Jump to content

Hillary Clinton


waitforufo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe, DrmDoc, H.Clinton does have skeletons in her closet, but the republican congress hasn't requested a special prosecutor for these transgressions because...

There are actually several examples of them doing exactly that. Here's one from just within the last week: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293877-gop-lawmakers-call-for-clinton-foundation-special

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, DrmDoc, H.Clinton does have skeletons in her closet, but the republican congress hasn't requested a special prosecutor for these transgressions because they're afraid of a D.Trump presidency also.

 

I agree, every free-thinking voter should be afraid of a Trump presidency. He's clearly the most vacuous candidate to potentially become POTUS since George W. Bush--and we all know how that turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree, every free-thinking voter should be afraid of a Trump presidency. He's clearly the most vacuous candidate to potentially become POTUS since George W. Bush--and we all know how that turned out.

 

Modern corporate-spun "logic" tells people we need an outsider businessperson to get us out of the trouble too many capitalist policies got us into. The arrogance and greed of the corporate sector knows no bounds, and we should understand that this is part of what makes them effective for the economy. We need capitalism, but we don't need it leading the country right now. Now is the time for regulations and policies that tend to our social side, something that's been sorely neglected for the last 60 years.

 

I hope Hillary can do more good socially than harm capitalistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread,

 

I only skimmed this thread, but I think I get the drift, same arguments and spins from both sides as I have been hearing for a while.

 

So I am breaking my self imposed rule of always reading a thread before posting, so I do not know if this detail has been covered, but I had a thought the other day, about the 30,000 e-mails destroyed by Clinton and her lawyers, and thought to be hence unrecoverable.

 

My thought was, unlike a letter, being burned, record of an e-mail can also exist on the other end. E-mails that were sent to the Secretary of State, also exist on the server of the sender, and e-mails sent by the Secretary of State also could exist on the server of the receiver.

 

Have the servers on the "other end" been looked at, in order to determine the nature of the missing e-mails? Have the correspondents been silenced and told not to share their copies with the state dept or FBI?

 

Just wondering why the senders and receivers have not been polled to share their copies. Or if they have, why the results of such inquiries have not been made public enough to know that the attempt was made.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only skimmed this thread, but I think I get the drift, same arguments and spins from both sides as I have been hearing for a while.

With a sprinkle of facts in a few places.

 

So I am breaking my self imposed rule of always reading a thread before posting, so I do not know if this detail has been covered, but I had a thought the other day, about the 30,000 e-mails destroyed by Clinton and her lawyers, and thought to be hence unrecoverable.

 

My thought was, unlike a letter, being burned, record of an e-mail can also exist on the other end. E-mails that were sent to the Secretary of State, also exist on the server of the sender, and e-mails sent by the Secretary of State also could exist on the server of the receiver.

 

Have the servers on the "other end" been looked at, in order to determine the nature of the missing e-mails? Have the correspondents been silenced and told not to share their copies with the state dept or FBI?

 

Just wondering why the senders and receivers have not been polled to share their copies. Or if they have, why the results of such inquiries have not been made public enough to know that the attempt was made.

How would you determine who sent or received the email, in order to check?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps not, but people used to come up to me and call me by name (while I could not recall their's), having been a student in a class I addressed. I think most people that e-mailed the Secretary of State, or received an e-mail from the Secretary of State, would remember the incident. Plus there were advisors and friends and donors and diplomats she corresponded with regularly, that were probably among the recipients and senders.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I have a different advanced, professional degree (Ph.D. In physics). Same ballpark in terms of standards to which one might be held, I expect.

Do you remember the laws of physics? Things like Maxwell's Equations. You don't think its reasonable for a Yale educated lawyer to pay attention to the legal requirements of her job?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-fails-the-abcs-of-handling-classified-information/2016/09/06/70e4a920-7439-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2e82e0493aa9

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton corrupts every institution she touches. Her actions compromised the integrity of the State Department. Now, she has compromised the integrity of the FBI. And if she has her way, she will compromise the integrity of the presidency — just as easy as A-B-C.

