings"?
It seems only a few had that issue, and markings themselves don't necessarily mean the classified content is carried along. It does indicate sloppy work, but not necessarily leakage of actual classified info itself. Perhaps the author pasted in the whole thing at first, deleted the secret part, but forgot to remove the markings.
Both Hillary and Comey are known drama artists and I take BOTH of them with a grain of salt and don't trust either of their claims at face value.
Table-ized A.I.
Don't why this is downvoted at the moment. She may have been honest (for once in her life) with the FBI, it's not like they're gonna pull the plug on the top DNC candidate and basically force the election outcome, unless she outright shot somebody dead in cold blood. And even then they might find an excuse.
She's shown before she can be callous regarding sensitive matters, and just expect it swept under the rug.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
When dealing with classified stuff, there should be a second set of eyeballs to monitor stuff that gets emailed around.
The primary staffers are juggling gajillion different things such that they don't have a lot of time to double-vet everything. A dedicated monitoring staff can focus on secret protection and ONLY secret protection.
In some cases, the secondary monitors may not be able to catch a mistake before it's sent out, but could at least reprimand and educate those who are repeat offenders.
Table-ized A.I.
On the other hand, Hillary is a legitimate, front-running candidate. Imprisoning her while the people are voting in her favor would be a great way for a corrupt military-intelligence agency to undermine the democratic process.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I asked you for one example and you changed the subject to how things work "in the trenches?"
We can talk about the "trenches" if you wish; in general, as I said before, the system will do everything it can to keep you out of jail. It's expensive to incarcerate people and the objective -- particularly with the first intervention -- is to return the offender to society as a productive citizen.
Of course, you had to play the poor downtrodden minority card, but did you read the news story I linked? That young man is poor and black and he got PROBATION for breaking and entering. This is Louisiana -- hardly a progressive blue state -- and B&E is a felony that's a lot more serious than possession of weed. The system tried to give him a second chance and he used it to commit murder.
Now, I'm not a "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" guy -- I'm glad the system gives people a second and even third chance -- it's just that I don't believe this bullshit about there being masses of people behind bars for weed. It's pure propaganda from the pro-legalization crowd. I've seen first hand how the criminal justice system works -- I was charged with a felony at 20, worked for eight years in a residential setting with youthful offenders, and my sister is a State Trooper -- and it does not work the way you think it does. It has its flaws -- too many to list -- but locking up peaceful pot smokers is not one of them.
In many parts of the country law enforcement turns a blind eye to weed. I used to live in New York, where possession of 25 grams or less is a violation with a maximum fine of $100. A speeding ticket in New York State will cost you more money than a pot ticket, assuming the officer even bothers to write the unlawful possession ticket; oftentimes he won't bother because it's not worth the paperwork. I spent much of my 20s smoking weed -- incidentally, time I wish I could get back now that I'm in my 30s -- all up and down the East Coast, not just in New York, and my worst encounter with law enforcement was the North Carolina State Trooper that took our stash and gave us a stern lecture. Of course, we weren't total idiots about it either; we never carried more than a few grams out in public, never toked behind the wheel, and did our utmost to blend into the background without drawing undue attention.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The John Yoo torture memos? Or torture, for that matter.
I am amazed that lack of evidence is considered sufficient to avoid looking for evidence in the first place, and just as delusional as those that claim lack of evidence is itself evidence. They are equally bad, for different reasons.
As for Hillary, if you think she is NOT breaking the law, you're just not paying attention or are blinded by the (D) after her name.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So, your basing your whole argument on assumption? Don't mind me if I ignore your Vapid Emotionalism.
NO, I am not supporting Trump, there are VALID reasons for not supporting him. I am also NOT supporting Hillary either, for nearly identical reasons.
You see, the (R) and (D) behind the name doesn't matter to me one bit. I am not emotionally tied to party affiliation, which is .... vapid emotionalism.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
He's either being promised a reward or threatened with destruction.
That is not an XOR there. It very well could be both.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The number of unexplainable car accidents that result in response to the postings here will make the all previous fiery crashes of NASCAR look like a wienie roast.
