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.
On October 10 2016 16:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:04 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:51 zeo wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:44 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:42 MasterCynical wrote: I really hope he wins and keeps his word... Hillary needs to be given a fair trial...
afaik they couldn't prove intent and thats how she got off
She got off because the Obama administration is protecting her. When people start doing their actual jobs she is done.
Oh yeah, now conspiracy theories.
Like, the Obama administration totally decides what parliamentary commissions and the FBI decide.
I mean, what's wrong with you? What "scandal" are you even talking about?????
this one
Ye, ok. The email thing. That was a big mistake very uncautious. She shouldn't have used the wrong server. Ok. She answered terribly, minimized it. True too. Nobody has ever managed to explain to me what was the criminal intention in using a wrong server (it's just s bit stupid) but nevermind.
That's it? I mean really, you guys have been breaking our balls for like 3000 pages over that?
Should she have instructed staff to remove classified headers from emails to send to the server? (original FBI investigation) When she said she handed over all her emails, should she instead have said she turned over all but over 17 thousand? Wouldn't a reasonable person call that a lie? Should she have told everyone that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent? Should she have deleted all those emails before they had been reviewed in the FBI investigation? Does it mean anything to you when FBI Director Comey said she cleaned them "in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?" Was it her concussion that made her forget her training on classified servers? (final FBI interview) Are you okay with Comey rewriting a statute only requiring gross negligence (espionage act) to contain an intent provision? When her aide testified she had gone through thirteen (!) different blackberry devices, should she have turned them over to the FBI instead of destroying them with hammers? When she said she "wanted the public to see her emails" isn't that a problem when they were deleted by the thousands three weeks later? Did you believe Clinton when she said she thought the big "C" on the pages was used for alphabetical ordering?
If her name wasn't Hillary Clinton, would you excuse another person that had shown this pattern of behavior from not being scandalous or a pattern of lying?
Facts: (1) It was not a classified server, which is the whole point. (2) She tried her damnedest to keep classified info OFF of the server.
Conclusions: (1) Means that this isn't like the guys who have classified info and moves it off of a secure area (Patreaus, USB stick guy). (2) Means she has no intent to distribute classified info where it shouldn't be and actively avoided it (you even cited the 3 emails that has (c) in the body, a minor error, no intent).
EDIT: if you don't like the requirement of intent, tough. You need to prove Comey wrong:
Comey pointed out that Petraeus not only shared the classified information, but also hid the documents in his attic and then lied to investigators.
"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted." He added: "In my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case."
Sorry, do you have a point here? You seek to cherry pick which scandals you want to address? Let me guess: The conclusion here is there's no proof of any wrongdoing here move along.
And thank you for proving setting up an unsecured server and transmitting classified information across it means she set up an unclassified server. I take it you're a mind reader that says she tried very very hard to only use it for unclassified communication. While having previously ordered aides to strip classified headers to send it to her. While claiming she was ignorant of what markings even classify a classified message. And now we're doing the dance. Do you want to cherry pick some other behavior that proves she never wanted any of this to happen? I'm sure if I start throwing out stuff Trump's said or did too, he starts to look a whole ton better as well!
On October 10 2016 16:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:21 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:15 JW_DTLA wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:04 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:51 zeo wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:44 CorsairHero wrote: [quote] afaik they couldn't prove intent and thats how she got off
She got off because the Obama administration is protecting her. When people start doing their actual jobs she is done.
Oh yeah, now conspiracy theories.
Like, the Obama administration totally decides what parliamentary commissions and the FBI decide.
I mean, what's wrong with you? What "scandal" are you even talking about?????
this one
Can you prove Comey wrong? Because Gowdy sure didn't.
I was just providing the answer for Biff since he asked which scandal zeo was referring to.
Ye. Just went through it. We can summarize in two sentences:
Hillary used the wrong email server, which is bad but nothing indicates that she had malicious intentions in doing so, that's rather stupid. Her defense about it was terrible.
Is. That. It????
I think that the video of the trial had extremely strong undertones of suspicious activity though. It wouldn't be fair to not point that out.
There's definitely a case to be made about her lacking intent, because she knew it was very grey line, and she changed her wording when it was revealed there were 3? classified documents in her private email server. She didn't really delete documents so much as they were automatically deleted as part of hardware changes. She was also careless handling emails because she preferred to use her judgment about whether they were classified or not rather than the C's which weren't common and sometimes didn't make sense to them. She used an email server because she didn't want Republicans being able to pry into her emails (not sure how this works). She used multiple devices but really only her Blackberry because she hated technology and her iPad. She wasn't definitively told that using a private email server is illegal because it isn't (?) and others have used it in the past. Everyone is careless about handling emails and notes.
