Hillary Clinton email scandal

Amerika

When did Powell set up a private email server, which allowed him to permanently delete any government email he saw fit, at his own discretion, and in such a permanent way that the government had no way of ever bringing back? I think I missed that.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

When did Powell set up a private email server, which allowed him to permanently delete any government email he saw fit, at his own discretion, and in such a permanent way that the government had no way of ever bringing back? I think I missed that.

I wish I could keep up myself horse. It's all very convoluted.

We should all site down on November 9th for a cook out and see if we can piece all together. I'll make ribs and beans and you can bring the beer. No lite beer allowed.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I wish I could keep up myself horse. It's all very convoluted.

We should all site down on November 9th for a cook out and see if we can piece all together. I'll make ribs and beans and you can bring the beer. No lite beer allowed.

I’m allergic to beer. Happened over 10 years ago and I sorely miss my Guinness. I say it’s proof there’s a god and he’s got a wicked sense of humor. November 9th is going to be a WTF date, no matter who wins, and we will witness division in this country like we’ve never seen before, IMO.

And just to revisit something....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

No matter what argument ones makes about some new law Comey made up regarding ‘intent’… doesn’t this disqualify Hillary Clinton from becoming President?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I’m allergic to beer. Happened over 10 years ago and I sorely miss my Guinness. I say it’s proof there’s a god and he’s got a wicked sense of humor. November 9th is going to be a WTF date, no matter who wins, and we will witness division in this country like we’ve never seen before, IMO.

Allergic to beer? Disaster. What about whiskey?

I think you overestimate how bad it'll be. The predictions of the end times after Obama was reelected came to naught.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Allergic to beer? Disaster. What about whiskey?

I think you overestimate how bad it'll be. The predictions of the end times after Obama was reelected came to naught.

Whiskey and wine are fine. Really have come to appreciate the offerings of Johnnie Walker.

And I’m not talking Armageddon, I talking about hatred of the top spot from almost half the country for the next four years.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

No matter what argument ones makes about some new law Comey made up regarding ‘intent’… doesn’t this disqualify Hillary Clinton from becoming President?

All the parts you highlighted assume the phrase "Upon conviction..." is understood.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Whiskey and wine are fine. Really have come to appreciate the offerings of Johnnie Walker.

Not really a scotch fan myself. Have you tried Green or Yellow spot?

And I’m not talking Armageddon, I talking about hatred of the top spot from almost half the country for the next four years.

Is that really any different than now? Obama is despised to a depth I didn't think possible by GOP voters.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

All the parts you highlighted assume the phrase "Upon conviction..." is understood.

I'm not sure I agree with that. 'Conviction' usually indicates a process that results in some form of imprisonment. Often times 'fines' are leveled through bargaining in order to avoid criminal trials. Of course a presidential pardon by Obama for any past, present, and future matters that might come up regarding Hilary's email scandal and the Clinton Foundation scandal would trump everything.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. 'Conviction' usually indicates a process that results in some form of imprisonment. Often times 'fines' are leveled through bargaining in order to avoid criminal trials. Of course a presidential pardon by Obama for any past, present, and future matters that might come up regarding Hilary's email scandal and the Clinton Foundation scandal would trump everything.

That makes no sense.

A criminal charge requires a conviction to impose whatever punishments are stipulated by law. It may be a fine or imprisonment - that is immaterial and dependent upon the law and the judge.

The 'bargaining' you speak of is simply to secure a conviction without a trial - where you plead guilty in the first instance.

Obama cannot pardon anyone who is not convicted - not even charged! - in the first place.

So that leads us back to Trump - how is this buffoon going to win the election now?

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. 'Conviction' usually indicates a process that results in some form of imprisonment. Often times 'fines' are leveled through bargaining in order to avoid criminal trials. Of course a presidential pardon by Obama for any past, present, and future matters that might come up regarding Hilary's email scandal and the Clinton Foundation scandal would trump everything.

A fine means conviction even no fine can mean conviction, conviction is a finding no matter the punishment by a court of guilt.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

That makes no sense.

A criminal charge requires a conviction to impose whatever punishments are stipulated by law. It may be a fine or imprisonment - that is immaterial and dependent upon the law and the judge.

The 'bargaining' you speak of is simply to secure a conviction without a trial - where you plead guilty in the first instance.

Obama cannot pardon anyone who is not convicted - not even charged! - in the first place.

So that leads us back to Trump - how is this buffoon going to win the election now?

I don’t believe you are correct. A plea bargain can occur in which the defendant does not admit guilt to a crime but accepts a sentence from the prosecution which might simply be a fine.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t believe you are correct. A plea bargain can occur in which the defendant does not admit guilt to a crime but accepts a sentence from the prosecution which might simply be a fine.