Nice knowing ya'all!
Addendum regarding classified markings versus classified content.
NYT: "A search of the emails released by the State Department turned up two of those, both memos from one of Mrs. Clinton's aides, Monica R. Hanley, preparing her for telephone calls with world leaders. The State Department on Wednesday argued that those markings were, in fact, included by mistake."
http://www.nytimes.com/live/ja...
As I interpret it, the markings were included by mistake (according to SD), but that doesn't necessarily mean classified info was also included by mistake. The presence of markings and the presence of classified info could be different issues. There's nothing that forces bundling of both; they are not like entangled particles per quantum physics.
There is no reason to interpret that statement widely by default. Innocent until proven guilty.
Table-ized A.I.
Wow, I should know better to get involved in a Clinton thread but that is one extremenly selective quote. I'm sure it's just 'extreme carelessness' to strip the two mentions of intent:
(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,...
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or...
If you believe him, then Clinton is extremely careless with regards to protecting our National Security. I hope she gets better training on keeping the nuclear launch codes from being lost. Hopefully she wont leave them in the ladies room or something silly. If you do not believe his testimony, well we will be electing another crooked clinton to office
Well the laws about using a private email server in her office were passed after she left that office, so they couldn't indict and convict her on that. They would have to prove she knowingly put classified information on the server. Much of the information was up to her to decide classification, much of it wasn't really classified despite reports it was, and the rest was classified after the fact. It would have been an uphill battle to prosecute her. And all of this is irrelevant to the discussion you are jumping into because I was responding to this exchange:
Clinton did not lie.
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server. She lied about only deleting personal E-mails, and she destroyed evidence.
Corney said that she'd be subject to administrative sanctions if she still worked for the government, but that prosecutions were normally reserved for much more egregious cases than Clinton's, involving actual deliberate leaking of much larger amounts of classified material. There's no real evidence that Clinton let classified material into the hands of people without the requisite clearances, and she was careless rather than malicious.
There's a large amount of room between "did things right" and "should be criminally prosecuted", and Corney decided Clinton was in that area, well to the prosecution side.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I take it you prefer that the workings of government at the highest level be held up occasionally for technical reasons? I'd be perfectly happy to allow cabinet-level officials of either party make those decisions for themselves.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
...because that is what Republicans have moved heaven and earth to try to get you to think. Run around creating enough smoke around a person for three decades, and its tough not to believe there's at least a little fire there. I understand really, but its sad that they get away with doing this.
Hillary is quite competent in general, although she really screwed up with the classified emails. For a politician at her level, she's not particularly dishonest, and in fact was one of the most honest campaigners in her campaign so far. Arrogance is something you're going to get out of serious Presidential candidates who will make decent Presidents. Nobody's going to work that hard to be President without being arrogant.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd accuse the RNC of being malicious assholes, myself, but that's not something you do a criminal investigation over. It's a free country, and it isn't illegal to be a malicious asshole.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd say she's self-preservation smart; not so sure about other facets.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I understand cheering for your team. However, when it becomes clear that your quarterback sucks, there comes a time to recognize that and replace them. Quoting director Comey's prepared statement 48 hours ago:
--
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
--
And yes she DID forget to remove the classification markings from some documents. Quoting Comey again:
--
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked âoeclassifiedâ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
--
Comey was appointed Director of the FBI by Barak Obama in 2013.
There's no emotion. I feel nothing one way or the other about the man. He's just another con, nothing particularly special or extraordinary about that. As far as I know his campaign is produced by Howard Stern, it fits the style, and is actually a plus, it's brilliant, monopolizing the all the media world wide.
And if you think I care about republicans and democrats, you obviously have not been paying attention. Don't mind me if I ignore your vapid speculation. Everybody should shift their attention and support to the Libertarians and Greens.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
I disagree. I would bet there are things she said that the FBI believe aren't true
Well, you're very bad at it, because this statement you made doesn't contradict the one above it. The FBI thinking something isn't true and Clinton thinking something isn't true are two completely different things. Its only a "lie" if Clinton didn't believe it was true when she said it. Lying and being wrong are two totally different things.
