extremely careless in her classified email usage. About what I expected.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no-charges-appropriate-000000895.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no-charges-appropriate-000000895.html
FBI: No Charges Recommended for HRC, But She Was...
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
I am a registered Independent so don't really lean one way or the other. That said I spent 20 years in the military with a high classification. You KNOW the rules dealing with classified material, you sign documents that you KNOW those rules. If I had done these same things I would have been sent to Ft. Leavenworth...
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat
He's obviously not part of the illuminati
no, you wouldn't. I've actually sent people to Leavenworth. I've defended people to keep them out of Leavenworth. I've been inside Leavenworth (just visiting) dozens of times, mostly to visit a DP client, but also during my time stationed there.
And no, you wouldn't have gotten court-martialed. Article 15 is possible, GOMOR is certainly highly likely, and both of those torpedo careers. But to go to Leavenworth would have required more than not following the rules, as the Republican former US Atty head of the FBI laid out today.
Actually, if a service member did exactly what Hill did (i.e. set up servers for private use and routinely emailed DOD and classified information via those servers), yeah, I think they'd find enough to indict, particularly because those at high enough paygrades (O4, O5, +) are usually issued gov't assets to send/receive at least unclassified email. I think at that point there would be enough evidence to at least hold a trial based on "intent" since we sign all kinds of agreements coming in and leaving every job, one of which (now) specifically says we will not use personal email to conduct DOD business.
Certainly, if I were to use my personal email repeatedly to send classified data over a period of years, whether wittingly or unwittingly, my clearance would be revoked and I'd be relieved for cause/loss of confidence.
As a DC person with friends in varying departments, I think you're simplifying the issue a bit. The classified markings and general systems they use are a pain in the a$$ living in the modern world and are much more confusing to someone not in the know.
First off, the whole issue of "charges" for this is rather clear. From the get go, anyone with knowledge of this law has said they don't see any charges coming because to be charged with anything you have to show you are knowingly/intending to violate the law with said information. It's a VERY high bar to receive charges.
So this notion that anyone else would be charged with a crime is not true.
Secondly, this happened after she was done as Secretary of State. To say "this would happen to me if I was working there" - well she's not working there anymore. If this happened during her tenure, she probably would be at the least resigning from her job, if not already had. And to say someone else would be charged if they did the same thing is, again, just not factually true.
As the FBI director stated: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said, saying the FBI could not find a single case in which a person was charged with crimes for similar actions.
So I think Republican efforts to say there's a cover up, she should be charged, etc. may rile up the base, but not terribly effective - James Comey is about as straight shooter as they come (and certainly didn't have to come out and say a lot of the stuff he said today).
So even after being debriefed about what she should and shouldn't do with Classified Information, she didn't know that using a private email server was improper? Setting up the private email server wasn't knowingly violating the rules?
She set up the email server AFTER she left the Department of State? Give me a break...
john deutch says hi. charged with misdemeanor for far, far less.
Maybe you should tell the FBI that you fact-checked them!
If you bothered to review the cases instead of listen to right-wing media, you'd know that Deutch KNOWINGLY stripped and stored classified information on home computers. There is no evidence of Clinton doing that. Again, the crime is you knowingly intended to - i.e. you take things classified as top secret, strip them of that classification and then store them elsewhere. They found literally 0 manipulation on her part.
your last sentence is true, but the rest, I've not seen it, and I've been doing military criminal law for over a decade. I'm sure it's happened, but usually it requires intent. It's also a different situation. State didn't have the same agreements when she was SOS about not using personal email to conduct business.
She didn't lie under oath but she lied to the public.
She didn't obstruct justice, she gave the Feds a clean scrubbed server. She didn't tell anyone to lie for her, she hired all persons that worked for her prior as her legal,council, giving them legal client privilege. Oh and her husband had a meeting with Lynch.
If I were Nixon I would have scrubbed the tape clean.
She didn't obstruct justice, she gave the Feds a clean scrubbed server. She didn't tell anyone to lie for her, she hired all persons that worked for her prior as her legal,council, giving them legal client privilege. Oh and her husband had a meeting with Lynch.
If I were Nixon I would have scrubbed the tape clean.