But they were also arguing about precedent and how there's no precedent for her indictment because it's less wrong for politicians, and they're essentially asking the judge to not set the precedent in an essentially 50/50 ruling because she is running for president.
It's all a fuzzy gray area, I get that people are angry about it but by the virtue (injustice?) of our justice system it was lacking evidence, especially if you consider how Hillary works in the first place. Intent is really hard to prove.
(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.
Where's Waldo: Find the intent in this provision.
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
FBI.GOV When you say they happened to be deleted as part of hardware changes, does hardware changes include methods used in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?
It is likely there is. There's no proof that there is. We can interpret that however we want.
But this is the whole point of security. If you've been handling classified information on a device and you're not using the device anymore, you should be destroying the device such that there is no way that you can access any information in the device. I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, it's a bit different that Hillary ordered these devices destroyed herself instead of handing them in for destruction. No, it's not enough evidence that she was covering up that she sent classified information. That's because there's no proof. There's just the possibility.
Dude, I get it, destroying phones like that looks suspicious as fuck, and there was an entire trial about this exact matter about emails where the destruction was pointed out. The whole point is that THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE INTENT. You really don't understand clearly enough how criminal law works if you think that what you quoted is enough, because clearly the judge in the video did not think that this was overtly intentional enough. IT IS EXTREMELY HARD TO PROVE INTENT.
There is a somewhat reasonable explanation for almost everything that happened with the email scandal. People say x shit and revise them when they realize they were wrong. They don't always say x shit because they are trying to hide something. Secret, extremely careful lawyers like Hillary definitely knows that her exact wording can get her in trouble so she will definitely word things more carefully when she can. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that she words things so she doesn't get in too much trouble and when she's pressured after more information she has to change how she speaks. She's been attacked by Republicans for 20 years during her entire political career. She's not going to be "amazingly cooperative" like you guys want idealize someone in her position would be.
Sure this may have gotten someone who wasn't running for president indicted. But like I said before, this was absolutely a 50/50 area that the judge was talking about in the video, and they decided not to set the precedent because she was running for president. Whether you think that's because the judge is corrupt or that the judge decided to lean this way instead of that is up to you.
We craft laws that don't require intent because people trained to handle sensitive information should be held to a high standard in their treatment of classified material. Did you read the part of the espionage act I quoted? To recap: You're wrong, it was intentionally deleted, not some byproduct of server migration. But you're now admitting this I see. The statute does not mention intent with reason. She's guilty of gross negligence in mishandling classified documents. No intent needed. Do I need to all caps this for you? There was no trial, just an investigation. Stop saying what isn't true. She said she was being cooperative, and you're saying she had reason to be uncooperative. To lie and destroy evidence. And it's justified because she hasn't had an easy political life. Are you actually for real? It's not just destroying phones, it's lying about having turned over all the emails, it's telling Comey you forgot your training on classified markings, it's the pattern of conflicting stories I mentioned in my other post.
You've made a tremendous case to say her lies were justified. Pardon me if that's about as much as an admission I'd expect any of here hardcore supporters to ever divulge. Setting up a private server and operating it through state department warnings and then crafting multiple lies when the jig was up.
Sure this may have gotten someone who wasn't running for president indicted.
But this web of reasonable justifications for lies and lack of intent in intentless laws is enough to state that there's no truth whatsoever to the scandals surrounding Clinton and they're all a pack of Republican lies.
The USA and the UK are selling weapons to Saudi and are among their strongest allies. Saudi Arabia bombed a funeral in Yemen last week killing 140 and injuring 600 more. Yemen is revolting over the atrocities committed by Saudi Arabia, the funeral bombing only being the latest in a string. Saudis are a ruthless people. I'd back the "rebels" over Saudi.
If you want to know the details of the Chappaqua server, they all came out when the FBI released their complete notes. The facts are innocuous. Comey didn't find intent because it wasn't there. This article is the best on the web when it comes to detailing the entire story of the Chappaqua server. This wasn't a close call and Comey/FBI/DOJ all said it wasn't close. If you insist on doing the dance, know you don't have the facts support your side.
EDIT: when Patreaus lied about hiding the classified stuff in his attic and even denied the affair, the FBI was furious and wanted him jailed.
If HRC's conduct during the investigation was so bad ... where was the outrage? You can't just point to random things in the process and say they are bad. The conclusion to not prosecute was unanimous and unless you found something no one else did, you don't have any facts for your position.