You are 100% incorrect

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/plea+bargaining

It's a plea of guilty often to a lesser charge but requires the guilty person to plead guilty. A fine can only be imposed on a guilty party. In Ireland a donation may in minor cases result in a strike out under the probation act or even a simple strike out.

In the US a plea nolo contendere, is a bit more complex and allows a person to plead no contest but retains a right to appeal if the sentence imposed is not to his liking.

Iceboy

Great website I found that maps out the 100 most damaging leaks so far from the Podesta Leaks

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

The most damaging so far is the fact Obama knew about Clintons server and is involved in the over up

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You are 100% incorrect

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/plea+bargaining

It's a plea of guilty often to a lesser charge but requires the guilty person to plead guilty. A fine can only be imposed on a guilty party. In Ireland a donation may in minor cases result in a strike out under the probation act or even a simple strike out.

In the US a plea nolo contendere, is a bit more complex and allows a person to plead no contest but retains a right to appeal if the sentence imposed is not to his liking.

Are you 100% sure of that?

Pleas of nolo contendere are recognized by Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, although the law of numerous States is to the contrary. The present rule gives effect to the principal traditional characteristic of the nolo plea, i.e., avoiding the admission of guilt which is inherent in pleas of guilty. This position is consistent with the construction of Section 5 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §16(a), recognizing the inconclusive and compromise nature of judgments based on nolo pleas.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_410

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t believe you are correct. A plea bargain can occur in which the defendant does not admit guilt to a crime but accepts a sentence from the prosecution which might simply be a fine.

OK, if you hold this to be true then I cannot help you any more.

A debate of this type assumes a rudimentary grasp of legal process.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

Are you 100% sure of that?

Are you sure?

Pleas of nolo contendere are recognized by Rule 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, although the law of numerous States is to the contrary. The present rule gives effect to the principal traditional characteristic of the nolo plea, i.e., avoiding the admission of guilt which is inherent in pleas of guilty. This position is consistent with the construction of Section 5 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §16(a), recognizing the inconclusive and compromise nature of judgments based on nolo pleas.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_410

Yes I mention such pleas. It is no contest not not guilty and allows an appeal where if the person susceeds allows the withdrawal of the plea of no contest but in effect the person is treated as convicted as they do not contest the charge.

Also rule 11 deals with conditional guilty pleas in one part of the rule and plea bargains in another part of the rule.

Not directed at anyone or anything but kind of relevant to the plea thing.. In America, accepting a pardon implies guilt. I always thought that was interesting.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

OK, if you hold this to be true then I cannot help you any more.

A debate of this type assumes a rudimentary grasp of legal process.

So let it be written, so let it be done?

I guess we need some real legal eagles to help us out with this one.

Pro Hoc Vice

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not directed at anyone or anything but kind of relevant to the plea thing.. In America, accepting a pardon implies guilt. I always thought that was interesting.

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915),

My understating under the above case a pardoned person does not have to accept pardon but if he does he must accept guilt.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

So let it be written, so let it be done?

I guess we need some real legal eagles to help us out with this one.

Any person with a basic understanding of criminal law in any common law system and the necessary rule can give a explanation of the us system. Also the case I posted above shows a pardoned person must accept guilt.

"There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/case.html[URL][/url]

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Any person with a basic understanding of criminal law in any common law system and the necessary rule can give a explanation of the us system. Also the case I posted above shows a pardoned person must accept guilt.

"There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness."

I was under the assumption that in some cases a defendant could reach a plea bargain where they would make an agreed upon contribution to the victim’s fund which would allow them to not admit guilt to a crime.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

I was under the assumption that in some cases a defendant could reach a plea bargain where they would make an agreed upon contribution to the victim’s fund which would allow them to not admit guilt to a crime.

That may be so but to get the pardon according the SC they have to accept guilt. Also the example you give above is not a fine so no imposition of a penalty you started by saying a fine is not a conviction for the state to impose a penalty a conviction must be recorded.

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That may be so but to get the pardon according the SC they have to accept guilt. Also the example you give above is not a fine so no imposition of a penalty you started by saying a fine is not a conviction for the state to impose a penalty a conviction must be recorded.

I believe President Ford gave Richard Nixon a full pardon for all offenses against the United States. Was there an admission of guilt of a crime on the part of Nixon?

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

I believe President Ford gave Richard Nixon a full pardon for all offenses against the United States. Was there an admission of guilt of a crime on the part of Nixon?

You will find I posted earlier that in my opinion that pardon was on dubious legal grounds for 2 reasons 1 no conviction 2 the constitution does not allow a pardon for impechement. The US in my opinion just wanted to put that mess behind it.