Again, the actual evidence doesn't support what you're saying. The crime is knowingly with an intent - i.e. wiping out the classification on documents. You would be able to know this based on the evidence - doesn't matter what anyone said or didn't say.
And the FBI director made a statement without briefing the JD or White House. James Comey is incredibly respected on BOTH sides of the aisle. So Lynch had nothing to do with it. If it was some coverup, you'd know it - career FBI agents are not shy about that (and it's happened before).
James Comey explained it quite matter of fact - it was incredibly irresponsible, but it's not a crime. You can go ahead and criticize her all you want for that, but to go into the coverup, she should be in jail, etc. nonsense is just stupid.
I agree about her in particular, and this State scandal actually precipitated the DOD agreement. In reality, it probably depends on the specific job. A Navy Cryptologist conducting work on a personal server is more likely to lead to criminal charges due to the classification level and danger it poses to national security. I'd think, even without "intent", in that case you'd get an indictment. But you'd be the expert.
The hard spot most military folks I talk to have with this and her is that we all know we'd be shitcanned for it. While I don't know that I outright agree that it should disqualify her from the presidency, it's definitely not a good thing, and I think certainly more serious than probably even you thought back last year when we were discussing it.
I'm fine with no indictment for a civilian in this case. It certainly doesn't help her image.
I get it, I deal with pain in the ass markings every day, but even the most junior Sailor understands that certain things are classified and we shouldn't talk about them on social media or over unclassified email. Claiming ignorance when you're the Secretary of State is a cop out in my opinion, and a terrible defense for someone aspiring to the Presidency. She may not personally know better, but she has staffers that do, and they absolutely failed her in this regard, just like she failed in recognizing classified information that she was sending and receiving insecurely. That's OPSEC 101.
I didn't say "Anyone else". I was specific to service members. We would certainly lose our access to classified information, and be relieved for cause at my level. I think certain ratings/MOS that deal with specialized information would at least be indicted, certainly removed from their positions, for acting this irresponsibly.
I also did not advocate for Hillary specifically being charged. I am merely commenting on what I know would happen in the DOD (I'd be fired, without question), and what I think would happen in certain instances (indictment of CTs, ITs, etc., but I know qaz likely disagrees and he'd know better).
Hillary has a crisis of trust on her hands already, and this does nothing but hurt with everyone except her base. As ineffective as you think it may be, Trump is going to hammer away at this until November, and it will have an effect on some voters. Probably not enough, but some.
You don't think there was a coverup? Even a little bit of one before it kinda blew up? Really?
isn't there still a larger issue? (at least i am not clear from reading/hearing news on the subject all this time).
if she was doing this, intentionally or not, how did the various security and tech agencies not know?
if they did not know,
isn't that the most concerning thing? i would just assume that we make attempts to track all data, communication, etc in near real time, let alone all that time.
if they did know,
wouldn't many other officials be accountable for allowing the setup she had also? i would imagine quite a few people in security and tech would have to know this was deemed 'acceptable' if it were out of the norm versus everyone else.
if she was doing this, intentionally or not, how did the various security and tech agencies not know?
if they did not know,
isn't that the most concerning thing? i would just assume that we make attempts to track all data, communication, etc in near real time, let alone all that time.
if they did know,
wouldn't many other officials be accountable for allowing the setup she had also? i would imagine quite a few people in security and tech would have to know this was deemed 'acceptable' if it were out of the norm versus everyone else.
The FBI is a filthy piece of trash. Those traitors don't give a goddam about this country. It just shows what a bunch of two faced shills they are. A bunch of phony dog and pony show trash. They get up there and talk with delphi technique to con America like as if people don't know she committed treason. She put that information on the internet and was paid by foreign governments for it directly to her foundation. That is an obvious truth. Then Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General (Bill a former attorney) and Hillary an attorney, these people know the law and should be held to the highest standard as trained licensed attorneys knowing that is HIGHLY ILLEGAL....and even then they don't get held accountable. It is organized treason in a bold way to show America they rule you and piss in America's face about it. They are letting you know that you all are their cuck filth and you will surrender your laws to them. They are the law. They rule you and the punk FBI is nothing more than sniveling punks that openly wrecked their reputation to this country. The FBI needs dissolved completely and when Trump gets in there that is exactly what is going to happen. All these ineffective false organizations are gone when he gets in there. Time to rebuild from the ground up. This is astounding in the face cowardly treason in front of the entire country.
