2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: RonC

It shouldn't have to be "proven" that others gained access to her emails, though Gucifer (or whatever his name is) says that he did

Uhhhh.... yeah it does have to be "proven."

Innocent until "proven" guilty.

Guccifer was full of B.S. Righties were so desperate to believe the claims of some Romanian hacker. I find it funny.

Quote: ams288

Uhhhh.... yeah it does have to be "proven."

Innocent until "proven" guilty.

Guccifer was full of B.S. Righties were so desperate to believe the claims of some Romanian hacker. I find it funny.

The act of handling classified material improperly is a crime. It doesn't have to be compromised; just the risk of compromise is a huge issue.

Many people are not prosecuted but have committed crimes.

Nixon was not prosecuted; he did obstruct justice.

Hillary will not be tried; she did handle classified material of a Top Secret nature in a way that was illegal.

She is "not guilty" because no trial has taken place (nor will it). She is certainly not "innocent" by any stretch.

Funny, people on here convict stupid old Trump for every little thing then gripe when other people do the same with Hillary.

I could give a shit about Goose-i-fer; the only reason that was mentioned is to point out that we don't even know if the material she mishandled was compromised.

Quote: RonC

Funny, people on here convict stupid old Trump for every little thing then gripe when other people do the same with Hillary.

Examples?

Quote: ams288

Hackers got into her account? You can prove this? Apparently SanchoPanzo is privy to information the FBI did not have...

Another phony presumption. Especially in view of the fact that no one can explain just why Romania extradited Lazar with alacrity. As a matter of fact, Lazar (Guccifer) is facing trial on precisely the F.B.I. charges of hacking official U.S. computers:

He faces a nine-count federal indictment on computer hacking charges and, according to both Romanian and U.S. officials, is expected to be in the country for 18 months. A spokesman for the FBI’s Washington Field Office, which led the Guccifer investigation, had no comment on the extradition, the timing, and any potential intersection with the Clinton email probe.

On or about March 31, Lazar was extradited 3,700 miles to Alexandria from a prison in Arad, Romania, where he has been serving a seven-year sentence for hacking crimes committed in his native country. His targets in Romania were prominent government officials and political figures whom he often taunted under the name of Micul Fum or “Little Smoke.”

Following his 2014 conviction, Lazar was effectively neutralized in prison and no longer a threat, which makes his transfer to the U.S. all the more noteworthy. The 44-year-old entered the Alexandria courtroom wearing a green jumpsuit, with the yellow word "PRISONER" stenciled on the back. Lazar appeared confident and relaxed during the four-minute appearance, telling the court he did not need the translator provided for the hearing."

According to the 15-page federal indictment, Lazar "specialized in gaining unauthorized access to the online accounts of high-profile individuals" including Clinton ally Blumenthal, who appears to be identified as “Victim 5 … a journalist and former presidential advisor who was the true owner of an AOL account with subaccounts known to the grand jury.” The indictment went on to note that using his alias of Guccifer on Blumenthal’s account, “Lazar attempted to conceal his identity by accessing the account from a proxy server located in Russia.”

In early 2013, news outlets including Russia Today and The Smoking Gun published memos from Guccifer, with excerpts of exchanges between Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton about Libya including details following the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack. In a 2015 prison interview from Romania with reporter Matei Rosca for Pando.com, Lazar told Rosca that, "I used to read [Clinton's] memos for six or seven hours ... and then do the gardening." catherine herridge

Actual emails to be scoffed at and waved off from 2013 start off with this description:

"While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton used a personal email server in her home, for government business. Emails sent through that computer were all copied by Russia! The Kremlin is debating whether to release the 20,000 emails they have hacked off of Hillary Clinton’s server.

"An intriguing Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today suggests that a “war of words” has broken out between the Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) Alexander Bortnikov and Chairwoman of the Council of Federation Valentina Matviyenko over the issue of releasing to the Western media tens-of-thousands of top secret and classified emails obtained by the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) from the private, but unsecured, computer (email server) belonging to former US Secretary of State, and present American presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton." bin

Quote: ams288

Examples?

Hoax involving six-pointed star.

Quote: TigerWu

That is being incredibly nit-picky. Even a 15% overhead is remarkably low as far as a charity is concerned. I think even 20-25% is considered very low overhead.

It is not “nit-picking” when talking about more than $100 million reaped by a 501(c)3 with no consequences. At least the referenced excerpt includes the clear statement about the falsity of the foundation’s claim before ignoring its substance, just as Comey did with the emails.