 

 

Obviously I'm not the only one that thinks Clinton should remember simple laws regarding the handling and disclosure of classified information.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, the destruction of 30,000 emails suggests that Hillary had something to hide, but is that in itself criminal or indicative of corruption? Those emails were on her private server where she engage both private and governmental correspondence as she has stated. Given the political environment of Washington and the vitriol Mrs. Clinton has endured, it's reasonable that she would destroy private, non-government related emails to keep them out of propagandist hands. Federal law and rules, as I understand, forbid the destruction of government related emails and Mrs. Clinton claims that those emails were preserved and given to investigators. Her FBI investigators did not and have not found prosecutorial criminality in the destruction of the emails they did not receive. So why is this even an issue? Political accusations and the perception of some illicit act isn't real or credible evidence of a crime or corruption. As Bernie once said, "Forget the damn emails!"


 

How does any single person, particularly a democrat, comprise the integrity of a republican led, investigative arm of the US government?

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember the laws of physics? Things like Maxwell's Equations. You don't think its reasonable for a Yale educated lawyer to pay attention to the legal requirements of her job?

You are moving the goalposts. Many of the questions involved have nothing to do with "the legal requirements of her job". This started with you posting a list of "things Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview" (which of course, we find that this includes things that she never did, so of course she could not recall them, as described in an earlier post)

 

I don't actually remember the entirety of Maxwell's equations by rote. I can always look up the details if I need them.

 

Obviously I'm not the only one that thinks Clinton should remember simple laws regarding the handling and disclosure of classified information.

 

Much like the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence", it is also not the plural of "opinion"

Clearly, the destruction of 30,000 emails suggests that Hillary had something to hide

No, that's not clear to me at all. When you delete an email, is it because you have something to hide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not clear to me at all. When you delete an email, is it because you have something to hide?

 

Admittedly, no; however, Mrs. Clinton did suggest that those emails may have been destroyed as personal and irrelevant to the investigation, which further suggests she wanted them kept from the purview of her investigators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly, no; however, Mrs. Clinton did suggest that those emails may have been destroyed as personal and irrelevant to the investigation, which further suggests she wanted them kept from the purview of her investigators.

Which does not suggest anything being hidden, in terms of legal culpability. It means hiding in terms of privacy, and the privacy of the people with whom she was corresponding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which does not suggest anything being hidden, in terms of legal culpability. It means hiding in terms of privacy, and the privacy of the people with whom she was corresponding.

 

I guess that wasn't clear to you from my previous post. Amid my apparent convulsion, I believe your position here is what I expressed.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole email huzzah seems like so much grasping at straws. All the investigative terminology makes any action seem suspicious. Are we really thinking someone who has endured the kind of scrutiny Hillary Clinton has is masterminding Nixon-esque misdeeds on traceable electronic media? Am I wrong to be incredulous? The GOP is afraid of this woman for her brains, but then assumes she's an idiot who thinks deleting emails means they never existed?!

 

Or is this one of those clever political spin-jobs? Do they hope people who realize the emails are just GOP desperation might still think Hillary covered up something else and we just don't know about it? That sounds like American politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole email huzzah seems like so much grasping at straws. All the investigative terminology makes any action seem suspicious. Are we really thinking someone who has endured the kind of scrutiny Hillary Clinton has is masterminding Nixon-esque misdeeds on traceable electronic media? Am I wrong to be incredulous? The GOP is afraid of this woman for her brains, but then assumes she's an idiot who thinks deleting emails means they never existed?!

 

Or is this one of those clever political spin-jobs? Do they hope people who realize the emails are just GOP desperation might still think Hillary covered up something else and we just don't know about it? That sounds like American politics.

 

 

It's a good old-fashioned witch hunt. Start with the conclusion that someone is guilty, then start looking for evidence. You will always find something that's coincidental, or an honest mistake (since nobody is perfect), but in light of the hunt, and anomaly whatsoever is assumed to be evidence of guilt, since you've already assumed guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole email huzzah seems like so much grasping at straws. All the investigative terminology makes any action seem suspicious. Are we really thinking someone who has endured the kind of scrutiny Hillary Clinton has is masterminding Nixon-esque misdeeds on traceable electronic media?

