Hillary Clinton email scandal

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said it was appropriate behaviour. My point was that this doesn't absolve Trump of anything he's said as many Trump supporters seem to think. The issue has been dealt with and isn't going to prevent Clinton taking the White house.

Who brought Trump into this conversation?

This is about Clinton and the acts she took. I don't share your sentiment that this is a settled matter, nor do I feel that it should be.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Who brought Trump into this conversation?

This is about Clinton and the acts she took. I don't share your sentiment that this is a settled matter, nor do I feel that it should be.

There have been several instances on this forum where Trump supporters have brought up the email scandal to try and deflect criticism away from Trump.

Clinton is going to be the next US president. The FBI decided to leave the matter. Unless some new evidence comes to leave then yes, it's sorted.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There have been several instances on this forum where Trump supporters have brought up the email scandal to try and deflect criticism away from Trump.

Clinton is going to be the next US president. The FBI decided to leave the matter. Unless some new evidence comes to leave then yes, it's sorted.

What new evidence would you require? If I remember correctly, you have previously stated you recognise she violated the law. Is that not enough to bar someone from office?

As previously stated, I will be very interested to see if Clinton's staff receive clearances going forward. By any reasonable reading of events, those persons who took part in the sending of classified information in those emails should be barred from ever holding clearances again.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What new evidence would you require? If I remember correctly, you have previously stated you recognise she violated the law. Is that not enough to bar someone from office?

Depends on the law violated. I don't remember recognising any such thing by the way.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As previously stated, I will be very interested to see if Clinton's staff receive clearances going forward. By any reasonable reading of events, those persons who took part in the sending of classified information in those emails should be barred from ever holding clearances again.

Personally, I think this has been blown out of all proportion and the fact that it keeps getting dragged up again and again signifies to me that Trump's sympathisers, or some of them at least recognise that he's going to lose or that they can't defend the vile filth he spouts.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Depends on the law violated. I don't remember recognising any such thing by the way.



Personally, I think this has been blown out of all proportion and the fact that it keeps getting dragged up again and again signifies to me that Trump's sympathisers, or some of them at least recognise that he's going to lose or that they can't defend the vile filth he spouts.

Do you recognise now then that what she and her staff did violated the law? Law that pertains to the handling of the most sensitive information that the US Government controls?

a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do you recognise now then that what she and her staff did violated the law? Law that pertains to the handling of the most sensitive information that the US Government controls?

So why didn't the FBI press charges?

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So why didn't the FBI press charges?

You know my opinion on that, I believe it was due to political pressure.

Do you agree that she broke the law, as stated above?

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You know my opinion on that, I believe it was due to political pressure.

Do you agree that she broke the law, as stated above?

I don't have the whole story. It certainly looks that way but why bother with a private server? I've read in The Economist that she just wanted a convenient location for her emails so she could access them via her Blackberry (Source). I'd disagree that this makes her unsuitable for the presidency though.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't have the whole story. It certainly looks that way but why bother with a private server? I've read in The Economist that she just wanted a convenient location for her emails so she could access them via her Blackberry (Source). I'd disagree that this makes her unsuitable for the presidency though.

From what has been revealed, detailed in sources posted by me in previous comments in this thread if anyone cares enough to look, the NSA offered her a secure laptop for her use. She desired a secure Blackberry device, similar to the one used by the President. They refused, ironically citing concerns over security. She then decided to forego said secure laptop, in favor of her private email server, which could access using an unsecure Blackberry.

This was with the intent of conducting official business as SoS. In that capacity she is one of the highest classification authorities in the Government. Yet she claimed that none of her emails contained any such material and that in fact she was ignorant of classification procedures.

RobertKK

Wikileaks show that her emails were an issue for her inner circle and knew there was a major problem, and that Obama would have known as Hillary sent emails to Obama that were not from a state.gov email server.
Hillary has gotten away with it, and CNN say that Hillary and her inner circle believed they could keep it hidden and get away with keeping the private server unknown.
So who holds the FBI to account, as they seem to have not done their job properly?