It seems as if there is no dispute about the tens of millions of dollars spent on destinations far from direct charitable giving like airplane trips (public and private), fine hotels, so-called office supplies, employee “fringe benefits’ (whatever that might include), IT and abundant conferences and convention meetings, according to the Form 990. That is why the reality is almost exactly the reverse of the disingenuous claim about the roughly 85 percent.

Quote: SanchoPanza

It is not “nit-picking” when talking about more than $100 million reaped by a 501(c)3 with no consequences. At least the referenced excerpt includes the clear statement about the falsity of the foundation’s claim before ignoring its substance, just as Comey did with the emails.

It seems as if there is no dispute about the tens of millions of dollars spent on destinations far from direct charitable giving like airplanes (public and private), fine hotels, so-called office supplies, employee “fringe benefits’ (whatever that might include), IT and abundant conferences and convention meetings, according to the Form 990. That is why the reality is almost exactly the reverse of the disingenuous claim about the roughly 85 percent.

I guess I'm just ignorant of the whole situation. Are you saying there are millions of dollars "missing" or unaccounted for with regards to the Clinton Foundation? Or are you saying the overhead for the Foundation is far more than 15%? What percentage of overhead do you think it REALLY is?

Quote: TigerWu

I guess I'm just ignorant of the whole situation. Are you saying there are millions of dollars "missing" or unaccounted for with regards to the Clinton Foundation? Or are you saying the overhead for the Foundation is far more than 15%? What percentage of overhead do you think it REALLY is?

Read the cited Form 990 and see the preposterous sums spent on fancy administrative costs for yourself.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Hoax involving six-pointed star.

So you're saying @realDonaldTrump didn't tweet that out?

Do you not have eyes???

Quote: SanchoPanza

Read the cited Form 990 and see the preposterous sums spent on fancy administrative costs for yourself.

That thing is 75 pages long, and full of big numbers and tax code jargon. What pages am I looking for for "administrative costs" vs. "total costs?"

Quote: SanchoPanza

Read the cited Form 990 and see the preposterous sums spent on fancy administrative costs for yourself.

So, you're saying the excesses are clearly printed there for anyone to see, or is it more likely you don't know how similar organizations function and how this stacks up against those similar organizations?

I'm guessing the second.

A s if he read the thing. He's parroting right wing radio and putting faith in you not reading all 75 pages.

For 2013, CharityWatch gave the Foundation an A, and said
about 88% of the funds went to charity.
Carly whatevername keeps repeating the same lie that only six percentages to charity and the dullest among us accept it as true.

I suppose an American Charity that does the majority of its work in Africa and the Southern hemisphere could send it's people by bus and cut down it's air expenses. I'm sure the victims of the Haitian earthquake wouldn't have minded the rescue supplies being sent by boat instead of chartered aircraft.

Quote: RonC

Each person in the job had the responsibility to take security seriously. Powell's and Rice's apparent sins do not somehow necessarily reduce those of Clinton in any way. I am disappointed that our government doesn't care enough to do better; I know guys who spent most of their enlistments in vaults properly handling the kind of information that apparently some many levels higher think is okay to put out there for potentially everyone to see.

No one says it is o.k. to display classified info for all to see. The conclusion of this email/server investigation is that there was carelessness in the handling of classified info, but there was NO criminal intent in the Madam Secretary's error in judgment.

And no one here says that 3 wrongs make a right. Throughout history of civilization we’ve advanced in all areas of technology, social, economic, political, etc. through innovation, competition, and LESSONS LEARNED. Had Powell’s and Rice’s email/server issues were discovered years ago, then there would be a LESSON LEARNED for Powell, Rice, State Department and other State & Federal government agencies and we wouldn’t be talking about the current INSTITUTIONAL failure and the Madam Secretary’s judgment regarding the use of private email/server. As I’ve stated before on many occasions, the recent email/servers controversy is a lesson learned for all of us collectively as a nation, and a lesson learned specifically for Powell, Rice, Mrs. Clinton, and other governors or politicians at individual level.

Quote: rxwine

If I believed Hillary set up her server to conduct real nefarious actions, I'd have a different opinion whether she should continue on.

I think she mistakenly thought she would avoid exactly what happened. Republicans rummaging at some point through her emails looking for something they could make accusations on. All you really need is ambiguous emails that can be taken two different ways, and that's potential trouble brought by trash pickers,

I do hold her accountable for not outsmarting the Republican trash brigade. But I also figure she now learned that valuable lesson.

