|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I have my company's GC, who is a partner at an international law firm and leads the corporate practice group at his firm. I can ask him what he thinks of the Clinton case. Now, given that he's not an expert on this particular kind of law, he's a pretty damn good lawyer and I can ask him to expand on his opinion which is "this investigation is a waste of my tax money".
|
On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election.
that'd be rather hard to do; as ballots are secret, and asking a bunch of FBI agents and investigators who they've voted for in the past seems like something we shouldn't really do.
The basic issue is that there's a lot of people who would not be satisfied with any outcome, and will cry foul no matter what happens. There's no way around that, as there's too much grey involved, also too much politics.
|
On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents.
We obviously don't see eye to eye on much, but even I saw this when you first said it. I mean there is some subtext there, but your point was sound.
Curious who could act as the independent investigators in your view though?
|
On July 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. Is there an independent organization with clearance to review the evidence that could have handled it instead?
yes. and it may be the case that the attorney general bows out (as she should) and appoints independent counsel. that is why i asked in my original question.
|
On July 06 2016 06:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. We're just acting like crazy conspiracy theorists for doubting the impartial judgment of these investigators - they're professionals who get paid to be impartial it's absurd for us to doubt them! I understand your being sarcastic but without proof yes you certainly should not be doubting them.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
= did not mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way
|
On July 06 2016 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. We obviously don't see eye to eye on much, but even I saw this when you first said it. I mean there is some subtext there, but your point was sound. Curious who could act as the independent investigators in your view though?
i dont know for sure, but this may be the proper department:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel
|
On July 06 2016 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:36 Godwrath wrote:On July 06 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election. The FBI is part of the executive branch, they all have a stake in the election that determines who runs the executive branch. Doesn't that actually make it worse ? Maybe it's my taking as an outsider but it seems like there is a conflict of interest nonetheless. Who else can appoint someone who reports to the president? Congress? That is just as biased and would make for yet another public theater. You tell me if it's possible, I am genuinely asking.
|
On July 06 2016 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. Is there an independent organization with clearance to review the evidence that could have handled it instead? yes. and it may be the case that the attorney general bows out (as she should) and appoints independent counsel. that is why i asked in my original question.
Wouldn't the fact that the AG appoints them create the appearance of impropriety given that the AG is appointed by the president
|
On July 06 2016 06:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. We're just acting like crazy conspiracy theorists for doubting the impartial judgment of these investigators - they're professionals who get paid to be impartial it's absurd for us to doubt them! I understand your being sarcastic but without proof yes you certainly should not be doubting them.
Apples and oranges. Attorney oversight is a small potatoes issue in the big scheme of things. And it also is a largely a question of process rather than substance. The discussion regarding climate change, and more importantly, what to do about it, is a completely different beast.
|
On July 06 2016 06:55 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. Is there an independent organization with clearance to review the evidence that could have handled it instead? yes. and it may be the case that the attorney general bows out (as she should) and appoints independent counsel. that is why i asked in my original question. Wouldn't the fact that the AG appoints them create the appearance of impropriety given that the AG is appointed by the president
my word choice was poor. i didnt mean the AG would appoint independent counsel. i would think congress would appoint independent counsel, but dont know the logistics of this unique issue.
|
On July 06 2016 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. We obviously don't see eye to eye on much, but even I saw this when you first said it. I mean there is some subtext there, but your point was sound. Curious who could act as the independent investigators in your view though? i dont know for sure, but this may be the proper department: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel
Any chance you would support something like that for investigations into police misconduct?
|
On July 06 2016 06:55 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 06:36 Godwrath wrote:On July 06 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election. The FBI is part of the executive branch, they all have a stake in the election that determines who runs the executive branch. Doesn't that actually make it worse ? Maybe it's my taking as an outsider but it seems like there is a conflict of interest nonetheless. Who else can appoint someone who reports to the president? Congress? That is just as biased and would make for yet another public theater. You tell me if it's possible, I am genuinely asking.
could you clarify exactly what you're asking (in terms of the "if it's possible")?
|
On July 06 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:55 Godwrath wrote:On July 06 2016 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 06:36 Godwrath wrote:On July 06 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election. The FBI is part of the executive branch, they all have a stake in the election that determines who runs the executive branch. Doesn't that actually make it worse ? Maybe it's my taking as an outsider but it seems like there is a conflict of interest nonetheless. Who else can appoint someone who reports to the president? Congress? That is just as biased and would make for yet another public theater. You tell me if it's possible, I am genuinely asking. could you clarify exactly what you're asking (in terms of the "if it's possible")?