On October 10 2016 17:23 JW_DTLA wrote: If you want to know the details of the Chappaqua server, they all came out when the FBI released their complete notes. The facts are innocuous. Comey didn't find intent because it wasn't there. This article is the best on the web when it comes to detailing the entire story of the Chappaqua server. This wasn't a close call and Comey/FBI/DOJ all said it wasn't close. If you insist on doing the dance, know you don't have the facts support your side.
EDIT: when Patreaus lied about hiding the classified stuff in his attic and even denied the affair, the FBI was furious and wanted him jailed.
If HRC's conduct during the investigation was so bad ... where was the outrage? You can't just point to random things in the process and say they are bad. The conclusion to not prosecute was unanimous and unless you found something no one else did, you don't have any facts for your position.
Tantamount to admitting that her behavior was indefensible but because Comey says he won't recommend indictment, you're okay with the whole package. You're really intent on outsourcing your judgment. If you're not prepared to defend Hillary for the reasons I outlined, don't insist there's nothing there. Don't insist on people providing reasons. Don't ask for evidence. Just say you trust Hillary because you place great faith in Comey and gross criminal negligence doesn't exist.
A majority of debate viewers polled by CNN — 57 percent — said Hillary Clinton won the second presidential debate on Sunday night in St. Louis. Thirty-four percent of debate watchers surveyed in the instant poll said Donald Trump won, though 63 percent overall thought that the Republican nominee surpassed their expectations for him. Twenty-one percent expected him to do worse, according to the network. Story Continued Below Among those surveyed, 58 percent said they supported Clinton before the debate, which commentators have been quick to describe as historically ugly.
On October 10 2016 17:23 JW_DTLA wrote: If you want to know the details of the Chappaqua server, they all came out when the FBI released their complete notes. The facts are innocuous. Comey didn't find intent because it wasn't there. This article is the best on the web when it comes to detailing the entire story of the Chappaqua server. This wasn't a close call and Comey/FBI/DOJ all said it wasn't close. If you insist on doing the dance, know you don't have the facts support your side.
EDIT: when Patreaus lied about hiding the classified stuff in his attic and even denied the affair, the FBI was furious and wanted him jailed.
If HRC's conduct during the investigation was so bad ... where was the outrage? You can't just point to random things in the process and say they are bad. The conclusion to not prosecute was unanimous and unless you found something no one else did, you don't have any facts for your position.
Tantamount to admitting that her behavior was indefensible but because Comey says he won't recommend indictment, you're okay with the whole package. You're really intent on outsourcing your judgment. If you're not prepared to defend Hillary for the reasons I outlined, don't insist there's nothing there. Don't insist on people providing reasons. Don't ask for evidence. Just say you trust Hillary because you place great faith in Comey and gross criminal negligence doesn't exist.
Read the article I linked from Politico. The facts were decisive in showing the situation it was innocuous. She wanted to use her blackberry to email her top 8 aides and made every effort to keep classified info off the server. She read all of her intentionally handled classified info in hard copy.
With regards to relying on Comey, I am only choosing to do that because i figure it is a way to reach you. Apparently it isn't. Please read the facts.
EDIT: gross criminal negligence isn't the standard. Yes I do trust unanimous FBI recommendations. See Comey distinguishing of Patreaus from HRC. You can't just imagine the standard is something else without showing that all those people were wrong.
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network
It's not like CNN had any credibility before this though. I still laugh every time someone cites CNN as a source.
Moment of the night:
Anyone that enjoyed that moment by finding it a clever counter in a debate for President of the United States might aswell have "FUCK ME PUTIN" slapped on your four-head because thats clearly who they are horny for...
Ye, ok. The email thing. That was a big mistake very uncautious. She shouldn't have used the wrong server. Ok. She answered terribly, minimized it. True too. Nobody has ever managed to explain to me what was the criminal intention in using a wrong server (it's just s bit stupid) but nevermind.
That's it? I mean really, you guys have been breaking our balls for like 3000 pages over that?
Should she have instructed staff to remove classified headers from emails to send to the server? (original FBI investigation) When she said she handed over all her emails, should she instead have said she turned over all but over 17 thousand? Wouldn't a reasonable person call that a lie? Should she have told everyone that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent? Should she have deleted all those emails before they had been reviewed in the FBI investigation? Does it mean anything to you when FBI Director Comey said she cleaned them "in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?" Was it her concussion that made her forget her training on classified servers? (final FBI interview) Are you okay with Comey rewriting a statute only requiring gross negligence (espionage act) to contain an intent provision? When her aide testified she had gone through thirteen (!) different blackberry devices, should she have turned them over to the FBI instead of destroying them with hammers? When she said she "wanted the public to see her emails" isn't that a problem when they were deleted by the thousands three weeks later? Did you believe Clinton when she said she thought the big "C" on the pages was used for alphabetical ordering?