After so many years attacks and exploitations by the GOP for its own agendas were the reason for Mrs. Clinton to jealously guard her privacy which lead to her use of private servers. The email/server is a valuable lesson learned for Mrs. Clinton and the rest of us.

Quote: 777

No one says it is o.k. to display classified info for all to see. The conclusion of this email/server investigation is that there was carelessness in the handling of classified info, but there was NO criminal intent in the Madam Secretary's error in judgment.

And no one here says that 3 wrongs make a right. Throughout history of civilization we’ve advanced in all areas of technology, social, economic, political, etc. through innovation, competition, and LESSONS LEARNED. Had Powell’s and Rice’s email/server issues were discovered years ago, then there would be a LESSON LEARNED for Powell, Rice, State Department and other State & Federal government agencies and we wouldn’t be talking about the current INSTITUTIONAL failure and the Madam Secretary’s judgment regarding the use of private email/server. As I’ve stated before on many occasions, the recent email/servers controversy is a lesson learned for all of us collectively as a nation, and a lesson learned specifically for Powell, Rice, Mrs. Clinton, and other governors or politicians at individual level.

It is a lesson in doubling down on stupidity, or savvy (??), when it comes to the handling of email. Which previous Secretary has been investigated for having a PRIVATE SERVER AT HOME? Clinton did this to avoid transparency, among other reasons, which is possibly the most troubling aspect of it. She thinks that it is alright to avoid scrutiny by doing things outside the rules for a government agency.

Next thing that will happen is someone will say that Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in the White House was a LESSON LEARNED, not a despicable act with a subordinate tarnishing the office he held.

Dismiss it all you want...it is not playing well in Peoria right now:

"Roughly 6 in 10 independents disapprove of the recommendation against charges (59 percent), rising to nearly 9 in 10 Republicans (88 percent) and falling to 31 percent of Democrats."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/11/poll-most-disapprove-of-fbi-decision-to-exonerate-clinton/

Quote: billryan

The Director of the FBI said there was a culture in the State Department of carelessness. It will be interesting to see if this started with Mrs. Clinton or if she inherited it.

This also happen under Powell and Rice. So it is definitely an institutional failure that Mrs. Clinton inherited.

Quote: RonC

It is a lesson in doubling down on stupidity, or savvy (??), when it comes to the handling of email. Which previous Secretary has been investigated for having a PRIVATE SERVER AT HOME? Clinton did this to avoid transparency, among other reasons, which is possibly the most troubling aspect of it. She thinks that it is alright to avoid scrutiny by doing things outside the rules for a government agency.

Next thing that will happen is someone will say that Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in the White House was a LESSON LEARNED, not a despicable act with a subordinate tarnishing the office he held.

Dismiss it all you want...it is not playing well in Peoria right now:

"Roughly 6 in 10 independents disapprove of the recommendation against charges (59 percent), rising to nearly 9 in 10 Republicans (88 percent) and falling to 31 percent of Democrats."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/11/poll-most-disapprove-of-fbi-decision-to-exonerate-clinton/

You sound like we should abolish the rule of law and Constitution, and have all sensible gun controls based solely on PUBLIC OPINION.

Our judicial system would be in great havoc and our Constitution would be meaningless if you go by PUBLIC OPINION. And yes, there are those who want her to perform a hara-kiri/seppuku or be rotten in hell or jail cell. As I've state before, we become better because of LESSONS LEARNED, whether the lessons learned come from our own or other's people mistakes.

Quote: RonC

Trump being unqualified to be President doesn't erase Clinton's being unqualified for a security clearance...though she will get a pass once elected President...

If American voters send her to the White House, then Madam President will definitely get clearance. And yes, the Congress (all or mostly Republicans) can try to impeach her solely on the security clearance issues occurred during her tenure at the State Department.

Quote: TigerWu

On the rare occasion that I used to watch Fox News I could never get over how unprofessional and childish Gretchen Carlson was. I think it's perfectly obvious she is/was only a TV journalist because of her looks. It was embarrassing watching her interview people.

Gretchen Carlson should not be considered a journalist. She is a propaganda mouth piece and talking head for the GOP using Faux News as a medium to deliver her propaganda.

Quote: 777

You sound like we should abolish the rule of law and Constitution, and have all sensible gun controls based solely on PUBLIC OPINION.