 

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

 

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

 

 

The GOP is afraid of this woman for her brains, but then assumes she's an idiot who thinks deleting emails means they never existed?!

 

The GOP is a shell of its former self. It was easily co-opted by the shallow buffoon Trump. I don't think anyone has ever made the claim that Clinton is dumb. She's undoubtedly very smart. It's her sociopathic behavior that should make people afraid.

 

 

Do they hope people who realize the emails are just GOP desperation might still think Hillary covered up something else and we just don't know about it?

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the very act of deleting governmental e-mail an offence ?

At least it is in Canada ( as our Liberal Provincial Government has found out ).

 

Never mind the contents of the e-mails, she should know better than to delete ANY of them.

 

She's committed various acts of bad judgement ( maybe even criminal ) but I'll still be glad when she becomes president.

Just consider the alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

I had a look at your link and if the details provided are true, they are obviously not the offenses Mrs. Clinton is alleged to have committed. Neither are they comparable to what she is alleged to have done. If the accusation is that she deleted government related emails, FBI investigators haven't found any evidence that she did. The emails destroyed weren't government related, as she has stated and the investigators have investigated and accepted; therefore, Mrs. Clinton isn't culpable in any action related to their destruction. So, what prosecutorial act did Mrs. Clinton commit? Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton has the power to favorably sway an investigation led by a trusted republican? Although it is exceedingly hard to accept, this is merely political vitriol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I had a look at your link and if the details provided are true, they are obviously not the offenses Mrs. Clinton is alleged to have committed. Neither are they comparable to what she is alleged to have done. If the accusation is that she deleted government related emails, FBI investigators haven't found any evidence that she did. The emails destroyed weren't government related, as she has stated and the investigators have investigated and accepted; therefore, Mrs. Clinton isn't culpable in any action related to their destruction. So, what prosecutorial act did Mrs. Clinton commit? Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton has the power to favorably sway an investigation led by a trusted republican? Although it is exceedingly hard to accept, this is merely political vitriol.

 

"In various interviews, Clinton has said that "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified."[87] However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton's emails did include messages with classification "portion markings".[88][89] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.[90][91] Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He also said it was possible Clinton was not “technically sophisticated” enough to understand what the three classified markings meant.[92][93][94]

According to the State Department, there were 2,093 email chains on the server that were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department at the "Confidential" confidential level.[95][96]
Of the 2,100 emails that contained classified information, Clinton personally wrote 104 and her aides wrote hundreds more.[44][97]"
"Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband."

 

 

Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton has the power to favorably sway an investigation led by a trusted republican?

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that can be dismissed without further consideration since it's an unsupported opinion.

At best it shows that she made a mistake.

That's not news.

Is there any sensible reason to believe that there was ever a president who didn't make mistakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and as for this:

 

 

So, what prosecutorial act did Mrs. Clinton commit?

 

-18 USC §793

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

-18 USC §1924

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

 

 

As Comey said himself:

 

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"In various interviews, Clinton has said that "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified."[87] However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton's emails did include messages with classification "portion markings".[88][89] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.[90][91] Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He also said it was possible Clinton was not “technically sophisticated” enough to understand what the three classified markings meant.[92][93][94]

According to the State Department, there were 2,093 email chains on the server that were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department at the "Confidential" confidential level.[95][96]
Of the 2,100 emails that contained classified information, Clinton personally wrote 104 and her aides wrote hundreds more.[44][97]"

 

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

 

"Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband."

 

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

 

Yes.

 

It is certainly your choice to believe in a conspiracy within the US government to usurp law and justice, indeed there could be many. However, there are people in government with considerably more influence and power than candidate Clinton and they are likely the same sort of people who exposed her husband misdeeds as POTUS.

-18 USC §793

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

-18 USC §1924

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

 

 

As Comey said himself:

 

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

 

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

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.