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/791063239647956992

As for first lady's Lady Bird Johnson seemed alright - she seemed more obsessed with making America beautiful with flowers - she was responsible for the Highway beautification act, I was in their Texas White House last Wednesday, you could see the rooms that LBJ influenced and which ones the first lady influenced, he had his own version of an oval office there too, and you could enter his Air Force One airplane.
They are also buried there, her headstone has a flower on it - and they were selling flower seeds in the gift shop, so I think as first ladies go, I think being associated with flowers and her belief that flowers raised the spirits of people was a good legacy.
Hillary whatever happens will not have a good legacy, too much questionable stuff going on there...

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

At least you can admit she broke the law, some progress there. Clearly we will never agree with respect to her criminality.

I don't admit any such thing. If the Feds reckoned she broke the law, they'd have charged her. They didn't.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Those other 18 countries were heavily if not wholly dependent upon the US to conduct their operations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/africa/nato-war-in-libya-shows-united-states-was-vital-to-toppling-qaddafi.html?_r=0

Didn't suggest otherwise. I'm simply pointing out the opposite was also true. It was'nt a US intervention, but a multinational one.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can you outline the areas in which you feel that Clinton could hold leverage over Russia? The only likely effective avenue is increased economic sanctions, which will require cooperation from other western nations. A no-fly zone is a lost cause, for the same reasons that Russia was able to get away with annexing the Crimean peninsula and other Ukrainian territories.

Clinton holds massive military leverage. The Russians only asserted their influence in Syria once it became clear that Obama wouldn't follow up on his red line threats with regard to Assad. They're not going to mess about with the U.S. if they understand that there's a new intent to enforce a resolution there. The major dynamic in sustaining the civil war is the Russians, if their support for Assad is undermined, then they'll sign up for a compromise Syrian agreement that'll ensure they save face and maintain their presence in the region (a presence that hasn't bothered the U.S. to date, so is unlikely to bother them into the future). Assad hasn't the ability to govern the entire country any more, so the inevitable outcome is a compromise of some sort - the Russians know this themselves.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You know my opinion on that, I believe it was due to political pressure.

Do you agree that she broke the law, as stated above?

To be guilty of a crime a person must 1 break the law and must have the guilty mind knowing that they broke the law. The Mens Rea and the actus Rea. In the server case it seems there is the actus Rea but the mens Rea is absent. It's really simple but some people don't seem to understand the word knowingly.

Hank Scorpio

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

To be guilty of a crime a person must 1 break the law and must have the guilty mind knowing that they broke the law.

Even if that were true( it's not ), why delete all the emails. Clearly a case of defending the indefensible. She got off the hook because of who she is, not because of what she didn't do.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I don't admit any such thing. If the Feds reckoned she broke the law, they'd have charged her. They didn't.




Didn't suggest otherwise. I'm simply pointing out the opposite was also true. It was'nt a US intervention, but a multinational one.



Clinton holds massive military leverage. The Russians only asserted their influence in Syria once it became clear that Obama wouldn't follow up on his red line threats with regard to Assad. They're not going to mess about with the U.S. if they understand that there's a new intent to enforce a resolution there. The major dynamic in sustaining the civil war is the Russians, if their support for Assad is undermined, then they'll sign up for a compromise Syrian agreement that'll ensure they save face and maintain their presence in the region (a presence that hasn't bothered the U.S. to date, so is unlikely to bother them into the future). Assad hasn't the ability to govern the entire country any more, so the inevitable outcome is a compromise of some sort - the Russians know this themselves.

I have clearly shown the laws she broke, if you can't acknowledge the blindingly obvious, that's on you.

The multinational coalition exists only because the US desired and supported it. None of the other countries have the means to maintain an expeditionary campaign of that type by themselves.

As to your last point, the Russians hold all the cards at this point. Any US threat of military action is going to dismissed as empty rhetoric. To be successful, the US would have to be willing to escalate the conflict significantly. It is not going to risk a shooting war with Russia over Syria, end of. That boat sailed the day the Russians set up an airbase in the country.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

To be guilty of a crime a person must 1 break the law and must have the guilty mind knowing that they broke the law. The Mens Rea and the actus Rea. In the server case it seems there is the actus Rea but the mens Rea is absent. It's really simple but some people don't seem to understand the word knowingly.

Latin inbound!

With respect to classified material, you can (and should) be punished for mishandling said materials, regardless of knowledge or intent.