Our judicial system would be in great havoc and our Constitution would be meaningless if you go by PUBLIC OPINION. And yes, there are those who want her to perform a hara-kiri/seppuku or be rotten in hell or jail cell. As I've state before, we become better because of LESSONS LEARNED, whether the lessons learned come from our own or other's people mistakes.

Huh? I am not even sure what route you took to get there...but whatever...I don't think I've said anything remotely close to that...

Quote: 777

If American voters send her to the White House, then Madam President will definitely get clearance. And yes, the Congress (all or mostly Republicans) can try to impeach her solely on the security clearance issues occurred during her tenure at the State Department.

That is what I said...no matter what happens now, she will get a clearance if elected.

The other part? I haven't heard anything like that before.

Quote: RonC

That is what I said...no matter what happens now, she will get a clearance if elected.

The other part? I haven't heard anything like that before.

She will get clearance because of the Constitution and the democracy, i.e., the will of the voters.

Why else would the voters send her to the White House if she cannot get the clearance? She must have clearance to carry out her duties and responsibilities as the POTUS and a Commander in Chief which was approved/voted by the citizens. To not giving her the clearance is like ignoring the will of the voters.

Don't play ignorant on other part. The republican congress is protected by GERRYMANDERING. They can be obstructionists and do many senseless things to put their careers and the GOP interest before the nation's interest. Do you recall that Mitch McConnell's, the head of the Senate Republicans, goal is? In stead of wishing President Obama success and the success of our nation, Mitch McConnell's had publicly stated this: "my number one priority is making sure president Obama’s a one-term president."

Quote: 777

She will get clearance because of the Constitution and the democracy, i.e., the will of the voters.

Why else would the voters send her to the White House if she cannot get the clearance? She must have clearance to carry out her duties and responsibilities as the POTUS and a Commander in Chief which was approved/voted by the citizens. To not giving her the clearance is like ignoring the will of the voters.

I said that already. Several times and in several different ways.

Quote: 777

Don't play ignorant on other part. The republican congress is protected by GERRYMANDERING. They can be obstructionists and do many senseless things to put their careers and the GOP interest before the nation's interest. Do you recall that Mitch McConnell's, the head of the Senate Republicans, goal is? In stead of wishing President Obama success and the success of our nation, Mitch McConnell's had publicly stated this: "my number one priority is making sure president Obama’s a one-term president."

The part I didn't hear of before you referenced it was the possibility of Clinton being impeached. Never really considered that a possibility and never heard anyone spouting off about it one way or the other.

I also didn't get how you got from using a poll in another post I made to show people of all types are not entirely happy about how the Clinton thing was handled to accusing me of being against the Constitution. That made no sense at all...

Quote: RonC

I said that already. Several times and in several different ways.



The part I didn't hear of before you referenced it was the possibility of Clinton being impeached. Never really considered that a possibility and never heard anyone spouting off about it one way or the other.

I also didn't get how you got from using a poll in another post I made to show people of all types are not entirely happy about how the Clinton thing was handled to accusing me of being against the Constitution. That made no sense at all...

Anything is possible. The republicans could use the email/server controversy as a pre-text to impeach Madam President. They definitely will succeed in obstructing the nation's progress, but whether they succeed in impeaching her is a different story.

And if Trump is the president, it is possible that Trump could be impeached on the issue of conflict of interest and/or gross incompetent & negligent (my guess is if there is an article of impeachment on Trump, then his impeachment trial would receive bipartisan support that lead by the REPUBLICANS). Although I will not vote for Trump, I have a sincere advice for you and those who will vote for Trump, PLEASE look at his VP pick closely because I'm afraid that Trump's erratic, radical, dictatorial and who know what behaviors could result in a successful legal & constitutional removal of Trump from the office of the Presidency.

Gen. McChrystal, a GUN CONTROL advocate, is on Trump's VP shortlist. Will this VP pick have to be approved by the NRA?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-gen.-mcchrystal-on-trumps-vp-shortlist/article/2596093

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/10/petraeus-mcchrystal-join-dozens-of-former-military-leaders-to-create-new-gun-control-group/

Quote: 777

I believe that RonC will definitely vote for Trump, but he/she is TOO EMBARRASSED to make this admission because the public opinion polls show that Trump’s supporters are uneducated, and even Trump admitted that his supporters are uneducated.

Let's take this nice and slow...

