Hillary Clinton email scandal

AbusesToilets

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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?

The evidence is in the testimony to Congress. The Law is states in the US Codes which cover these issues.

Clinton personally sought the establishment of her private server and it's use for official correspondence.

Billy86

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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

Well here you go - http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/11/david-shuster/no-email-use-didnt-sink-us-ambassador-kenya/

So why is it that he is not in jail, as per your assertions?

But before she even left the podium, Clinton got pushback on whether she truly did follow State Department rules. David Shuster, a New York reporter for Al Jazeera America, brought up the 2012 resignation of Scott Gration, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya.

"What about Scott Gration, who was forced to resign two years ago because of his personal use of emails?" Shuster asked.

"David, I think you should go online and read the entire IG (inspector general) report," Clinton replied. "That is not an accurate representation of what happened."

---

The report goes on to say that Gration "ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system," and that Gration "very infrequently logs onto his classified account, which would allow him to read cables and classified emails."

AbusesToilets

Billy86 wrote: »

Well here you go - http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/11/david-shuster/no-email-use-didnt-sink-us-ambassador-kenya/

So why is it that he is not in jail, as per your assertions?

Just from reading what you have posted there, he did not transmit classified material over an unsecure network. That's quite different from what Clinton did.

I have also not called for Clinton to be jailed, merely that she face the sanctions and punishment that her actions merit and what would be applied to anyone else in that circumstance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

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.

No they don't. 'Official censure' is neither a charge, nor a sentence. Nor is loss of clearance. Neither have anything to do with criminality.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

No they don't. 'Official censure' is neither a charge, nor a sentence. Nor is loss of clearance. Neither have anything to do with criminality.

Again, you are incorrect. They are punishments that can be meted out for violations of the law. Or do you think all those found guilty of a crime go to jail ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, you are incorrect. They are punishments that can be meted out for violations of the law. Or do you think all those found guilty of a crime go to jail ?

No they're not. Absolute rubbish.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

No they're not. Absolute rubbish.

Have you read the relevant US Codes? They state the possible punishments. Loss of clearance as fines are typical punishments for violations.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Have you read the relevant US Codes? They state the possible punishments. Loss of clearance as fines are typical punishments for violations.

Post them up then.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Post them up then.

I have done so, multiple times in the election thread. Within the last 2 days in fact.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have done so, multiple times in the election thread. Within the last 2 days in fact.

Then throw up a link to the relevant posts. You seem very reticent to stand over your claim.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Then throw up a link to the relevant posts. You seem very reticent to stand over your claim.

Post 56

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101475617&postcount=56

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Post 56

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101475617&postcount=56

Nothing there to support your claim.

On sentencing:

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Nothing there to support your claim.

On sentencing:

Eh, I clearly said that a range of punishments can levied, to include fines and imprisonment.

So, yea...

gosplan

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?

The second one is basically espionage and isn't relevant at all. It really isn't.

The first one is relevant but as mentioned before, it's very fuzzy.

AbusesToilets

gosplan wrote: »

The second one is basically espionage and isn't relevant at all. It really isn't.

The first one is relevant but as mentioned before, it's very fuzzy.

The context in this case is that unauthorized people were given access to classified information because of these actions.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Eh, I clearly said that a range of punishments can levied, to include fines and imprisonment.

So, yea...

Ehh, no - you claimed that 'official censure' and 'loss of clearance' were legal sentences for criminal activity. There's nothing so far to support that claim. I'd have thought I was pretty clear in what I was asking you to stand over - and you claimed you'd already posted the 'relevant codes'? Nothing so far.

Originally Posted by alastair
No they're not. Absolute rubbish.

Have you read the relevant US Codes? They state the possible punishments. Loss of clearance as fines are typical punishments for violations.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, no - you claimed that 'official censure' and 'loss of clearance' were legal sentences for criminal activity. There's nothing so far to support that claim. I'd have thought I was pretty clear in what I was asking you to stand over - and you claimed you'd already posted the 'relevant codes'? Nothing so far.

Nothing in that sentence is contradictory. Do you not grasp the concept of administrative punishment or believe that a person who is convicted of a violation would also not be barred from holding a clearance in the future ?

Carcharodon

70 years of age, decades in public service and this is the best the republicans can come up with, give me a break and don't waste my tax money.
Newsflash people, politicians bend the rules.
I expect top politicians to have to make decisions that may not be perceived as 100% the correct action to be taken. I expect top politicians to have to make back door deals domestically and internationally in order to get stuff done.
One can only imagine some of the shady things done over the years on both sides of the isle

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Nothing in that sentence is contradictory. Do you not grasp the concept of administrative punishment or believe that a person who is convicted of a violation would also not be barred from holding a clearance in the future ?