As to whether Clinton had such knowledge and intent, your belief in her innocence is risible. Every action she took demonstrated a deliberate choice on her part, and to say that a politician with 30 years experience, as she happily trumpets, would be ignorant of her responsibilities as one of the highest classification authorities in the land, is bad fiction.

Pro Hoc Vice

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Even if that were true( it's not ), why delete all the emails. Clearly a case of defending the indefensible. She got off the hook because of who she is, not because of what she didn't do.

Why is my statement not true?

Deleting emails is not a crime.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have clearly shown the laws she broke, if you can't acknowledge the blindingly obvious, that's on you.

The multinational coalition exists only because the US desired and supported it. None of the other countries have the means to maintain an expeditionary campaign of that type by themselves.

As to your last point, the Russians hold all the cards at this point. Any US threat of military action is going to dismissed as empty rhetoric. To be successful, the US would have to be willing to escalate the conflict significantly. It is not going to risk a shooting war with Russia over Syria, end of. That boat sailed the day the Russians set up an airbase in the country.

To be correct the law you claim she broke. I have also said why I believe legally it may be difficult even impossible to show she knowingly broke the law.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Latin inbound!

With respect to classified material, you can (and should) be punished for mishandling said materials, regardless of knowledge or intent.

As to whether Clinton had such knowledge and intent, your belief in her innocence is risible. Every action she took demonstrated a deliberate choice on her part, and to say that a politician with 30 years experience, as she happily trumpets, would be ignorant of her responsibilities as one of the highest classification authorities in the land, is bad fiction.

You may be right it should be a strict liability offence, the problem in Ireland for example such a crime a strict liability offence is that would be unconstitutional.

It's not just my belief that as the evidence does not support the mens Rea it was also the belief of the FBI. Clinton like Trump has not been convicted of any crime and so remain innocent.

The main issue is that (c) is not the same as classified.

ebbsy

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Even if that were true( it's not ), why delete all the emails. Clearly a case of defending the indefensible. She got off the hook because of who she is, not because of what she didn't do.

Why is my statement not true?

Deleting emails is not a crime.

Depends what's in them.

Pro Hoc Vice

ebbsy wrote: »

Depends what's in them.

Can you point at us law that makes the act of deleting an email a crime?

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have clearly shown the laws she broke, if you can't acknowledge the blindingly obvious, that's on you.

The multinational coalition exists only because the US desired and supported it. None of the other countries have the means to maintain an expeditionary campaign of that type by themselves.

As to your last point, the Russians hold all the cards at this point. Any US threat of military action is going to dismissed as empty rhetoric. To be successful, the US would have to be willing to escalate the conflict significantly. It is not going to risk a shooting war with Russia over Syria, end of. That boat sailed the day the Russians set up an airbase in the country.

You haven't clearly shown a law she broke. You've shown a law. The FBI investigated and determined she hadn't broken that law. Now your personal theories regarding how they came to that determination are at odds with their clear explanation, which is framed by an understanding of the law, not political expediency.

What I don't get is the strange notion that a Republican FBI director, knowing that he's likely to be out under a congressional spotlight, would jeoprodise his professional reputation to ensure that a Democrat evaded prosecution for a crime in the back of his political decision. It just doesn't wash in any terms. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

The U.S. doesn't risk any shooting war with the Russians in Syria. The Turks shot down a Russian jet already, and I don't see the shooting war there. It's just hyperbole.

Overheal

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Can you point at us law that makes the act of deleting an email a crime?

It may fall under destruction of evidence etc etc

Pro Hoc Vice

Overheal wrote: »

It may fall under destruction of evidence etc etc

It may but there is no stand alone offence in deleting a email.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You may be right it should be a strict liability offence, the problem in Ireland for example such a crime a strict liability offence is that would be unconstitutional.

It's not just my belief that as the evidence does not support the mens Rea it was also the belief of the FBI. Clinton like Trump has not been convicted of any crime and so remain innocent.

The main issue is that (c) is not the same as classified.

No, as was bolded in the testimony of Director Comey in the previous post, the main issue is the use of an unsecure network to transmit classified material and that individuals without clearances were thus exposed to said materials. It doesn't matter how said material was marked, its existence in and of itself is a crime.