If her name wasn't Hillary Clinton, would you excuse another person that had shown this pattern of behavior from not being scandalous or a pattern of lying?
Facts: (1) It was not a classified server, which is the whole point. (2) She tried her damnedest to keep classified info OFF of the server.
Conclusions: (1) Means that this isn't like the guys who have classified info and moves it off of a secure area (Patreaus, USB stick guy). (2) Means she has no intent to distribute classified info where it shouldn't be and actively avoided it (you even cited the 3 emails that has (c) in the body, a minor error, no intent).
EDIT: if you don't like the requirement of intent, tough. You need to prove Comey wrong:
Comey pointed out that Petraeus not only shared the classified information, but also hid the documents in his attic and then lied to investigators.
"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted." He added: "In my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case."
Sorry, do you have a point here? You seek to cherry pick which scandals you want to address? Let me guess: The conclusion here is there's no proof of any wrongdoing here move along.
And thank you for proving setting up an unsecured server and transmitting classified information across it means she set up an unclassified server. I take it you're a mind reader that says she tried very very hard to only use it for unclassified communication. While having previously ordered aides to strip classified headers to send it to her. While claiming she was ignorant of what markings even classify a classified message. And now we're doing the dance. Do you want to cherry pick some other behavior that proves she never wanted any of this to happen? I'm sure if I start throwing out stuff Trump's said or did too, he starts to look a whole ton better as well!
On October 10 2016 16:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:21 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:15 JW_DTLA wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:04 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:51 zeo wrote: [quote] She got off because the Obama administration is protecting her. When people start doing their actual jobs she is done.
Oh yeah, now conspiracy theories.
Like, the Obama administration totally decides what parliamentary commissions and the FBI decide.
I mean, what's wrong with you? What "scandal" are you even talking about?????
this one
Can you prove Comey wrong? Because Gowdy sure didn't.
I was just providing the answer for Biff since he asked which scandal zeo was referring to.
Ye. Just went through it. We can summarize in two sentences:
Hillary used the wrong email server, which is bad but nothing indicates that she had malicious intentions in doing so, that's rather stupid. Her defense about it was terrible.
Is. That. It????
I think that the video of the trial had extremely strong undertones of suspicious activity though. It wouldn't be fair to not point that out.
There's definitely a case to be made about her lacking intent, because she knew it was very grey line, and she changed her wording when it was revealed there were 3? classified documents in her private email server. She didn't really delete documents so much as they were automatically deleted as part of hardware changes. She was also careless handling emails because she preferred to use her judgment about whether they were classified or not rather than the C's which weren't common and sometimes didn't make sense to them. She used an email server because she didn't want Republicans being able to pry into her emails (not sure how this works). She used multiple devices but really only her Blackberry because she hated technology and her iPad. She wasn't definitively told that using a private email server is illegal because it isn't (?) and others have used it in the past. Everyone is careless about handling emails and notes.
But they were also arguing about precedent and how there's no precedent for her indictment because it's less wrong for politicians, and they're essentially asking the judge to not set the precedent in an essentially 50/50 ruling because she is running for president.
It's all a fuzzy gray area, I get that people are angry about it but by the virtue (injustice?) of our justice system it was lacking evidence, especially if you consider how Hillary works in the first place. Intent is really hard to prove.
(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.
Where's Waldo: Find the intent in this provision.
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
FBI.GOV When you say they happened to be deleted as part of hardware changes, does hardware changes include methods used in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?
It is likely there is. There's no proof that there is. We can interpret that however we want.
But this is the whole point of security. If you've been handling classified information on a device and you're not using the device anymore, you should be destroying the device such that there is no way that you can access any information in the device. I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, it's a bit different that Hillary ordered these devices destroyed herself instead of handing them in for destruction. No, it's not enough evidence that she was covering up that she sent classified information. That's because there's no proof. There's just the possibility.
Dude, I get it, destroying phones like that looks suspicious as fuck, and there was an entire trial about this exact matter about emails where the destruction was pointed out. The whole point is that THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE INTENT. You really don't understand clearly enough how criminal law works if you think that what you quoted is enough, because clearly the judge in the video did not think that this was overtly intentional enough. IT IS EXTREMELY HARD TO PROVE INTENT.
There is a somewhat reasonable explanation for almost everything that happened with the email scandal. People say x shit and revise them when they realize they were wrong. They don't always say x shit because they are trying to hide something. Secret, extremely careful lawyers like Hillary definitely knows that her exact wording can get her in trouble so she will definitely word things more carefully when she can. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that she words things so she doesn't get in too much trouble and when she's pressured after more information she has to change how she speaks. She's been attacked by Republicans for 20 years during her entire political career. She's not going to be "amazingly cooperative" like you guys want idealize someone in her position would be.