I'm well able to grasp the concept of administrative punishment, but I'm also well able to grasp the distinction between legal sentencing for crimes, and extra-legal sanctions. Loss of security clearance is not a criminal sentence. Professional censure is not a criminal sentence. They are sanctions outside the scope of the legal system.

I note that you still can't provide these links to support your claim.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I'm well able to grasp the concept of administrative punishment, but I'm also well able to grasp the distinction between legal sentencing for crimes, and extra-legal sanctions. Loss of security clearance is not a criminal sentence. Professional censure is not a criminal sentence. They are sanctions outside the scope of the legal system.

I note that you still can't provide these links to support your claim.

They can be both, as I stated previously.

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They can be both, as I stated previously.

Are you innocent until proven guilty in a court first ?

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They can be both, as I stated previously.

Nonsense. And still nothing to support your claim?

Amerika

The Obama FBI... the rule of law be damned? A fascinating look at the FBI’s role in Hillary Clinton’s email investigation and why no criminal charges happened, from a judge’s perspective. Apparently it seems Obama, Comey, and the Department of Justice, from day one, decided to exonerate Hillary from all wrongdoing.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/27/judge-napolitano-what-happened-to-fbi-its-been-corrupted-by-obama-and-his-team.html

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Nonsense. And still nothing to support your claim?

I've posted sources, something you have failed to do.

Your argument is what precisely?

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I've posted sources, something you have failed to do.

Your argument is what precisely?

Any chance of an answer to my question ?

AbusesToilets

marienbad wrote: »

Any chance of an answer to my question ?

I believe in due process. I also believe in people being held accountable for their actions.

The evidence in this case shows a clear pattern of misconduct. The testimony by Comey to Congress did not declare Clinton's innocence, rather, they decided not to pursue charged due to their claim that they couldn't show she knowingly committed these acts.

I do not buy that argument, and while i personally believe she is guilty, at the very least this case warranted an effort by the DoJ to levy punishment upon those involved. Instead we get hand waving away of responsibilities and deflection.

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I believe in due process. I also believe in people being held accountable for their actions.

The evidence in this case shows a clear pattern of misconduct. The testimony by Comey to Congress did not declare Clinton's innocence, rather, they decided not to pursue charged due to their claim that they couldn't show she knowingly committed these acts.

I do not buy that argument, and while i personally believe she is guilty, at the very least this case warranted an effort by the DoJ to levy punishment upon those involved. Instead we get hand waving away of responsibilities and deflection.

It is a contradiction to say you believe in 'due process ' but then have a never ending beef when the result of that that process doesn't go your way .

Was she careless , arrogant , vague , unhelpful ? It would appear she was but due process deemed there was no case to bring forward to a court of law . Get over it .

You are drifting into Bill Maher territory with his ' I don't know it for a fact , but I just know its true ' spoof at this stage . It may well be true but it has to be proved true .

AbusesToilets

marienbad wrote: »

It is a contradiction to say you believe in 'due process ' but then have a never ending beef when the result of that that process doesn't go your way .

Was she careless , arrogant , vague , unhelpful ? It would appear she was but due process deemed there was no case to bring forward to a court of law . Get over it .

You are drifting into Bill Maher territory with his ' I don't know it for a fact , but I just know its true ' spoof at this stage . It may well be true but it has to be proved true .

We do know the facts of the actions taken by her and her staff and we can clearly see that those actions violate the relevant law. We know she was not truthful when under oath to Congress, as was admitted by Comey in his testimony.

Any number of actions taken by her would be sufficient to warrant the DoJ to seek prosecution. If her name wasn't Clinton, a very different course of action would have been pursued imo, as Comey alluded to when he stated that in similar circumstances, such actions would have merited prosecution.

Your choice is either that you believe, as I do, that she knowingly sought to circumvent the law; or that she was so stunningly incompetent that she was ignorant of one of the most basic and important duties required of her as SoS.

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

We do know the facts of the actions taken by her and her staff and we can clearly see that those actions violate the relevant law. We know she was not truthful when under oath to Congress, as was admitted by Comey in his testimony.

Any number of actions taken by her would be sufficient to warrant the DoJ to seek prosecution. If her name wasn't Clinton, a very different course of action would have been pursued imo, as Comey alluded to when he stated that in similar circumstances, such actions would have merited prosecution.

Your choice is either that you believe, as I do, that she knowingly sought to circumvent the law; or that she was so stunningly incompetent that she was ignorant of one of the most basic and important duties required of her as SoS.

So when it comes down to it you don't accept due process . that is all you are saying over and over again .

As I said , ''you don't know it for a fact but you just know its true''

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I've posted sources, something you have failed to do.

Your argument is what precisely?

You've posted nothing to support your contention. I'm hardly able to provide sources for something that doesn't actually exist, now, am I?