To appoint somebody else. But i see people are discussing it already.
|
On July 06 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. We obviously don't see eye to eye on much, but even I saw this when you first said it. I mean there is some subtext there, but your point was sound. Curious who could act as the independent investigators in your view though? i dont know for sure, but this may be the proper department: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel Any chance you would support something like that for investigations into police misconduct?
if you're asking me whether the local police department should investigate its own police misconduct, or an independent group, the answer is the latter. are you looking for another vague sound bite to put in your signature?
|
Oh boy.. Trump is actually loving this
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/
It would have been worse for him if she actually had been indicted and replaced. The replacement would almost certainly do better than Hillary will in November + this is just giving him more ammunition to win over independents in the general.
|
On July 06 2016 07:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents. We obviously don't see eye to eye on much, but even I saw this when you first said it. I mean there is some subtext there, but your point was sound. Curious who could act as the independent investigators in your view though? i dont know for sure, but this may be the proper department: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel Any chance you would support something like that for investigations into police misconduct? if you're asking me whether the local police department should investigate its own police misconduct, or an independent group, the answer is the latter. are you looking for another vague sound bite to put in your signature?
Nope, just wanted to get confirmation that you also don't think police should be investigating themselves. Not sure anyone disagrees, so it begs the question, why is it that they still do?
|
The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false:
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/07/03/FBI%20bryan%20nishimura.jpg)
Source.
Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did?
|
On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did?
My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's?
Edit: I will elaborate
Let's say a situation contains A,B,C,D, each of which are things like "intent", "knowledge of whatever" etc
Because of A, C and D, someone is determined to be guilty.
In another case, A, E and D are present, but they are not determined to be guilty.
Both of these cases contain A and D, but the difference between C and E result in a not guilty verdict. It's not that it is as simple as having D, otherwise every case with D would be guilty.
|
On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false: Source. Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did? My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's?
The key line is towards the end where it says that the investigation did not reveal an intent to distribute the classified materials. In other words, he was prosecuted merely for failing to retain proper custody of the classified materials -- exactly what Comey said a prosecutor should not prosecute someone for.
|
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will give Hillary Clinton a lift on Air Force One Tuesday when they fly to North Carolina for their first joint campaign appearance.
It's a powerful symbol of the presidency that Obama appears happy to confer upon his preferred successor. Clinton's presumptive Republican opponent repeatedly criticized the move Monday and Tuesday.
The cost of flying Air Force One for political travel is divided between the federal government (using taxpayer dollars) and the candidate's political organization. Because Obama is traveling to Charlotte solely for the purpose of stumping for Clinton, her campaign (or the Democratic National Committee) would have to foot a portion of the bill whether the candidate was aboard or not.
The exact breakdown of how much the campaign will owe, however, isn't precisely known. In 2012, when Obama was running for re-election, his campaign reimbursed the government millions of dollars for Air Force One travel based on a pro-rated share of an equivalent-sized charter plane.
Whatever Clinton's campaign does pay, however, is far less than the actual costs of flying Air Force One, which is retrofitted with secure communication and navigation equipment, and costs north of $200,000 to operate per hour.
While former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush largely stayed off the campaign trail in their final years in office, Obama is expected to stump heavily in support of the presumptive Democratic nominee, meaning Democrats will be on the hook for at least some of his travel in the coming months.
Like past administrations, Obama could offset some of the price-tag by combining political travel with official events, which are paid for by the government. The formula breaking down campaign and official costs, however, has been kept secret by White Houses going back to the 1970s.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