Sure this may have gotten someone who wasn't running for president indicted. But like I said before, this was absolutely a 50/50 area that the judge was talking about in the video, and they decided not to set the precedent because she was running for president. Whether you think that's because the judge is corrupt or that the judge decided to lean this way instead of that is up to you.
We craft laws that don't require intent because people trained to handle sensitive information should be held to a high standard in their treatment of classified material. Did you read the part of the espionage act I quoted? To recap: You're wrong, it was intentionally deleted, not some byproduct of server migration. But you're now admitting this I see. The statute does not mention intent with reason. She's guilty of gross negligence in mishandling classified documents. No intent needed. Do I need to all caps this for you? There was no trial, just an investigation. Stop saying what isn't true. She said she was being cooperative, and you're saying she had reason to be uncooperative. To lie and destroy evidence. And it's justified because she hasn't had an easy political life. Are you actually for real? It's not just destroying phones, it's lying about having turned over all the emails, it's telling Comey you forgot your training on classified markings, it's the pattern of conflicting stories I mentioned in my other post.
You've made a tremendous case to say her lies were justified. Pardon me if that's about as much as an admission I'd expect any of here hardcore supporters to ever divulge. Setting up a private server and operating it through state department warnings and then crafting multiple lies when the jig was up.
Sure this may have gotten someone who wasn't running for president indicted.
But this web of reasonable justifications for lies and lack of intent in intentless laws is enough to state that there's no truth whatsoever to the scandals surrounding Clinton and they're all a pack of Republican lies.
Sorry I usually write stuff and it make multiple edits when I reread to make sure I have all my facts straight but there was too much and I'm on a phone and I should sleep lol I'll come back tomorrow
I want to state before I go that this is what presenting an argument is about, and presenting an argument is much different than actually prosecuting someone for a crime. The whole point was that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue a case against her. We can paint pretty narratives for ourselves but legally there is more to it. We shouldn't pretend to be lawyers like we know more than the state who decided to not pursue this case.
There's a shitton of possibilities that are reasonable. I think my argument fits a lot of the facts and would lead to her not being prosecuted. You obviously disagree with some of them, but your argument that she definitely broke the law is also up for debate. There is probably some truth of her intent to break the law, just as there is truth to her not caring about the classified markers as carefully as she should have or sending classified information negligently a few times. But there's reasonable explanations for all these things that make it hard to prove intent. I'm not a lawyer, you're not a criminal prosecutor for the state, I trust that the conclusions derived from the investigation which seemed absolutely reasonable when I read the huge report were done in good faith because I'm not them and I'm not going to pretend I have all the information and experience they do. I didn't spend 10 years in law school.
Also I say intent but I don't recall all the specifics of where that came from. I believe that in order to be charged with committing a crime you have to be reasonably aware that it was illegal for the most part. Probably something to do with that.
Ye, ok. The email thing. That was a big mistake very uncautious. She shouldn't have used the wrong server. Ok. She answered terribly, minimized it. True too. Nobody has ever managed to explain to me what was the criminal intention in using a wrong server (it's just s bit stupid) but nevermind.
That's it? I mean really, you guys have been breaking our balls for like 3000 pages over that?
Should she have instructed staff to remove classified headers from emails to send to the server? (original FBI investigation) When she said she handed over all her emails, should she instead have said she turned over all but over 17 thousand? Wouldn't a reasonable person call that a lie? Should she have told everyone that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent? Should she have deleted all those emails before they had been reviewed in the FBI investigation? Does it mean anything to you when FBI Director Comey said she cleaned them "in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?" Was it her concussion that made her forget her training on classified servers? (final FBI interview) Are you okay with Comey rewriting a statute only requiring gross negligence (espionage act) to contain an intent provision? When her aide testified she had gone through thirteen (!) different blackberry devices, should she have turned them over to the FBI instead of destroying them with hammers? When she said she "wanted the public to see her emails" isn't that a problem when they were deleted by the thousands three weeks later? Did you believe Clinton when she said she thought the big "C" on the pages was used for alphabetical ordering?
If her name wasn't Hillary Clinton, would you excuse another person that had shown this pattern of behavior from not being scandalous or a pattern of lying?
Facts: (1) It was not a classified server, which is the whole point. (2) She tried her damnedest to keep classified info OFF of the server.