I haven't decide anything at this point. I won't be afraid to say what I decide when I do make a decision. I will not be "embarrassed" to admit that I will/did vote for Trump should I decide that is what I want to do.

Obviously, you have not watched "Watter's World"...if you did, you would understand that there are plenty of uneducated/uninformed people on both sides of the aisle. Winning many segments of society is how one wins the Presidency. It may not be something one normally announces, of course. The "uneducated" vote in every election just like the "educated"...

Can we talk about the Veepstakes?

Who do we think Trump will pick?

My money is on Newt.

At least I hope so. I think that'd be entertaining...

When Newt ran four years ago, his platform was the polar opposite of Trumps. If he believed his 2012 plan, I don't see anyway he can defend Trumps positions.

Quote: ams288

Can we talk about the Veepstakes?
Who do we think Trump will pick?
My money is on Newt.

He has to know that Newt is going to cost him some serious votes.

Quote: TigerWu

He has to know that Newt is going to cost him some serious votes.

At this point, it seems like it is more of a question of "who will actually say yes?" as opposed to "who does Trump want?"

Newt and Chris Christie are actively campaigning for the position. But if you remember, Chris Christie was vetted by Mitt Romney in 2012 and FAILED the vetting process.

Quote: SanchoPanza

The presumptions never stop.

As opposed to the leftwing on questions like, say, gun control?

The hyperbole comes touchingly close to Godwin's Law. At any rate, the truly grave effects of the release from any and all responsibility go way beyond the fortunes of one power-hungry woman or even partisan interests. They deal directly and immediately with the future of enforcing national security laws and regulations covering the most important national secrets.

“The FBI recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton and her staff on charges of mishandling classified information will give those accused of flouting national security rules a new line of defense even as it highlights a dual standard in how senior government officials are treated, several experts said Wednesday. . . .

“I intend to use the Hillary defense,” said Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer whose firm handles dozens of cases a year involving national security clearances. “I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar. We’ve had people lose 20-year careers for doing less than what she did.” Mark F. Riley, a former military intelligence officer who became a lawyer defending those accused of national security violations, said he, too, would invoke the Clinton recommendation. . . .

“This happens a lot without anyone even knowing about it except the agencies and people involved,” said McAdoo Gordon, whose Washington firm specializes in security cases. “I’ve had dozens of these cases over the last 10 years, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Kel McClanahan, another national security lawyer, said the FBI had not pursued an important line of inquiry: whether Clinton violated the law merely by setting up private servers and diverting government records. Someone who “conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys” government records can face a fine and up to three years in prison. The Justice Department has sent defendants to prison for such a crime, McClanahan said. “The thrust of this law is to prevent people from depriving the government of the use it gets from public records, and that is exactly what happened here.”\

The costs inflicted on those ensnared in national security probes can be devastating. Thomas Drake, a former official at the National Security Agency, a U.S. spy agency that collects and monitors information and data, was criminally prosecuted in 2010 under the Espionage Act. His alleged crime: disclosing to a journalist, Congress and a government watchdog millions of dollars in waste and other problems with the surveillance program and response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Obama administration prosecuted him, asserting that he had revealed classified information. The case eventually fell apart, but the Justice Department agreed to settle the matter only if Drake entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of exceeding authorized use of a government computer.McClatchy

Go ahead and invoke the "Hillary defense."

Let's be clear, she did not leak/release classified info to any unauthorized individual, organization, or spy. It was purely a case of mishandling classified info thru carelessness act via private server with NO criminal intent. Unless the law is changed, she or anyone in similar situation can be reprimanded but NOT criminally prosecuted. Since Mrs. Clinton is no longer an employee of the government in a non-elected position, Congress can vote not to approve her in future political appointee positions such as Federal judge, SCOTUS judge, ambassadorship, or any cabinet positions as a form of reprimand or politicization.

But for the POTUS elected position that decided by the voters, she is entitled to have clearance required for day-to-day operations. The republican congress had failed miserably in their STATED GOAL of making Obama a one-term President through endless obstructions, and I wouldn't be surprise if they set a new goal of making Hillary a one-day president via the article of impeachment.