Last edited:
really?!?!?! Are you crazy? What is running a server out of your house with classified info on it then?! Is it not KNOWINGLY running a ****ing server?! Did she not know it was there!? There were marked, classified documents on that server buddy! Literally NO DIFFERENT. I can't even talk to you people. The level of clinton nut hugging is so unreal.
I'm stepping back to this post because it is disturbing that an intelligent person would accept this as a viable defense for these actions. As I said, we have 19 year olds trusted not to spread Confidential information on Facebook, we should be able to trust the Secretary of State not to send TS/SCI/SAP information via unclassified mediums. I mean, TS/SAP info isn't a ship movement or a nuclear reactor specification that may sometimes be found open source... It's pretty evident when something could cause "grave damage to national security" if compromised.
Director Comey agreed: "There is evidence to support a conclusion that a reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position... Should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
That is a damning statement which directly reflects the point I made in my prior post; that is, ignorance is not a defense for these actions. Period.
So, basically at this point, if Hillary has a shred of integrity, she should accept responsibility for this whole mess. Not "it wasn't marked!" Not "it wasn't classified at the time." Not "this is just drip drip drip politics as usual." She has blown this off repeatedly, and now the FBI has exposed that, in fact, basically every explanation she gave before was false, and that she should have known better (in fact having signed a statement that directly said it is HER responsibility to recognize classified information, even when it isn't marked- a standard non-disclosure agreement.)
I wonder if she will cop to it at all.
I mean I think she's said it was a bad decision about 100 times.....what more do you want her to say? I don't think you'd ever be satisfied.
And again, I don't think anyone's saying it was great that she had this set-up. But it is not a crime.
LOL and WHY was it bad? It seems like everything is coming up roses! Why in the hell would you NOT do this? I mean you can just DOD wipe what you don't want the FBI to know and who cares about the rest of it, they won't prosecute anyway! Boom. No pesky FOIA. Use whatever device you want. No nonsense SIPR rooms where I can't take my cell phone. And bonus, I can work from starbucks!!! win win!
It's not Clinton nuthugging, it's people who understand the law. There is a difference between sending an email with classified information on an unsecure server (which if you investigate every email sent in the government, you'd probably find a lot of people to put in jail according to your definition) - and going in, stripping the classified marking off a document and doing so with intent to.
And this may be horrifying to you, but fellow Clinton nuthugger - and the first House Republican to back Donald Trump - d with the FBI's decision saying: "Director Comey is one of the better appointments that President Obama has made and I accept what he said that while her actions may not have been intended, it shows extremely poor judgment," Collins said.
This is what Trump should be doing. It's a waste of time playing conspiracy theory - use what is a fact in this case that it displayed poor judgment.
Dude, you need to stop drinking the HRC koolaid. Here is the actual video of Director Comey's comments today. Especially listen to minutes 9:00 - 12:30.
except that doesn't make any sense. It's EXACTLY what she intended. Why in the hell would you bother to run your own server and own domain? Do you even understand the technical details in setting a private email server up? Have you ever run IIS or Apache or hell ANY kind of web server technology at all? Register a domain or pay for SSL certs and get a static ip with your isp? So all that happened by accident...it was not intentional. riiiiiiiight. On top of that, she has the audacity to run S/TS marked and unmarked documents through it. Not to mention the FOIA/government oversight avoidance...whatever...just whatever. The corruption is boundless and you are an enabler.
Look at the sniveling face of that traitor FBI piece of trash. It just shows the type of people Americans are faced with. These are literal demons. These are empty robotic cuck faced traitors. They aren't even believable. They just get up there and lie BOLDLY to America. It is going to take a Nuremberg level trial to get these people out of this government. It is going to require a massive overhaul a full out rebellion of America against them. They are clearly proving to everyone it is either Americans or them. One or the other. They rail against America for the whole country to see.
No one is going to argue it's a good thing. But you know the Bush WH deleted MILLIONS of emails in 2007 concerning firings and that a Congressional committee had specifically requested. The reaction then was "eh" the reaction now is somewhat different. She continued the lax policy of prior SOS. Again, not good, but not remotely disqualifying (which you agree with) and you know if there was a borderline sane person on the other side, maybe it would mean something...but that person on the other side yesterday praised Saddam Hussein.