The parent post said (reordering the words for clarity) 'the FBI felt everything she said was the truth'
I said (also reordering) 'the FBI believes (feels) things she said aren't true'
How are those two statements NOT in contradiction? What Clinton thought was true wasn't part of either statement so not sure why you bring that up, unless you think 'truth' means what she thinks is true versus how the dictionary defines it (that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality).
I believe she DID know things she said weren't true but was confident they couldn't prove it so she would get away with it. Likewise, Comey didn't say she didn't break laws (which is how her supporters are phrasing his statements), rather he said they didn't find evidence sufficient to prove it in a court since it mostly requires showing intent, and unless she put in an email or told someone that she was intending to break the law, how can it be proven in this case? And when I say "told someone", I mean someone who would be willing to testify against her, versus the circle of allies she employed who likely wouldn't.
and friends who've experienced it. So first hand. But here's a Google Search where you'll find all the stats you care for.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In 1978, when the Labor Force Participation Rate was only 63% and the national debt was only $0.77 trillion, Carter talked about economic "malaise" and a high "misery index."
In 2016, when the Labor Force Participation Rate is only 63% and the national debt is $17.3 trillion, the administration brags about how sustained and robust the "recovery" has been.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying, or in Manning's case, whistleblowing
I'm surprised that you've not heard of the David Petraeus case.
In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA. Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
She consciously refused a state.gov email account.
She voluntarily setup a private email server.
Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong, makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.
tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry and lives with whatever email it's configured with.
I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.
Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding with a warning, is discretion.
But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.
Just because she may be exonerated under 18 U.S. Code 793 (a) and (b), doesn't mean she didn't violate (f).
Understand each of those sections is separate - they aren't all "anded" together.
Again:
tl;dr - Whoever...through gross negligence permits [stuff]...to be removed from its proper place of custody...shall be fined...or imprisoned.
Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible fool are you?
That isn't true: Clinton already had a legal obligation to protect classified information. The fact that there were no specific regulations against what she did didn't make it legal.
It is, because you incorrectly claimed that "Clinton did not lie". In fact, not only did Clinton lie in general, she also (according to Comey in today's hearings) lied to the FBI.
Yup, that's the Democratic and progressive party line. Personally, I'd hold against it that Democrats and progressives are self-righteous, greedy, and ignorant pricks. Hillary is pretty typical of that.
That's why I'm an independent.
The only thing Hillary is "competent" at is manipulating people for her own gain.
Actually, yes, you can usually just remove markings from (or more precisely, rewrite without markings) unclassified material that's on a secure system. The unclassified material doesn't need to be "declassified" because it was never classified to begin with. That includes unclassified parts of a larger document that's marked as containing classified information, and by the same extension it applies to unclassified data on computer systems that are marked as containing classified data.
What's important is that no classified information actually gets out of the secure environment. Nobody cares about other information, with a few exceptions.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The crime is not whatever you say it is. The crime is whatever the law defines it to be, and the law in question explicitly requires that classified material be "removed from its proper place of custody or delivered" for the crime to have occurred.
Since the server was unclassified, it would not be involved in removing classified information from its proper place, so we can disregard that part of the law. Since we can't prove anyone uncleared actually received the classified information, we have to disregard the second part, too. The other options are "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed", and none of those terms apply well, either.
I'm sorry, but rule of law still applies.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
It is, because you incorrectly claimed that "Clinton did not lie". In fact, not only did Clinton lie in general, she also (according to Comey in today's hearings) lied to the FBI.
Are you sure about that?
Here's a direct quote from Comey in today's hearings:
We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.)
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce.
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
Can she get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
Really, what kind of gullible fool are you?
The kind of "gullible fool" that doesn't swallow every narrative about a politician that their opponents create. I can even tell your age by the vintage of the propaganda you DIDN'T parrot up there.
