Hillary Clinton email scandal

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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.

That is not my argument if you took that as my argument then you clearly do not understand Mens Rea. Read back over what I said you will clearly see my argument is not what you claim, I can only assume you have an agenda with no basis for your argument in law or fact.

RobertKK

Seems the mainstream media outlets in the US are starting to focus on Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and how the Clinton Foundation was used via it's contacts to generate speaking fees for Bill Clinton.
Bill got a half a million dollars in speaking fees from contacts used for Haiti fundraising.
In total, tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees were generated from contacts in the Clinton foundation.

aloyisious

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

a state is trying to deny 45,000 new voters the right to vote most of The of the 45,000 are African American!

Would that be in connection with a Republican Governor, or Republican-controlled State government (State Gov's house or State Reps House) trying to push through voter-law registration changes via Republican House Bills, similar to such an attempt shot down in Federal Court very recently as an unconstitutional 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.

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

Your words.

Claiming ignorance on Clinton's part as reason not to pursue prosecution.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your words.

Claiming ignorance on Clinton's part as reason not to pursue prosecution.

Reread my post I do not claim Clinton was ignorant of the law or the fact that e-mail were sent. I simply said it could not after investigation that she knowingly knew that classified material was sent. If you can not see the difference we'll not much I can do.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Reread my post I do not claim Clinton was ignorant of the law or the fact that e-mail were sent. I simply said it could not after investigation that she knowingly knew that classified material was sent. If you can not see the difference we'll not much I can do.

She didn't knowingly break the law for 4 years. If that is not a claim of ignorance, then we clearly have different understanding of the word.

I do not buy that claim at all.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That claim is not supported by the evidence, at all.

Sez you, but not the actual investigators.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Sez you, but not the actual investigators.

Says the evidence presented to Congress and testified by Director Comey.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Says the evidence presented to Congress and testified by Director Comey.

The evidence he presented was that there was no criminality involved. He was very clear on this. And he also made clear it was on the basis of the evidence that they formed this judgement.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

The evidence he presented was that there was no criminality involved. He was very clear on this. And he also made clear it was on the basis of the evidence that they formed this judgement.

No, the determination was they decided not to pursue charged based on declaring Clinton acted in ignorance.

The evidence of her actions is separate and clear.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, the determination was they decided not to pursue charged based on declaring Clinton acted in ignorance.

The evidence of her actions is separate and clear.

That's not the determination he outlined - which I've previously posted up. The FBI found no evidence of criminality - that's just the fact of the matter.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

That's not the determination he outlined - which I've previously posted up. The FBI found no evidence of criminality - that's just the fact of the matter.

You are incorrect, I really can't state my position any clearer.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are incorrect, I really can't state my position any clearer.

I've quoted the man - not sure where there's room for misunderstanding. Best of luck with your position, which runs counter to the investigator's findings.

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.

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.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She didn't knowingly break the law for 4 years. If that is not a claim of ignorance, then we clearly have different understanding of the word.

I do not buy that claim at all.

It's not that she did not know the law it's not that her system did not send emails it is IT COULD NOT BE PROVED that she knew any of the E-mails where classified. There is no offence in disclosing classified information unless it can be proved the person knew the information was classified.

An example a person in the employment of the state is given a briefcase and told to deliver to a certain place. Top secret material should be clearly marked "Top Secret" in this case there is a small s near the locks. The person being lazy posts the briefcase or hires a person to deliever the package. As it can not be proved the person knew it was top secret then a conviction not possible.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I've quoted the man - not sure where there's room for misunderstanding. Best of luck with your position, which runs counter to the investigator's findings.

Their decision is based on asserting that Clinton acted in ignorance for 4 years, which an incredible claim about a person running to be President.

Answer these straightforward questions, the answers to which can be found in the official transcripts, links to which I have posted previously.

Did Clinton have an insecure sever, thru which she sent classified information?

Did doing so allow people without clearances to view said information?

Did she expose said information to potential hacking?

Then look at the US Code which covers classified materials.

Do the actions above violate that Code, yes or no?

To date no one in this thread has deigned to answer these simple questions wheb challenged.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Their decision is based on asserting that Clinton acted in ignorance for 4 years, which an incredible claim about a person running to be President.

Answer these straightforward questions, the answers to which can be found in the official transcripts, links to which I have posted previously.

Did Clinton have an insecure sever, thru which she sent classified information?

Did doing so allow people without clearances to view said information?

Did she expose said information to potential hacking?

Then look at the US Code which covers classified materials.

Do the actions above violate that Code, yes or no?

To date no one in this thread has deigned to answer these simple questions wheb challenged.