There is a opinion of a US lawyer which disagrees with me http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/05/opinion/l-constitution-allows-pardons-before-conviction-590688.html

Another site says "Indeed, Richard Nixon, not known for his naiveté, was well aware that his acceptance of the pardon meant he acknowledged he was guilty"

http://www.legalnews.com/grandrapids/1396345[URL][/url]

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You will find I posted earlier that in my opinion that pardon was on dubious legal grounds for 2 reasons 1 no conviction 2 the constitution does not allow a pardon for impechement. The US in my opinion just wanted to put that mess behind it.

Dubious or not, it was allowed and upheld, correct? Why couldn't Obama do the same to put the Hillary mess behind us for the good of the country? There is precedent for it, you know.

Amazingfun

No Bank holiday in the US, so the talk shows are a go.
Mika of Morning Joe seems to capture the current state of many democrats at present, and that is very demoralized:

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

Dubious or not, it was allowed and upheld, correct? Why couldn't Obama do the same to put the Hillary mess behind us for the good of the country? There is precedent for it, you know.

The country wanted to put Nixon behind it and there was I believe cross party support I do not believe such support would exist in this case and if it did happen I believe a challenge would go all the way to SC who did not deal with the Nixon issue.

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The country wanted to put Nixon behind it and there was I believe cross party support I do not believe such support would exist in this case and if it did happen I believe a challenge would go all the way to SC who did not deal with the Nixon issue.

That might be, but do you admit it could happen?

Amazingfun

Long time Hillary supporter Doug Schoen, another demoralized Democrat, is reneging on his endorsement of her it seems:

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

That might be, but do you admit it could happen?

It would be political suicide for the democrats, even if it happened it could be reveresed I believe and at the very least it would require acceptance by Clinton that she was guilty I think she would rather fight than accept guilt. And finally Clinton is a good lawyer she would know it could possibly be overturned by the SC.

Amerika

Amazingfun wrote: »

No Bank holiday in the US, so the talk shows are a go.
Mika of Morning Joe seems to capture the current state of many democrats at present, and that is very demoralized:

Wow. Seems odd coming from Mika as she has openly admitted on the show that she is advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Amazingfun

Amerika wrote: »

Wow. Seems odd coming from Mika as she has openly admitted on the show that she is advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.

That makes it all the more impactful to me, her honest dejection. It's like reality is finally starting to sink in that this is no minor distraction, that Hillary is in genuine trouble, and the worst part- that it is all her own fault.

Amerika

Amazingfun wrote: »

That makes it all the more impactful to me, her honest dejection. It's like reality is finally starting to sink in that this is no minor distraction, that Hillary is in genuine trouble, and the worst part- that it is all her own fault.

I think it was a momentary venture into honesty and she probably got a call right after the show from the Clinton campaign admonishing her. By tomorrow I think you'll see her slide right back into her comfort zone of being a defender and shill for Hillary. Although having watched Mika for many years I think she will temper her support for Hillary and key on the issue of women in order to keep a level of integrity about her.

Iceboy

It seems like everyone is abandoning Hilarys ship now. Google as of today no longer manipulates the search engines in favour of her. Many people are unendorsing her and google trends show a massive spike in people who have early voted already searching can they change their vote.

RobertKK

Mika was shaking her head in disgust last week at Bill Clinton getting half a million dollars in speaking fees from Haiti earthquake donors, as they were discussing the Clinton's taking advantage of a disaster.
The emails and everything else, I think Mika had enough at this stage.

Amazingfun

Donna Brazile , DNC Chair, has been forced to resign from CNN for her leaking debate questions to Clinton before the Debate:

CNN severs ties with Donna Brazile

By HADAS GOLD 10/31/16 12:36 PM EDT

CNN says it is "completely uncomfortable" with hacked emails showing former contributor and interim DNC chair Donna Brazile sharing questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary, and has accepted her resignation.

Hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks show Brazile, whose CNN contract was suspended when she became interim DNC chair over the summer, sharing with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Hillary Clinton before the March CNN Democratic debate in Flint, and sharing with the campaign a possible question prior to a CNN town hall also in March.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/cnn-severs-ties-with-donna-brazile-230534


Here is the email:

One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash

From:donna@brazileassociates.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com, jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
Date: 2016-03-05 21:16
Subject: One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash

Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.

Folks, I did a service project today. It's so tragic. And what's worse, some homes have not been tested and it's important to encourage seniors to also get tested.

Sent from Donna's I Pad. Follow me on twitter @donnabrazile

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478

RobertKK

Amazingfun wrote: »

Donna Brazile , DNC Chair, has been forced to resign from CNN for her leaking debate questions to Clinton before the Debate:



http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/cnn-severs-ties-with-donna-brazile-230534

This election campaign is like Hillary's adventures in Libya. Starts off well then it goes all wrong.

Trump is probably relieved he avoided using email...