Conclusions: (1) Means that this isn't like the guys who have classified info and moves it off of a secure area (Patreaus, USB stick guy). (2) Means she has no intent to distribute classified info where it shouldn't be and actively avoided it (you even cited the 3 emails that has (c) in the body, a minor error, no intent).
EDIT: if you don't like the requirement of intent, tough. You need to prove Comey wrong:
Comey pointed out that Petraeus not only shared the classified information, but also hid the documents in his attic and then lied to investigators.
"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted." He added: "In my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case."
Sorry, do you have a point here? You seek to cherry pick which scandals you want to address? Let me guess: The conclusion here is there's no proof of any wrongdoing here move along.
And thank you for proving setting up an unsecured server and transmitting classified information across it means she set up an unclassified server. I take it you're a mind reader that says she tried very very hard to only use it for unclassified communication. While having previously ordered aides to strip classified headers to send it to her. While claiming she was ignorant of what markings even classify a classified message. And now we're doing the dance. Do you want to cherry pick some other behavior that proves she never wanted any of this to happen? I'm sure if I start throwing out stuff Trump's said or did too, he starts to look a whole ton better as well!
On October 10 2016 16:59 Blisse wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:46 Danglars wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:37 Blisse wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:21 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:15 JW_DTLA wrote:
On October 10 2016 16:04 CorsairHero wrote:
On October 10 2016 15:54 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Oh yeah, now conspiracy theories.
Like, the Obama administration totally decides what parliamentary commissions and the FBI decide.
I mean, what's wrong with you? What "scandal" are you even talking about?????
this one
Can you prove Comey wrong? Because Gowdy sure didn't.
I was just providing the answer for Biff since he asked which scandal zeo was referring to.
Ye. Just went through it. We can summarize in two sentences:
Hillary used the wrong email server, which is bad but nothing indicates that she had malicious intentions in doing so, that's rather stupid. Her defense about it was terrible.
Is. That. It????
I think that the video of the trial had extremely strong undertones of suspicious activity though. It wouldn't be fair to not point that out.
There's definitely a case to be made about her lacking intent, because she knew it was very grey line, and she changed her wording when it was revealed there were 3? classified documents in her private email server. She didn't really delete documents so much as they were automatically deleted as part of hardware changes. She was also careless handling emails because she preferred to use her judgment about whether they were classified or not rather than the C's which weren't common and sometimes didn't make sense to them. She used an email server because she didn't want Republicans being able to pry into her emails (not sure how this works). She used multiple devices but really only her Blackberry because she hated technology and her iPad. She wasn't definitively told that using a private email server is illegal because it isn't (?) and others have used it in the past. Everyone is careless about handling emails and notes.
But they were also arguing about precedent and how there's no precedent for her indictment because it's less wrong for politicians, and they're essentially asking the judge to not set the precedent in an essentially 50/50 ruling because she is running for president.
It's all a fuzzy gray area, I get that people are angry about it but by the virtue (injustice?) of our justice system it was lacking evidence, especially if you consider how Hillary works in the first place. Intent is really hard to prove.
(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.
Where's Waldo: Find the intent in this provision.
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
FBI.GOV When you say they happened to be deleted as part of hardware changes, does hardware changes include methods used in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?
It is likely there is. There's no proof that there is. We can interpret that however we want.
But this is the whole point of security. If you've been handling classified information on a device and you're not using the device anymore, you should be destroying the device such that there is no way that you can access any information in the device. I'm not sure what your point is here. Yes, it's a bit different that Hillary ordered these devices destroyed herself instead of handing them in for destruction. No, it's not enough evidence that she was covering up that she sent classified information. That's because there's no proof. There's just the possibility.
Dude, I get it, destroying phones like that looks suspicious as fuck, and there was an entire trial about this exact matter about emails where the destruction was pointed out. The whole point is that THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE INTENT. You really don't understand clearly enough how criminal law works if you think that what you quoted is enough, because clearly the judge in the video did not think that this was overtly intentional enough. IT IS EXTREMELY HARD TO PROVE INTENT.
There is a somewhat reasonable explanation for almost everything that happened with the email scandal. People say x shit and revise them when they realize they were wrong. They don't always say x shit because they are trying to hide something. Secret, extremely careful lawyers like Hillary definitely knows that her exact wording can get her in trouble so she will definitely word things more carefully when she can. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that she words things so she doesn't get in too much trouble and when she's pressured after more information she has to change how she speaks. She's been attacked by Republicans for 20 years during her entire political career. She's not going to be "amazingly cooperative" like you guys want idealize someone in her position would be.
Sure this may have gotten someone who wasn't running for president indicted. But like I said before, this was absolutely a 50/50 area that the judge was talking about in the video, and they decided not to set the precedent because she was running for president. Whether you think that's because the judge is corrupt or that the judge decided to lean this way instead of that is up to you.