But you know this already, from the previous we went round on this.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It may but there is no stand alone offence in deleting a email.

As I understand it, she was obligated to maintain her official correspondence as SoS. By deleting her emails she violated that mandate, that would be in addition to issues pertaining to evidence destruction.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

its existence in and of itself is a crime.

No it's not. As clearly articulated by Comey in his deposition to Congress. If there had been a crime, it would have been prosecuted. But then, as you say, you know this already.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You haven't clearly shown a law she broke. You've shown a law. The FBI investigated and determined she hadn't broken that law. Now your personal theories regarding how they came to that determination are at odds with their clear explanation, which is framed by an understanding of the law, not political expediency.

What I don't get is the strange notion that a Republican FBI director, knowing that he's likely to be out under a congressional spotlight, would jeoprodise his professional reputation to ensure that a Democrat evaded prosecution for a crime in the back of his political decision. It just doesn't wash in any terms. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

The U.S. doesn't risk any shooting war with the Russians in Syria. The Turks shot down a Russian jet already, and I don't see the shooting war there. It's just hyperbole.

I have shown the law. I have shown her actions, taken by her, deliberately, over the course of years. These actions violated said laws. The Director of the FBI testified that these actions violated the law and that then Secretary Clinton did not tell the truth when testifying before Congress with respect to her emails.

But she didn't break the law according to you and others. That you and other posters refuse to acknowledge this simple fact is worrying and disappointing.

As to Syria, what is the US to do when Russian jets disregard the No-Fly zone and bomb targets? Is Syria worth risking nuclear war over? Is it worth the billions of dollars that it would cost to maintain? To my mind, it is not.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have shown the law. I have shown her actions, taken by her, deliberately, over the course of years. These actions violated said laws. The Director of the FBI testified that these actions violated the law and that then Secretary Clinton did not tell the truth when testifying before Congress with respect to her emails.

But she didn't break the law according to you and others. That you and other posters refuse to acknowledge this simple fact is worrying and disappointing.

As to Syria, what is the US to do when Russian jets disregard the No-Fly zone and bomb targets? Is Syria worth risking nuclear war over? Is it worth the billions of dollars that it would cost to maintain? To my mind, it is not.

Comey did not say that the actions of Clinton violated the law. He was clear that they did not. He said that:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

With regard to Syria - more hyperbole. Where is the nuclear war on the back of Turkey shooting down their plane? Where are the billions of dollars suddenly spring from?

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, as was bolded in the testimony of Director Comey in the previous post, the main issue is the use of an unsecure network to transmit classified material and that individuals without clearances were thus exposed to said materials. It doesn't matter how said material was marked, its existence in and of itself is a crime.

But you know this already, from the previous we went round on this.

You again ignore the knowingly how can a person be guilty of incorrect use of classified material if it can not be shown they knew it was classified material. Mens Rea is not a difficult concept.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As I understand it, she was obligated to maintain her official correspondence as SoS. By deleting her emails she violated that mandate, that would be in addition to issues pertaining to evidence destruction.

Again is there evidence that she knowingly was involved in the act. From my understanding a third party did the act.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You again ignore the knowingly how can a person be guilty of incorrect use of classified material if it can not be shown they knew it was classified material. Mens Rea is not a difficult concept.

15 years in office, handling classified materials. Served as SoS, which is one of the highest classification authorities in the land. Decided to forego the proffered secure laptop from the NSA in favor of an unsecure email server connected to personal, unsecured Blackberrys.

Didn't know that her official correspondence as SoS would contain classified materials.

Believable.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Comey did not say that the actions of Clinton violated the law. He was clear that they did not. He said that:


With regard to Syria - more hyperbole. Where is the nuclear war on the back of Turkey shooting down their plane? Where are the billions of dollars suddenly spring from?

Comey stated that they found numerous emails to have contained classified materials, including up to Top Secret. On an unsecure network. That is a crime, period.

As was bolded in transcript I posted, he said that in other circumstances, these actions would justify punishment. This is to my eyes, a clear example of political considerations trumping the law.