I'm not that interested in an armchair general review of the case. The Feds have done this already, with access to far more information than you or I have, and said that no criminality took place. The evidence led them to a different conclusion than you'd like - time to move on.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It's not that she did not know the law it's not that her system did not send emails it is IT COULD NOT BE PROVED that she knew any of the E-mails where classified. There is no offence in disclosing classified information unless it can be proved the person knew the information was classified.

An example a person in the employment of the state is given a briefcase and told to deliver to a certain place. Top secret material should be clearly marked "Top Secret" in this case there is a small s near the locks. The person being lazy posts the briefcase or hires a person to deliever the package. As it can not be proved the person knew it was top secret then a conviction not possible.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is profound if that is your expressed understanding. I say that as an observation, with no insult or slight intended.

Everything you have stated is extremely incorrect. If you are interested I expanding your understanding, you can search online for the Regulations that govern the subject.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is profound if that is your expressed understanding. I say that as an observation, with no insult or slight intended.

Everything you have stated is extremely incorrect. If you are interested I expanding your understanding, you can search online for the Regulations that govern the subject.

Or just read the determination of the convenient recent FBI investigation on this very matter. Result: No criminality took place.
If there's any profound confusion - it's in relation to these facts. I say that as an observation, with no insult or slight intended.

AbusesToilets

Quel surprise, deflection and an unwillingness to answer a straightforward question for fear of having to admit being incorrect.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Quel surprise, deflection and an unwillingness to answer a straightforward question for fear of having to admit being incorrect.

I gave a very straightforward answer, and no deflection. But then you've some difficulties with accepting answers that run counter to your personal opinions - as demonstrated by your inability to accept Comey's findings.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your lack of knowledge on this subject is profound if that is your expressed understanding. I say that as an observation, with no insult or slight intended.

Everything you have stated is extremely incorrect. If you are interested I expanding your understanding, you can search online for the Regulations that govern the subject.

The only person showing a lack of understanding of the law is you. The FBI have said they could not prove a breach of the law if you read why any understanding of the common law criminal legal system will show clearly the lack of proof of the mens Rea requirement you do not want to accept that. That is fine but it does not change a very basic principle of the criminal law. A first year criminal law student could explain this to you if you asked one.

BTW if you read the law relating to the possible offences you would understand why the word knowingly is important actually it's vital.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I gave a very straightforward answer. But then you've some difficulties with accepting answers that run counter to your personal opinions - as demonstrated by your inability to accept Comey's findings.

Did you answer the questions I posed? You did not.

Did Clinton send classified material over an unsecured network, yes or no?

Did doing so allow people without clearances to view said info, yes or no?

Do said action violate the US Code, yes or no?

Simples.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Did you answer the questions I posed? You did not.

I certainly did. Review at your leisure.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Did Clinton send classified material over an unsecured network, yes or no?

Did doing so allow people without clearances to view said info, yes or no?

Do said action violate the US Code, yes or no?

Simples.

Did any of the above result in criminal actions? Nope. Investigated and determined not to have been criminal.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The only person showing a lack of understanding of the law is you. The FBI have said they could not prove a breach of the law if you read why any understanding of the common law criminal legal system will show clearly the lack of proof of the mens Rea requirement you do not want to accept that. That is fine but it does not change a very basic principle of the criminal law. A first year criminal law student could explain this to you if you asked one.

BTW if you read the law relating to the possible offences you would understand why the word knowingly is important actually it's vital.

I have read the relevant law, I've posted it on here enough times.

You believe she acted in ignorance, I do not.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Did you answer the questions I posed? You did not.

Did Clinton send classified material over an unsecured network, yes or no?

Did doing so allow people without clearances to view said info, yes or no?

Do said action violate the US Code, yes or no?

Simples.

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 No because of the word knowingly don't you get it or are you so blind by hate of her you ignore reality

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I certainly did. Review at your leisure.



Did any of the above result in criminal actions? Nope. Investigated and determined not to have been criminal.

Again, deflection. I didn't ask if they resulted in prosecution, I asked if they occurred and if so, do they violate the law as written?

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have read the relevant law, I've posted it on here enough times.

You believe she acted in ignorance, I do not.

That is not what I said I will repeat as you don't seem to accept reality. It could not be proven she knew the information was classified as no e-mail was headed "classified" she have full knowledge of the law.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have read the relevant law, I've posted it on here enough times.

You believe she acted in ignorance, I do not.

You may have seen a few planes too, but that doesn't make you a pilot.