It's you who claimed that 'official censure' and 'loss of clearance' were legal sentences for criminal activity. It's you who claimed that you had 'codes' outlining such legal sentences. It's you who has claimed this was 'typical', and yet, it's you who can't seem to find anything to support this strange notion.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

So when it comes down to it you don't accept due process . that is all you are saying over and over again .

As I said , ''you don't know it for a fact but you just know its true''

Should one accept a ruling from a corrupted due process?

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You've posted nothing to support your contention. I'm hardly able to provide sources for something that doesn't actually exist, now, am I?

It's you who claimed that 'official censure' and 'loss of clearance' were legal sentences for criminal activity. It's you who claimed that you had 'codes' outlining such legal sentences. It's you who has claimed this was 'typical', and yet, it's you who can't seem to find anything to support this strange notion.

More deflection and nonsensical statements.

AbusesToilets

marienbad wrote: »

So when it comes down to it you don't accept due process . that is all you are saying over and over again .

As I said , ''you don't know it for a fact but you just know its true''

There was no due process, as there was no trial or effort to bring punishment, either administrative or criminal.

Do you sent that she took actions which broke the law, as testified to by Comey to Congress?

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The evidence in this case shows a clear pattern of misconduct. The testimony by Comey to Congress did not declare Clinton's innocence, rather, they decided not to pursue charged due to their claim that they couldn't show she knowingly committed these acts.

You seem unclear on how the legal system works. The FBI are not in the business of declaring guilt or innocence in any case. There is a presumption of innocence which stands until a verdict of guilt is determined in trial. The FBI found that there was no case for levelling criminal charges against Hillary. That's their legal opinion after a thorough investigation.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Any number of actions taken by her would be sufficient to warrant the DoJ to seek prosecution.

The facts show otherwise.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

More deflection and nonsensical statements.

I'm guess ing that you're NOT after all, about to post up those legal 'codes' that are so 'typical'? Can't say I'm surprised.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You seem unclear on how the legal system works. The FBI are not in the business of declaring guilt or innocence in any case. There is a presumption of innocence which stands until a verdict of guilt is determined in trial. The FBI found that there was no case for levelling criminal charges against Hillary. That's their legal opinion after a thorough investigation.

They stated that they could not recommend pursuing charges, as they couldn't show that Clinton knowingly broke the law. They didn't say that they found no wrong doing on her part, or innocence if you will.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There was no due process, as there was no trial or effort to bring punishment, either administrative or criminal.

Because there was no case to answer. Best you review the FBI's findings one more time.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

I'm guess ing that you're NOT after all, about to post up those legal 'codes' that are so 'typical'? Can't say I'm surprised.

Already did , multiple times. Please continue your excuse making and deflection.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They stated that they could not recommend pursuing charges, as they couldn't show that Clinton knowingly broke the law. They didn't say that they found no wrong doing on her part, or innocence if you will.

The FBI aren't in the business of determining innocence - she's assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. They investigated to see if any criminal charges were warranted. They determined that they were not.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Already did , multiple times. Please continue your excuse making and deflection.

We both know you didn't - as will anyone who is bored enough to look at the posts. Please don't insult people's intelligence.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Because there was no case to answer. Best you review the FBI's findings one more time.

Again, that is not what was determined, as was stated by Comey.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, that is not what was determined, as was stated by Comey.

That's precisely what was determined. Let me go get the statement for you - one more time...

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

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There was no due process, as there was no trial or effort to bring punishment, either administrative or criminal.

Do you sent that she took actions which broke the law, as testified to by Comey to Congress?

This is getting ridiculous at this stage , of course there was due process ! As soon as the FBI opened a file there was due process .

Not all investigations end up in court - you seem to have a problem with that . What do you want ? A show trial just because she is named Clinton ?

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Should one accept a ruling from a corrupted due process?

First you would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a 'corrupted due process ' , there is no evidence of that . This is just more of the conspiracy stuff eating America away from within .

Just on a kind of related issue , did I read somewhere that Colin Powell also used a private server ?

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

Just on a kind of related issue , did I read somewhere that Colin Powell also used a private server ?

He certainly used a private email account for all his SoS work (Lock him up!, Lock him up!, etc.):

Secretary Powell has publicly stated that, during his tenure as Secretary, he “installed a laptop computer on a private line” and that he used the laptop to send emails via his personal email account to his “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.” Secretary Powell's representative advised the Department in 2015 that he did not retain those emails or make printed copies. Secretary Powell has also publicly stated that he generally sent emails to his staff via their State Department email addresses but that he personally does not know whether the Department captured those emails on its servers.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

She should already be locked up for the mishandling of classified and top secret materials, and for lying to the FBI.

The FBI have reopened the case, do you still maintain that the FBI was politically influenced?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The FBI have reopened the case, do you still maintain that the FBI was politically influenced?

Yes. With only 10 days to go in the election, this won't affect the outcome no matter what is eventually determined.... long after the election is over. Obama will probably just provide Hillary with a presidential pardon, anyway.