Does Turkey possess nuclear weapons that I'm unaware of? How much do you think running and maintain the military presence required for a No Fly zone costs? Perhaps you should look up previous efforts and come back to us.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

15 years in office, handling classified materials. Served as SoS, which is one of the highest classification authorities in the land. Decided to forego the proffered secure laptop from the NSA in favor of an unsecure email server connected to personal, unsecured Blackberrys.

Didn't know that her official correspondence as SoS would contain classified materials.

Believable.

Yes it is as the 3 classified e-mails marked with (c) not as they should have been classified.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Comey stated that they found numerous emails to have contained classified materials, including up to Top Secret. On an unsecure network. That is a crime, period.

As was bolded in transcript I posted, he said that in other circumstances, these actions would justify punishment. This is to my eyes, a clear example of political considerations trumping the law.

Does Turkey possess nuclear weapons that I'm unaware of? How much do you think running and maintain the military presence required for a No Fly zone costs? Perhaps you should look up previous efforts and come back to us.

He went on to confirm that the emails incorrectly marked at the end of the body of the text with (c) rather than at the head of the e-mail with classified. That is the reason the charge could not be proven.

gosplan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Comey stated that they found numerous emails to have contained classified materials, including up to Top Secret. On an unsecure network. That is a crime, period.

As was bolded in transcript I posted, he said that in other circumstances, these actions would justify punishment. This is to my eyes, a clear example of political considerations trumping the law.

One person (I think) has been charged with LEAKING classified material in recent time in the US. It's rarely followed up with charges, and that's leaking to the media or some other organisation.

You're talking about not following the correct security protocols.

Show me someone else who was locked up for that before you keep shouting 'lock her up' and then claiming it's all politically influenced.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Comey stated that they found numerous emails to have contained classified materials, including up to Top Secret. On an unsecure network. That is a crime, period.

It's really not. As explained by the man tasked with establishing if a crime had been committed.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As was bolded in transcript I posted, he said that in other circumstances, these actions would justify punishment. This is to my eyes, a clear example of political considerations trumping the law.

He said that in other circumstances the actions might result in professional sanctioning, not criminalisation. You're misrepresenting the facts once again:

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.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Does Turkey possess nuclear weapons that I'm unaware of? How much do you think running and maintain the military presence required for a No Fly zone costs? Perhaps you should look up previous efforts and come back to us.

Seemingly so. The Turks have nukes in their territory, and as a NATO member, an attack on Turkey calls for a NATO response. The additional costs for maintaining a no-fly zone over sections of Syria, in a situation where there's already U.S. military air presence and actions is not going to cost significantly more to maintain.

Overheal

Didn't Obama appoint a bunch of czars and are we really still talking about this

Zubeneschamali

Overheal wrote: »

are we really still talking about this

I think this shows that the Trump supporters have conceded - they are going into Attack President Hillary For The Next 8 Years mode.

RobertKK

MSNBC go after the Clintons, and are disgusted the Clintons used Haiti earthquake fundraising to make money for themselves...

https://twitter.com/morning_joe/status/791588439917367297

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

The POTUS is free to appoint pretty much at will. The entire cabinet is appointed and not elected, do you also have issues with that?

Free to appoint whoever Wall Street banks tell him to according to WikiLeaks...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/15/wiki-o15.html

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

It's really not. As explained by the man tasked with establishing if a crime had been committed.


He said that in other circumstances the actions might result in professional sanctioning, not criminalisation. You're misrepresenting the facts once again:



Seemingly so. The Turks have nukes in their territory, and as a NATO member, an attack on Turkey calls for a NATO response. The additional costs for maintaining a no-fly zone over sections of Syria, in a situation where there's already U.S. military air presence and actions is not going to cost significantly more to maintain.

Again, you display a fundamental lack of knowledge with respect to how classified materials are handled and the rules that are designed to protect them. What you are saying is factually incorrect. The US Code is very clear on the actions that are considered violations, actions that Clinton and her staff commited multiple times.

You and others are seeking to hide behind the claim that Clinton and her staff acted in ignorance of the law. That is not a credible claim, to me and many others. That the DoJ chose to use that as reasoning for deciding not to pursue punishment reeks of political interference.