The whole affair was investigated by impartial trained criminal investigators - who say that no crimes were determined. What you believe, without the same access, knowledge, or expertise, is entirely up to you.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, deflection. I didn't ask if they resulted in prosecution,

I never mentioned prosecutions? But now you bring them up...

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I asked if they occurred and if so, do they violate the law as written?

There was no prosecution, because no crimes were found. Do you really need the FBI statement laid out again?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 No because of the word knowingly don't you get it or are you so blind by hate of her you ignore reality

I don't believe for a second that she acted in ignorance, for 4 years. She took very deliberate steps to step up her communications, and I cannot believe that someone with her experience and responsibilities could be that incompetent. The alternative is terrifying given her likely ascension to the Presidency.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I never mentioned prosecutions? But now you bring them up...


There was no prosecution, because no crimes were found. Do you really need the FBI statement laid out again?

Again, deflection. Answer the questions.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You may have seen a few planes too, but that doesn't make you a pilot.

The whole affair was investigated by impartial trained criminal investigators - who say that no crimes were determined. What you believe, without the same access, knowledge, or expertise, is entirely up to you.

Deflection

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, deflection. I didn't ask if they resulted in prosecution, I asked if they occurred and if so, do they violate the law as written?

Tomorrow you have no cash so you go to bank machine you withdraw 100. You go to shop and buy a shirt you get change and as you leave the manager calls you back, the police are called and say that the notes are forged, it can be proved there was no 100 in the till before and that the 100 never left the sales persons hand.

Are you guilty of passing a forged note.

The legislation lets assume you know passing forged currency is illegal

"34.—(1) A person who—

(a) passes or tenders as genuine any thing which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be, a counterfeit of a currency note or coin, or

(b) delivers any such thing to another person with the intention that that person or any other person shall pass or tender it as genuine,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who, without lawful authority or excuse, delivers to another person anything which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be, a counterfeit of a currency note or coin is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), 10 years, or

(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2), 5 years,

or both."

The important bit is "passes or tenders as genuine any thing which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be,"

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, deflection. Answer the questions.

You can keep up the deflection mantra - it doesn't gain any extra merit through repetition. I'm telling you I'm not interested in answering your questions. I don't pretend to have had the same access as the investigators had, and they are very clear that no crime took place.

alastair

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Scott Gration wasn't fired.
Scott Gration also wasn't charged with any crime.
Failing to see any irony.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You can keep up the deflection mantra - it doesn't gain any extra merit through repetition. I'm telling you I'm not interested in answering your questions. I don't pretend to have had the same access as the investigators had, and they are very clear that no crime took place.

No surprises there.

Clinton knowingly established a private, unsecured communications network.

She knowingly used this to conduct official State Department business for 4 years.

In doing this, she unknowingly sent classified material.

Seems plausible.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Tomorrow you have no cash so you go to bank machine you withdraw 100. You go to shop and buy a shirt you get change and as you leave the manager calls you back, the police are called and say that the notes are forged, it can be proved there was no 100 in the till before and that the 100 never left the sales persons hand.

Are you guilty of passing a forged note.

The legislation lets assume you know passing forged currency is illegal

"34.—(1) A person who—

(a) passes or tenders as genuine any thing which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be, a counterfeit of a currency note or coin, or

(b) delivers any such thing to another person with the intention that that person or any other person shall pass or tender it as genuine,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who, without lawful authority or excuse, delivers to another person anything which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be, a counterfeit of a currency note or coin is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), 10 years, or

(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2), 5 years,

or both."

The important bit is "passes or tenders as genuine any thing which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be,"

Unknowingly breaking the law has some plausibility in a singular event, not over the course of 4 years.

gosplan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Their decision is based on asserting that Clinton acted in ignorance for 4 years, which an incredible claim about a person running to be President.

Answer these straightforward questions, the answers to which can be found in the official transcripts, links to which I have posted previously.

Did Clinton have an insecure sever, thru which she sent classified information?

Did doing so allow people without clearances to view said information?

Did she expose said information to potential hacking?

Then look at the US Code which covers classified materials.

Do the actions above violate that Code, yes or no?

To date no one in this thread has deigned to answer these simple questions wheb challenged.

Yes. She violated a code.

I happen to think knowingly.

But why are you talking about criminal charges???

It's obvious that this would be a sanction/rebuke.

Where does the 'lock her up' rationale come from?

Timberrrrrrrr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No surprises there.

Clinton knowingly established a private, unsecured communications network.

She knowingly used this to conduct official State Department business for 4 years.

In doing this, she unknowingly sent classified material.

Seems plausible.

Did she know it was unsecured? Do you have visions in your head of HRC configuring the server herself?