Quote: 777

Let's be clear, she did not leak/release classified info to any unauthorized individual, organization, or spy. It was purely a case of mishandling classified info thru carelessness act via private server with NO criminal intent. Unless the law is changed, she or anyone in similar situation can be reprimanded but NOT criminally prosecuted. Since Mrs. Clinton is no longer an employee of the government in a non-elected position, Congress can vote not to approve her in future political appointee positions such as Federal judge, SCOTUS judge, ambassadorship, or any cabinet positions as a form of reprimand or politicization.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Quote: RonC

It shouldn't have to be "proven" that others gained access to her emails, though Gucifer (or whatever his name is) says that he did--it is the incompetent mishandling of highly classified documents that is the problem. We don't know WHO might have gotten the info, or even if someone did. We do know that the former Secretary of State and her staff did not comply with the laws governing handling of classified material. We also know that she lied about it time after time. Has she even apologized for her lies?

Nixon's paranoia caused him to be involved in criminal activity...so did Hillary's. Not that either one are "criminals" because neither one was found guilty of anything, but they both were involved in clearly criminal activities. Nixon was pardoned and Hillary's crimes were deemed to below the level necessary for prosecution. That doesn't make their actions any more acceptable.

The investigation concluded it was purely an act of carelessness and there was no lying to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is an felony offense and is subject to prosecution. Mrs. Clinton is entitled to her self defense just like anyone else, and she did not lied to the FBI.

Had this investigation happened while she was still a Madam Secretary she would and should resign either voluntarily or involuntarily. Is this resignation considered a sufficient form of reprimand, or anything short of hara-kiri/seppuku is not acceptable? There is no double standard in the treatment of Mrs. Clinton here. But if there is double standard here, then the double standard is that her conduct received MUCH MUCH MORE SCRUTINY simply because she is a public figure/politician and she has abundant of POLITICAL ENEMINIES.

Quote: SanchoPanza

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Each individual case is unique, and judges and juries can come to the conclusion of "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both" based on the factual evidences. And in this instance the "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both" determination under TREMENDEOUS SCRUTINY due to high level of public interest, is NO PROSECUTION. Yes, if the director of FBI, a REPUBLICAN, had reached a conclusion of prosecution and then recommended a fine of $x,xxx,xxx,xxx and a max ten years imprisonment then you will be happy. But fortunately, our rule of law is not based on your opinion or other public opinion.

The investigation concluded it was purely an act of carelessness and there was no lying to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is an felony offense and is subject to prosecution. Mrs. Clinton is entitled to her self defense just like anyone else, and she did not lied to the FBI.

Had this investigation happened while she was still a Madam Secretary she would and should resign either voluntarily or involuntarily. Is this resignation considered a sufficient form of reprimand, or anything short of hara-kiri/seppuku is not acceptable? There is no double standard in the treatment of Mrs. Clinton here. But if there is double standard here, then the double standard is that her conduct received MUCH MUCH MORE SCRUTINY simply because she is a public figure/politician and she has abundant of POLITICAL ENEMINIES.

Quote: 777

The investigation concluded it was purely an act of carelessness and there was no lying to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is an felony offense and is subject to prosecution. Mrs. Clinton is entitled to her self defense just like anyone else, and she did not lied to the FBI.

I don't think anyone accused her of lying to the FBI.

She just lied to the whole world...

Quote: 777

Had this investigation happened while she was still a Madam Secretary she would and should resign either voluntarily or involuntarily. Is this resignation considered a sufficient form of reprimand, or anything short of hara-kiri/seppuku is not acceptable? There is no double standard in the treatment of Mrs. Clinton here. But if there is double standard here, then the double standard is that her conduct received MUCH MUCH MORE SCRUTINY simply because she is a public figure/politician and she has abundant of POLITICAL ENEMINIES.

So...she should have resigned if this hit the fan when she was Secretary...doesn't the idea that she would have had to resign in disgrace kind of lead to the idea she should not go on to higher office?

Whoops...I can't wait to hear the answers...

Quote: 777

Each individual case is unique, and judges and juries can come to the conclusion of "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both" based on the factual evidences. And in this instance the "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both" determination under TREMENDEOUS SCRUTINY due to high level of public interest, is NO PROSECUTION. Yes, if the director of FBI, a REPUBLICAN, had reached a conclusion of prosecution and then recommended a fine of $x,xxx,xxx,xxx and a max ten years imprisonment then you will be happy. But fortunately, our rule of law is not based on your opinion or other public opinion.

That is why I have said repeatedly that she committed a criminal act, in the eyes of the FBI, but that they did not feel that she could be successfully prosecuted.

Quote: RonC

.doesn't the idea that she would have had to resign in disgrace kind of lead to the idea she should not go on to higher office?