For the sake of debate, let's pursue that line of argument. Are you comfortable having someone holding the most powerful office on the nation who is so astonishingly ignorant of her duties and responsibilities as Clinton has claimed to be? Given she would thus have greater access to state secrets, what further leaks should we expect? Bear in mind she revealed classified information in the 3rd debate when she spoke about the nuclear response sequences.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, you display a fundamental lack of knowledge with respect to how classified materials are handled and the rules that are designed to protect them. What you are saying is factually incorrect. The US Code is very clear on the actions that are considered violations, actions that Clinton and her staff commited multiple times.

You and others are seeking to hide behind the claim that Clinton and her staff acted in ignorance of the law. That is not a credible claim, to me and many others. That the DoJ chose to use that as reasoning for deciding not to pursue punishment reeks of political interference.

For the sake of debate, let's pursue that line of argument. Are you comfortable having someone holding the most powerful office on the nation who is so astonishingly ignorant of her duties and responsibilities as Clinton has claimed to be? Given she would thus have greater access to state secrets, what further leaks should we expect? Bear in mind she revealed classified information in the 3rd debate when she spoke about the nuclear response sequences.

No one is saying anyone acted in ignorance of the law it is simply based on the facts the ingredients of the offence can not be proven.

If you don't understand Mens Rea google it you might find it interesting.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No one is saying anyone acted in ignorance of the law it is simply based on the facts the ingredients of the offence can not be proven.

If you don't understand Mens Rea google it you might find it interesting.

No, that has been your argument and Clinton's. The only way they can claim that she should not be punished is that she was ignorant of the law. For 4 years, serving as SoS. After 16 years in elected office. The evidence is clear, she broke the law as stated in the US Code.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, that has been your argument and Clinton's. The only way they can claim that she should not be punished is that she was ignorant of the law. For 4 years, serving as SoS. After 16 years in elected office. The evidence is clear, she broke the law as stated in the US Code.

The claim is she can not be charged as the evidence is not there that she knowingly broke the law it's called due process "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" the 5th amendment requires as much protection as the 2nd.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, you display a fundamental lack of knowledge with respect to how classified materials are handled and the rules that are designed to protect them. What you are saying is factually incorrect. The US Code is very clear on the actions that are considered violations, actions that Clinton and her staff commited multiple times.

You and others are seeking to hide behind the claim that Clinton and her staff acted in ignorance of the law. That is not a credible claim, to me and many others. That the DoJ chose to use that as reasoning for deciding not to pursue punishment reeks of political interference.

The FBI were very clear that no issue of criminality arose. That's the only claim that matters, and it's a claim that derives from the informed reading of the law and the context of an investigation the emails and their treatment. That's more than enough knowledge to dismiss your personal opinion that political expediency drove that determination. It's a theory that makes little sense in any case, but we don't really need to go there - the Feds said no crime was committed.

gosplan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, that has been your argument and Clinton's. The only way they can claim that she should not be punished is that she was ignorant of the law. For 4 years, serving as SoS. After 16 years in elected office. The evidence is clear, she broke the law as stated in the US Code.

What law??

What would she be charged with?

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

The FBI were very clear that no issue of criminality arose. That's the only claim that matters, and it's a claim that derives from the informed reading of the law and the context of an investigation the emails and their treatment. That's more than enough knowledge to dismiss your personal opinion that political expediency drove that determination. It's a theory that makes little sense in any case, but we don't really need to go there - the Feds said no crime was committed.

That claim is not supported by the evidence, at all. Again, you and the FBI are using a claim of ignorance on the part of Clinton and her staff to justify not pressing charges.

The evidence presented in testimony to Congress is unequivocal, actions were repeatedly taken which are against the law as written.

You and others are happy to support a candidate for President who claims a complete lack of knowledge on some of the most important duties what she would be charged with carrying out.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The claim is she can not be charged as the evidence is not there that she knowingly broke the law it's called due process "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" the 5th amendment requires as much protection as the 2nd.

So ignorance of her duties then, yes?

Such an inspiring standard to get behind.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So ignorance of her duties then, yes?

Such an inspiring standard to get behind.

So you are accepting that her actions can not be proved to be criminal?

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you are accepting that her actions can not be proved to be criminal?

No, I am pointing out that your argument in defense of Clinton boils down to her being ignorant of her duties.

Her actions are clearly in violation of the law.