It truly amazes me to live in an era so rife with projection that being skeptical about political propaganda is now considered being "gullible". Someone must have dropped me Bizzaro world while I was sleeping a few years back.
I you haven't noticed what the Republicans are trying to do to Hillary, you either haven't been paying attention (not necessarily a bad idea, but it does make me not take your comment seriously), or you've bought into what the assholes are saying, which does make me not take your comment seriously. Hint: holding over a dozen expensive Congressional hearings in a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to find something Clinton did wrong about Benghazi show assholiness and was done by Republicans.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Um, politics is, basically, manipulating people and getting them to do what you want. Hillary, for example, got the world in general to think much better of the US, which is a real contribution to US foreign policy, which she was in charge of at the time.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Oh, there are plenty of things Hillary's political opponents say about her that are wrong and unfair. But there are also plenty of things that are based on facts, facts that are easy to check: the Clinton Foundation, her E-mail server, her actions as SoS are all matters of public record, and any one of them show that she is unsuitable for the presidency.
You're jumping to conclusions based on flimsy data again; in fact, I merely tried keeping things simple for you.
I have; I approve. I think Hillary should be in jail.
True. But we don't elect people to be good at politics, we elect them to be good at government; politics is to government what pollution is to driving: a necessary evil, and something you want as little of as possible. Marcos and Hitler were both great politicians, they just used their political skills for evil. And Hillary uses her considerable political skills primarily for her own gain.
It's easy to "get the world", which mainly means Europeans, to think better of you: you just grovel before them and give their governments and elites what they want, and they will make sure the European masses cheer you on. That doesn't mean that that's good for the US (in fact, if Europeans like you, you are probably doing something wrong). In any case, Hillary wasn't even very good at groveling, since the US approval rating abroad kept slipping under her tenure.
(Aren't you British anyway?)
I never mod down (and I have mod points almost all the time). What am I doing wrong??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Maybe the mod points are related to your low user number?
(I hope this is a dead enough conversation that we won't wind up in the race to the bottom there.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Don't know. Might be more that I consistently mod up.
A few years ago I had apparently unlimited mod points for about six months (spend 'em all, immediately get 15 more).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Been so long that I can't say for sure, but I think that most of my mods were positive. I know that I like funny comments and wish they were more visible, but I also know that I dislike stupidity...
Is there some productive place for such discussions on slashdot?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Apparently. So did Rice. So did many others that believe that the law does not apply to the Lords and Ladies but only to the Peons. With so many others doing it without penalty Hillary has gotten away with it.
Both gave classified documents to a journalist.
The difference here is Petreaus did it in exchange for sex and not out of patriotism.
One was a whistleblower.
The other just wanted his whistle blown.
- nations have secrets - the SoS must handle those secrets - having secrets in an unsecured network/server is illegal (at least in the U. S.) - HRC handled classified traffic - HRC handled classified traffic on an unsecured network/server - what HRC did was illegal
Actually, one of the most important tricks of liars is to be specific, but the skilled liars are especially clever about creating impressive-sounding details that cannot be checked. I'm ready to wager there is no public database of who failed the bar exam organized by test dates and sites. If they don't throw away the records for failures, it's just because they are commingled with the passes, and they might need to confirm the passes if someone loses the document with their passing score. Must be some kind of certificate?
I rather doubt that any graduate of the Harvard Law School would have much trouble with the bar exam in Arkansans, and I'm pretty sure that's where she was practicing law at first. I have NO problem imaging some of her enemies would claim she did.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI.
Once again totally irrelevant to the discussion
I asserted:
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI,
And you tried to argue that I was wrong. You seem to think "Clinton lied" + "Clinton spoke to the FBI" == "Clinton lied to the FBI" and you keep your nonsensical arguments going. on that premise. But the fact is according to a direct quote from a discussion you yourself cited. Clinton DID NOT lie to the FBI.