We craft laws that don't require intent because people trained to handle sensitive information should be held to a high standard in their treatment of classified material. Did you read the part of the espionage act I quoted? To recap: You're wrong, it was intentionally deleted, not some byproduct of server migration. But you're now admitting this I see. The statute does not mention intent with reason. She's guilty of gross negligence in mishandling classified documents. No intent needed. Do I need to all caps this for you? There was no trial, just an investigation. Stop saying what isn't true. She said she was being cooperative, and you're saying she had reason to be uncooperative. To lie and destroy evidence. And it's justified because she hasn't had an easy political life. Are you actually for real? It's not just destroying phones, it's lying about having turned over all the emails, it's telling Comey you forgot your training on classified markings, it's the pattern of conflicting stories I mentioned in my other post.
You've made a tremendous case to say her lies were justified. Pardon me if that's about as much as an admission I'd expect any of here hardcore supporters to ever divulge. Setting up a private server and operating it through state department warnings and then crafting multiple lies when the jig was up.
Sure this may have gotten someone who wasn't running for president indicted.
But this web of reasonable justifications for lies and lack of intent in intentless laws is enough to state that there's no truth whatsoever to the scandals surrounding Clinton and they're all a pack of Republican lies.
Sorry I usually write stuff and it make multiple edits when I reread to make sure I have all my facts straight but there was too much and I'm on a phone and I should sleep lol I'll come back tomorrow
I want to state before I go that this is what presenting an argument is about, and presenting an argument is much different than actually prosecuting someone for a crime. The whole point was that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue a case against her. We can paint pretty narratives for ourselves but legally there is more to it. We shouldn't pretend to be lawyers like we know more than the state who decided to not pursue this case.
There's a shitton of possibilities that are reasonable. I think my argument fits a lot of the facts and would lead to her not being prosecuted. You obviously disagree with some of them, but your argument that she definitely broke the law is also up for debate. There is probably some truth of her intent to break the law, just as there is truth to her not caring about the classified markers as carefully as she should have or sending classified information negligently a few times. But there's reasonable explanations for all these things that make it hard to prove intent. I'm not a lawyer, you're not a criminal prosecutor for the state, I trust that the conclusions derived from the investigation which seemed absolutely reasonable when I read the huge report were done in good faith because I'm not them and I'm not going to pretend I have all the information and experience they do. I didn't spend 10 years in law school.
I've been on and on about this for people that say there isn't a shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton is attached to major scandals that reflect very badly on her. + Show Spoiler +
Ye, ok. The email thing. That was a big mistake very uncautious. She shouldn't have used the wrong server. Ok. She answered terribly, minimized it. True too. Nobody has ever managed to explain to me what was the criminal intention in using a wrong server (it's just s bit stupid) but nevermind.
That's it? I mean really, you guys have been breaking our balls for like 3000 pages over that?
Should she have instructed staff to remove classified headers from emails to send to the server? (original FBI investigation) When she said she handed over all her emails, should she instead have said she turned over all but over 17 thousand? Wouldn't a reasonable person call that a lie? Should she have told everyone that she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent? Should she have deleted all those emails before they had been reviewed in the FBI investigation? Does it mean anything to you when FBI Director Comey said she cleaned them "in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?" Was it her concussion that made her forget her training on classified servers? (final FBI interview) Are you okay with Comey rewriting a statute only requiring gross negligence (espionage act) to contain an intent provision? When her aide testified she had gone through thirteen (!) different blackberry devices, should she have turned them over to the FBI instead of destroying them with hammers? When she said she "wanted the public to see her emails" isn't that a problem when they were deleted by the thousands three weeks later? Did you believe Clinton when she said she thought the big "C" on the pages was used for alphabetical ordering?
If her name wasn't Hillary Clinton, would you excuse another person that had shown this pattern of behavior from not being scandalous or a pattern of lying?
They're all made up, she did nothing wrong and this is all the fault of evil right wingers. This isn't really about her being prosecuted for her crimes, or whether Comey thinks he can meet the burden of evidence to indict her in a court of law. This is the goose stepping Hillary supporters that live in a fairy land that everything Hillary is made up and not that bad and everything Trump is bad and documented. This very thread documents the lengths to which a big section of Hillary's supporters will go to make that assertion. It's wrong.
She lied, and you say it was justified. She deleted emails, and it looks bad. She deleted classified emails under active subpoena, which looks really bad. She's blamed past health problems for the reason she can't actually decipher what makes a classified email classified. She's asked her staff to remove classified headers. She said she turned over emails when she hadn't. She said she only deleted non-work emails, but FBI investigators found leftovers that survived deletion that showed she had deleted classified work emails. And on and on and on.