26000 Elephants

Iceboy wrote: »

Google as of today no longer manipulates the search engines in favour of her. .

"Google today announced that they will no longer be doing something that they haven't been doing all along"

Thats Hillary-ious...

Amazingfun

RobertKK wrote: »

This election campaign is like Hillary's adventures in Libya. Starts off well then it goes all wrong.

Trump is probably relieved he avoided using email...

I am watching Trump's Michigan rally now, he just asked a very pertinent question: "Why didn't Hillary report Donna Brazile for unethical behavior in leaking the debate questions to her" ?

I think it's fairly obvious why she didn't

26000 Elephants

RobertKK wrote: »

This election campaign is like Hillary's adventures in Libya. Starts off well then it goes all wrong.

Trump is probably relieved he avoided using email...

I've had neo-cons denying the whole "Regime Change" policy the CIA has followed through north Africa and the middle east over the last few years, yet seem to be happy to denounce it now as long as it has an anti hillary slant.

The disgraceful events in Libya were committed by America - not just Hilary Clinton.

I''m sure poor Ghaddafi would be turning in his grave at the thought of his overthrow being used to promote a bozo like Trump.

Amazingfun

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I''m sure poor Ghaddafi would be turning in his grave at the thought of his overthrow being used to promote a bozo like Trump.

I think he'd be one of Trump's biggest supporters, had he not ended up sodomized with a weapon and murdered--and have Hillary do this in response to his gruesome end :

The White House just came out in support of Comey and said Obama doesn't think he's trying to influence anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRc1-3-OjtQ

Pretty big either way.. They know it's nothing or they know it's bad.

RobertKK

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I've had neo-cons denying the whole "Regime Change" policy the CIA has followed through north Africa and the middle east over the last few years, yet seem to be happy to denounce it now as long as it has an anti hillary slant.

The disgraceful events in Libya were committed by America - not just Hilary Clinton.

I''m sure poor Ghaddafi would be turning in his grave at the thought of his overthrow being used to promote a bozo like Trump.

Hillary along with Cameron, Sarkozy and some of the terrorist Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar were all for regime change. Obama was weak and went with Hillary on this, but Obama was intelligent enough to not make the same mistake with Syria.

Hillary is a walking disaster.

RobertKK

Deleted User wrote: »

The White House just came out in support of Comey and said Obama doesn't think he's trying to influence anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRc1-3-OjtQ

Pretty big either way.. They know it's nothing or they know it's bad.

The bible is a timeless book.

Sometimes doing what Pontius Pilate did is the best approach, and the White House decided they didn't want to dirty their hands with this Comey controversy.

brickmauser

The solution is Hillary steps aside citing health problems and this goes away? Obama doesn't have to go to jail either? I think Trump could blackmail the rest of Washington with indictments for corruption unless they introduce reform to get money out of the corrupt system?
If Hillary steps down before November 8 it massively vindicates Trump who will appear heroic.
If Trump follows through on his promise to go after the establishment corruption he will secure a second term.
They will build a Trump Memorial next to Lincoln when he dies!

AbusesToilets

Shame there isn't another debate scheduled, it would make for high comedy at this point. Trump with his sexual misdeeds, Clinton with her blunders.

drunkmonkey

brickmauser wrote: »

The solution is Hillary steps aside citing health problems and this goes away? Obama doesn't have to go to jail either?

The FBI won't let this go away, comey has put his neck on the line, he's not going to do a u turn, there's 3 investigations going on and she's knee deep in all of them, she'll serve jail time yet.
Clinton Foundation, Email and Weiner all happening now, house of cards is falling.

Sierra Oscar

Deleted User wrote: »

The White House just came out in support of Comey and said Obama doesn't think he's trying to influence anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRc1-3-OjtQ

Pretty big either way.. They know it's nothing or they know it's bad.

It was really, really stupid for Harry Reid to come out and question the motivation of the FBI in this case. The White House was always going to come out and back Comey. Very few are actually questioning Comey's motivations - most people realise he was / is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Harry Reid would be best off keeping quiet. He is only further damaging Clinton's campaign. He is forcing people to choose between backing the FBI or Clinton, and let's face it - most people trust the FBI far more than Clinton.

Amerika

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The FBI won't let this go away, comey has put his neck on the line, he's not going to do a u turn, there's 3 investigations going on and she's knee deep in all of them, she'll serve jail time yet.
Clinton Foundation, Email and Weiner all happening now, house of cards is falling.

I could see a President Trump pardoning Hillary, Barack and Bill from all wrongdoings for the good of the country as long as they pull a Nixon and drop out of public life forever.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

I could see a President Trump pardoning Hillary, Barack and Bill from all wrongdoings for the good of the country as long as they pull a Nixon and drop out of public life forever.

This time next year Trump will be running a second rate news channel, so its a moot point.