AbusesToilets

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Did she know it was unsecured? Do you have visions in your head of HRC configuring the server herself?

A secured server would be set up through established government processes, SIPR is the ubiquitous one utilised by both the US military and civilian agencies.

A secure network here is refering specifically to US Government secure networks.

AbusesToilets

gosplan wrote: »

Yes. She violated a code.

I happen to think knowingly.

But why are you talking about criminal charges???

It's obvious that this would be a sanction/rebuke.

Where does the 'lock her up' rationale come from?

Criminal charges run the gamut from official censure, to loss of clearance, fines to imprisonment. The lock her up rhetoric is from the Trump campaign, and thus empty waffle.

Timberrrrrrrr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

A secured server would be set up through established government processes, SIPR is the ubiquitous one utilised by both the US military and civilian agencies.

A secure network here is refering specifically to US Government secure networks.

So the answer to my question is no, you don't know if she knew it was unsecured.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's not really the fully truth though, is it?http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/11/david-shuster/no-email-use-didnt-sink-us-ambassador-kenya/
(excerpts below)

And by the claims of some on here, he is surely rotting away in a prison cell somewhere? Which is odd, because here is is on TV, only a little over a month ago...

The first bullet point in the inspector general’s report is a global indictment of Gration’s capacity to serve as chief of mission. It reads:

"The Ambassador has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission. Of more than 80 chiefs of mission inspected in recent cycles, the Ambassador ranked last for interpersonal relations, next to last on both managerial skill and attention to morale, and third from last in his overall scores from surveys of mission members. The inspectors found no reason to question these assessments; the Ambassador’s leadership to date has been divisive and ineffective."

---

The auditors noted that many of the 19 federal agencies operating out of the embassy had little or no access to Gration, who they said showed an "ongoing unwillingness" to meet with agency heads. The auditors reported confusion and disruption.

"Unless corrected there is a risk that the country team will become dysfunctional," the auditors wrote.

Other issues included that Gration did not read classified cables and that an initiative he launched redirecting nearly $550 million in U.S. health assistance proved "disruptive."

---

Relating to emails, the report said:

"The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information. Notwithstanding his talk about the importance of mission staff doing the right thing, the Ambassador by deed or word has encouraged it to do the opposite."

---

To our reading, Gration’s email habits were one point in a series of issues.

Ronald Neumann, who served as American ambassador three times, most recently in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007, agreed. Neumann, who is now president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, said he finds it hard to miss the main message of the inspector general’s report.

The message, Neumann said, is, "The ambassador is completely incompetent and should be removed as quickly as possible before he does any more damage to American interests."

Billy86

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, deflection. Answer the questions.

Question: why is Scott Gration not in jail?

AbusesToilets

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So the answer to my question is no, you don't know if she knew it was unsecured.

If it was not established by official means to connect to one of the official networks, then yes, she would have known it was unsecured. You can't connect to one of those secure networks without going through an official agency, which she did not do.

AbusesToilets

Billy86 wrote: »

Question: why is Scott Gration not in jail?

I have read nothing on the case, so i am not in a position to conment.

gosplan

I just read that law and there's no way she can be charged under that.

It reads to me like a law written when classified files were kept in a cabinet in a locked room.

You have to 'knowingly remove' them.

Apart from the 'knowingly' but which is always deniable, e-mails make it hard to interpret.

If someone mailed HRC, she didn't 'remove' anything.

Did she copy files to the server or anything?

Timberrrrrrrr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If it was not established by official means to connect to one of the official networks, then yes, she would have known it was unsecured. You can't connect to one of those secure networks without going through an official agency, which she did not do.

Who established it?

Was HRC told it wasn't connected to the official networks?

Was she aware it wasn't set up through official agencies?

Personally I couldn't give a tiny shiney sh/te about either of them and don't think either deserve to be elected president but your (and others) CONSTANT grasping at straws while screaming EMAIIIILLLLLLSSSSS is getting tiresome.

What do you (and others) know that the FBI don't? How can you consistently make claims of laws being broken (hint: laws were jot broken, policy was not adhered to) without providing any evidence?

AbusesToilets

gosplan wrote: »

I just read that law and there's no way she can be charged under that.

It reads to me like a law written when classified files were kept in a cabinet in a locked room.

You have to 'knowingly remove' them.

Apart from the 'knowingly' but which is always deniable, e-mails make it hard to interpret.

If someone mailed HRC, she didn't 'remove' anything.

Did she copy files to the server or anything?

The only way for classified materials to be on an unclassified network is for someone to physically transcribe them. Secure networks are air gapped to prevent electronic transmission.