Usually I don't try to convince people that have shown diligence in self deception. It's basically a useless exercise from the outset. But there's plenty here to suggest an independent investigator should have been appointed at the outset to do the investigation justice. FBI Director Comey had enough for a gross negligence charge but decided unilaterally to write in "intent" into the statute to make a very different kind of case and it damages his credibility.
I don't need to tell a lawyer (or shouldn't) how he tiptoed around with "extremely careless" to not say "gross negligence." I shouldn't need to tell a lawyer how bad intentionally misreading a statute looks. If you really and I mean REALLY wanted to use your skills as a lawyer to build a case, you'd have to go further. You'd have to look at all the Clinton & State Department aides that were granted immunity to testify and EVEN then at least one refused to answer questions. You'd have to look at how Comey allowed a co-conspirator, one alleged to have facilitated deleting emails pertaining to an active congressional investigation, to be present with Hillary Clinton when she was interviewed by the FBI. You'd also have to look at how she was never questioned under oath. It paints a very damning picture to anyone concerned, especially if you happen to give it a second look and examine the evidence honestly. It's a major scandal in her administration that went on for years and was covered up in many shifting explanations. She will likely never pay for her crimes in a court of law, but the funny thing about these accusations is we meet the charge of her corruption, incompetence, and gross negligence that should disqualify her from seeking the presidency. The courts require a higher bar to actually jail her. Just ask if Trump's been indicted or convicted on charges of sexual assault and ask if that means he's had no scandals.
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI
It's not like CNN had any credibility before this though. I still laugh every time someone cites CNN as a source.
Anyone that enjoyed that moment by finding it a clever counter in a debate for President of the United States might aswell have "FUCK ME PUTIN" slapped on your four-head because thats clearly who they are horny for...
Well there is a lot of Americans out there who 100% believe Hilary should be in jail.
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI
It's not like CNN had any credibility before this though. I still laugh every time someone cites CNN as a source.
Anyone that enjoyed that moment by finding it a clever counter in a debate for President of the United States might aswell have "FUCK ME PUTIN" slapped on your four-head because thats clearly who they are horny for...
Well there is a lot of Americans out there who 100% believe Hilary should be in jail, I don't think Putin crosses their mind before they came to that conclusion.
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI
It's not like CNN had any credibility before this though. I still laugh every time someone cites CNN as a source.
Anyone that enjoyed that moment by finding it a clever counter in a debate for President of the United States might aswell have "FUCK ME PUTIN" slapped on your four-head because thats clearly who they are horny for...
Well there is a lot of Americans out there who 100% believe Hilary should be in jail.
What % of those people also believed Obama was a Kenyan Muslim operative do you think?
On October 10 2016 18:10 Danglars wrote: She will likely never pay for her crimes in a court of law, but the funny thing about these accusations is we meet the charge of her corruption... that should disqualify her from seeking the presidency.
What about the email issue implies specifically corruption, as opposed to incompetence or negligence?
But there's plenty here to suggest an independent investigator should have been appointed at the outset to do the investigation justice. FBI Director Comey had enough for a gross negligence charge but decided unilaterally to write in "intent" into the statute to make a very different kind of case and it damages his credibility.
Is there any reason outside his conduct with respect to this case to say that Comey was not independent (EDIT: A better word would probably be impartial)? (There might well be, but I haven't followed exceptionally closely and chased everything down.)
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI
It's not like CNN had any credibility before this though. I still laugh every time someone cites CNN as a source.
Anyone that enjoyed that moment by finding it a clever counter in a debate for President of the United States might aswell have "FUCK ME PUTIN" slapped on your four-head because thats clearly who they are horny for...
low brow She deserves to be in jail along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton..... All criminals! It's over for the establishment if Trump wins - thats why they're so desperate right now.
On October 10 2016 16:42 Chris1 wrote: Remember: CNN DOES """"SCIENTIFIC"""" POLLS BASED ON """UNBIASED""" FOCUS GROUPS. Clinton news network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI
It's not like CNN had any credibility before this though. I still laugh every time someone cites CNN as a source.
Anyone that enjoyed that moment by finding it a clever counter in a debate for President of the United States might aswell have "FUCK ME PUTIN" slapped on your four-head because thats clearly who they are horny for...
low brow She deserves to be in jail along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton..... All criminals! It's over for the establishment if Trump wins - thats why they're so desperate right now.
No they wouldn't. Trump doesn't actually give a shit about that stuff he just wants to win an election.
EPT