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath
You don't get put under oath to talk to the FBI, but you can still be arrested and charged for lying to the FBI, being under oath doesn't make a difference
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
And it doesn't matter one bit because if she gets elected she can simply pardon herself. The people voting for her will simply believe it was a republican conspiracy and she did nothing wrong so they will vote for her anyway. Since there is no prohibition on felons running for presidency this is all a moo point. Even in the unlikely case that she ends up with a felony conviction (and remember, the republicans are now just trying to get her security clearance terminated and not a conviction) she will simply pardon herself if she gets elected and since the president is exempt from security clearance requirements any action that the house takes against her will be negated should she get elected. All they can do is make it so that if she does get elected then Trump can't add her to his cabinet... You know without pardoning her himself, which if he were to add her to his cabinet he would just do that anyway. Congress is impotent in this matter and just throwing a hissy fit because they don't have anything else they think matters.
What you asserted is, and I quote:
Leaving it ambiguous who Clinton lied to. This is not about whether you are right or wrong, it is that such a statement should not be allowed to stand, even if in context you may or may not have been referring to lying to the FBI. If Clinton didn't lie to the FBI (and we don't know that and will never know, since there are no records), that's a technicality.
The decision about Clinton will be made at the ballot box, and that is why it's important that statements like "Clinton did not lie" are not allowed to stand, and that statements like "Clinton did not lie to the FBI" are not allowed to distract people from the fact that she lied to the American public and Congress.
Congress is using the FBI to expose Clinton and her egregious conduct; as you observed yourself, a criminal conviction down the road is not the point.
Strange, I've heard that she improved our perception considerably. (I'm a US citizen who has lived all his life in the US.)
I find your opinion of Europeans to be peculiar. What's wrong with doing things they like? Most of them are civilized, and run many societies that seem to do better by their people than US society does by ours.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You approve of endless expensive and time-wasting and unsuccessful Congressional inquiries to try to pin some wrongdoing on Clinton with respect to the Benghazi attack? That's what they've been doing. That's why I don't take Clinton-bashers seriously.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You probably have "heard" a lot of things, but there is actually data on this: approval of the US jumped after Obama's election and has been gradually falling since. It's not been a precipitous drop, but you can certainly not argue that Clinton has improved our standing abroad based on data.
I emigrated from Europe to the US. I'm sorry, but you aren't in a position to judge Europe and how it works for its people.
The point of Congressional hearings is to have the executive branch answer to lawmakers and the public, and do so truthfully and with consequences if they lie. We also get to learn something about our lawmakers in the process. "Pinning wrongdoing" on someone is not the primary point, although that does occasionally happen. The Congressional hearings were as much there to give Clinton an opportunity to make her case as it was an opportunity of Clinton's opponents to accuse her and present their evidence.
Apparently, you prefer the executive branch only to be held accountable for gross misconduct, and to be able to tell the American public whatever they want through press releases and well-placed leaks. Well, sorry, that's not how democracy should work. The executive branch is accountable to Congress and has to appear and answer for their actions. Get used to it.
One congressional inquiry on Benghazi was certainly justified. The continuing series was ridiculous
There's dangers involved in demanding accountability for every little thing, in that it has a chilling effect on getting anything done. It's usually easier to justify inaction and not making minor mistakes when doing nothing, and people who are doing things will make mistakes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Except that I'm precisely not judging Europe, except on objective criteria. You are the one who made claims about what Europeans want.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Good! Let's hold many more hearings and tie the federal executive branch in knots!
No, you don't. You babble about "societies that seem to do better by their people" and that they are "civilized". Those are not "objective" criteria. You believe in European myths, not European realities.
What you asserted is, and I quote:
Clinton did not lie.
You're not quoting me there. My first post on the subject was
Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI, whether you call what she did lying or not she did it publicly. In her interview with the FBI I guarantee you everything she said they felt was the truth.
You're quoting some anonymous coward.
Then don't butt in and change the subject. I responded to the "Clinton didn't lie comment".
I have doubts as to whether or not she really put any truly sensitive information in jeopardy.
Despite the fact that Comey stated explicitly that eight of the exposed emails were marked Top Secret?