Not necessarily.

IF she had to resign, she probably SHOULDN'T have gone on to run for President, but technically there's no reason why she couldn't.

The danger with many of the political investigations is they go in claiming one intent, come up with nothing, but find something they can use against them.

It's like your recent ex-girlfriend files a false charge, and when they search they find your small stash of marijuana. Up until that point you had never had complaints from anyone about drug use. Now maybe you get charged,, or you even get fired from your job..

Hey, what about the original complaint? No one cares, as long they got the person on something.

I'm not even sure how many things the Clintons have been gotten on as far as original investigation. The server question didn't show up for all the damage it caused, it just showed up in reviewing the Benghazi events. It's still technically just a potential issue, nothing was proved that it was compromised, as yet.,

I realize that's still an issue, but it doesn't make me like these type of investigations or think they are carried out with fairness in mind.

Quote: RonC

I don't think anyone accused her of lying to the FBI.

She just lied to the whole world...

So...she should have resigned if this hit the fan when she was Secretary...doesn't the idea that she would have had to resign in disgrace kind of lead to the idea she should not go on to higher office?

Whoops...I can't wait to hear the answers...

She is entitle to her defense & her side of the story, and her political enemies can distort the evidences to their liking in the name of 1st Amendment , but the facts remain that she did not lie to the FBI or the whole world.

And How many times I have to repeat this to you? "... we become better because of LESSONS LEARNED, whether the lessons learned come from our own or other's people mistakes"

The Lewinsky affair is an example of disgrace, and here are few examples of disgraceful conducts. And you can search the internet all for other disgraceful conducts.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/former-gop-speaker-reaches-plea-agreement-sex-scandal

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senator-caught-in-dc-madam-scandal/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-12-18/news/9812180366_1_impeachment-house-speaker-elect-bob-livingston-monica-lewinsky

There is nothing disgrace about an error in judgment in email with no criminal intent. I consider this a good lesson learned for Mrs. Clinton and our nation, and with this lesson learned it will make her a better person/leader. Although she is not perfect by any stretch of imagination, our nation needs leaders with strong knowledge and experience. Yes, with her great knowledge and experience, she can and should use them to make America greater. It is a noble thing for her to do and we all should welcome her public service.

Considering this sick sociopath who has severe personality disorders and is not fit to be president (see link), Mrs. Clinton great wealth of knowledge and experience is desperately needed.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/11/gop-convention-delegates-welcome-for-trump-hes-a-sick-sociopath.html

Quote: rxwine

The danger with many of the political investigations is they go in claiming one intent, come up with nothing, but find something they can use against them.

It's like your recent ex-girlfriend files a false charge, and when they search they find your small stash of marijuana. Up until that point you had never had complaints from anyone about drug use. Now maybe you get charged,, or you even get fired from your job..

Hey, what about the original complaint? No one cares, as long they got the person on something.

I'm not even sure how many things the Clintons have been gotten on as far as original investigation. The server question didn't show up for all the damage it caused, it just showed up in reviewing the Benghazi events. It's still technically just a potential issue, nothing was proved that it was compromised, as yet.,

I realize that's still an issue, but it doesn't make me like these type of investigations or think they are carried out with fairness in mind.

You just point out a double standard here. Hillary's political enemies use endless tax payer money for all sort of investigations for the sole purpose of their party's interest, their career interest before the nation's interest. Such abuse of power by the GOP does not apply to ordinary citizens.

Quote: TigerWu

Not necessarily.

IF she had to resign, she probably SHOULDN'T have gone on to run for President, but technically there's no reason why she couldn't.

"... we become better because of LESSONS LEARNED, whether the lessons learned come from our own or other's people mistakes"

The Lewinsky affair is an example of disgrace, and here are few examples of disgraceful conducts. And you can search the internet all for other disgraceful conducts.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/former-gop-speaker-reaches-plea-agreement-sex-scandal

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senator-caught-in-dc-madam-scandal/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-12-18/news/9812180366_1_impeachment-house-speaker-elect-bob-livingston-monica-lewinsky

There is nothing disgrace about an error in judgment in email with no criminal intent. I consider this a good lesson learned for Mrs. Clinton and our nation, and with this lesson learned it will make her a better person/leader. Although she is not perfect by any stretch of imagination, our nation needs leaders with strong knowledge and experience. Yes, with her great knowledge and experience, she can and should use them to make America greater. It is a noble thing for her to do and we all should welcome her public service.

Considering this sick sociopath who has severe personality disorders and is not fit to be president (see link), Mrs. Clinton great wealth of knowledge and experience is desperately needed.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/11/gop-convention-delegates-welcome-for-trump-hes-a-sick-sociopath.html

Quote: ams288

At this point, it seems like it is more of a question of "who will actually say yes?" as opposed to "who does Trump want?"

Newt and Chris Christie are actively campaigning for the position. But if you remember, Chris Christie was vetted by Mitt Romney in 2012 and FAILED the vetting process.

Here is an DISGRACEFUL and HYPORITICAL conduct by Newt http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633

Applying RonC's "disgrace" standard, Newt's cannot held position in higher office. If Newt's is John Miller's VP, will RonC still vote for John Miller?

Trump is also a known adulterer. What is RonC's standard when it comes to disgraceful act? Will RonC embrace 2 adulterers in the same ticket?

As unlikely as it is now for Trump to win, if he selects Gingrich I would say his chances drop to single digits. Only Chris Christie would be a worse selection, and that is hard to do.

Quote: RonC

So, in other words, she did it all to avoid scrutiny of her actions.

What a relief!!

This brought to you by the most transparent administration in history!!!

Don't worry, the power of the press will make Madam Clinton's administration as transparent as any previous administrations. But don't expect transparent from Trump's administration if he becomes a POTUS considering history of Trump's banning the press in his campaign. I believe Trump will institute policy that limit the press coverages, briefings, accesses to administration if he is a POTUS ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-just-banned-the-washington-post-from-covering-him-that-should-bother-everyone/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/donald-trump-media-blacklist/

Quote: 777

Here is an DISGRACEFUL and HYPORITICAL conduct by Newt http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633

Applying RonC's "disgrace" standard, Newt's cannot held position in higher office. If Newt's is John Miller's VP, will RonC still vote for John Miller?

Trump is also a known adulterer. What is RonC's standard when it comes to disgraceful act? Will RonC embrace 2 adulterers in the same ticket?

Who gives a f#$% what that freak RonC does? He's scared to tell his true position here anyway! What a 'tard!

Adultery is an interesting topic. It isn't against the law (at least any more in most, if not all, places). It is a violation of an agreement to remain true to each other. It is also something religions frown on. It is interesting that one would bring this particular despicable act up when we have been talking about someone lying to everyone (well, except the FBI...she found the truth there) and being careless with information potentially harmful to the whole country. Bill Clinton's serial adultery only mattered to the Republicans; should we apply the same rationale to the potential Republican candidates?

Adultery harms families. It is despicable. In a better world, there would be a lot less of it. I am against adultery.

Adulterer(s) vs. Disgraced SoS and Wife of Serial Adulterer...

Let's go with a Texas Death Match on that one!

Quote: RonC

Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Trump is...whatever Trump is...

The lasting legacy of the next President may be who he/she leaves behind on the Supreme Court. Hillary will nominate more liberals and we'll have a court that takes positions that I don't think the court should take. That is something that I do not want to happen.

Your conclusion of Hillary Clinton as liar is based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines. And if one were to apply same innuendo and hearsay evidentiary standard, then

Trump is...whatever Trump is... which is a RAPIST.

http://gawker.com/the-time-donald-trumps-ex-wife-accused-him-of-brutally-1721129617

Is lying more DISGRACEFUL than raping?

Are you saying to yourself and encouraging others to vote for a rapist Trump because of your concern about the SCOTUS selection?

Quote: 777

Your conclusion of Hillary Clinton as liar is based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines. And if one were to apply same innuendo and hearsay evidentiary standard,

Seriously? Did you even listen to what Hillary said about the emails for months leading up to the actual interview with the FBI? How the hell is it "based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines"?

"FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information."

"Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed.""

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

Quote: RonC

Seriously? Did you even listen to what Hillary said about the emails for months leading up to the actual interview with the FBI? How the hell is it "based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines"?

"FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information."

"Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed.""

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

The FBI investigation revealed there were classified material, but she was NOT aware of such material exist. Comey has the duty and responsibility to recommending charge her for lying to the FBI if that was the case. But since no charge was brought against her for lying to the FBI, so my take is she had no knowledge classified material, and her answer was truthful based on her knowledge at that time, and your conclusion of her lying is based on based on innuendo and hearsay spread by the GOP propaganda machines.