She's not my first choice. I was for Obama. I would have preferred a third, better option to either Clinton or Sanders. But it's a dual choice, Clinton or Sanders, and one is FAR FAR better of a choice on every level than the other, and that includes the truth-telling level.
I think it's the same to me as it was before. She did some dumb stuff, but for me, I have always thought that if you shined a microscope over most Government agencies not DOD on this issue, you'd find a lot of bad things when it comes to security. It's certainly true that the DOD takes this stuff more seriously, and yes you or I would have our careers ended for sure. But it's different. Folks may not like that it is different, but it is. And the republicans could have nominated a non-bat guano crazy person to take advantage of this. But they...went another direction.
sure, it will move a few folks on the fence between them or considering third party or not voting at all...but in my mind those folks were iffy Hillary supporters to begin with (if not this, then something else).
And you are forgetting that Trump has months to say all sorts of things way worse than this email issue to move them right back.
The reality is this was the last great thing to drop for Hillary barring a black swan event. She's not likely to do or say anything remotely as damaging the remainder of the time.
Trump says things as damaging or worse on the regular.
So IMO we will see poll tightening for a week or two, then folks will start to forget about it, Trump will do 5-10 outrageous things and the polls will spread out again.
Anyone already predisposed to think she's a lying whatever will have this reinforce their beliefs, anyone not, won't. The edges may be nibbled on, but that's it. That's the benefit of being so well known.
qaz,
The rules for this were tightened before she became SOS, so comparing to the Bush years is somewhat off-the-mark. It has also widely known that she was debriefed on proper handling of Classified information, just as all other government officials who handle Classified Information. It would seem that she chose to either ignore or flout the training, in order to hide from FOIA requests her dealings as SOS.
What she did was really dumb, and the fact that she tried to deny and obfuscate for many months is even more dumb. As John Heileman said this morning, "Hillary Clinton received the worst possible good news yesterday." This will only cause to further damage her horrible untrustworthiness numbers and lend credibility to those critics who say that HRC and her husband think they're above the law.
Nope. The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation. That shoe could drop at any time.
it was a crime then as it is now to delete emails that have been specifically requested by Congress. So no. But of course, it's always "different." And we all know this has nothing to do with hiding from FOIA requests. It has to do with her being paranoid about every inch of her dealings/life being scrutinized. One can certainly say, well, that comes with the territory, deal with it.
No one has said what she did wasn't dumb. She's said as much. No, this won't cause further damage to her numbers on trustworthiness because basically that's limited to those who already support her. Those folks aren't going to be moved by this, and those that don't support her find reinforcement in it. Those independents who lean Dem might not like this, but they like the idea of nominating Trump even less. Those who lean Rep would have used this or something else to eventually come home.
So at the end of the day, this will be most Rs voting Trump, most Ds voting Hillary, leaners leaning toward their respective leans. And since there are more Ds than Rs all total, and since Hillary will win minorities by a ton, and women pretty handily, Hillary will win.
you keep waiting for that shoe. I'm sure when that shoe fails to drop, they will try some other investigation.
But again, as Secretary of State, you think she only sent/received what was it - 100 emails that had any sort of classification? You act like she was emailing Vladimir Putin about where each other nuclear stockpiles are. And again, she's also not the first Secretary of State to operate an independent email system, let alone other government officials. But we never bothered looking into those. Not saying it's right - but to go on a witch hunt, just like the millions spent on a plethora of Benghazi investigations that simply couldn't find what they wanted (i.e. a cover up).
I'm not saying it's the right thing to do - I've flat out said that what that congressman who supports Trump did was the right approach - there's no conspiracy theory, coverup, etc. - it's just a bad decision that she should be hammered on. There's no crime in what she did though. I expect some conversations about it from Clinton.
I've simply responded to people accusing her of committing crimes, the FBI is covering it up for her, etc. - that's just not based in fact.
Is the FBI not investigating the Clinton Foundation? Yup, the FBI is out to get the Clintons.
How about, "I'm sorry that I was careless with our national secrets and potentially jeopardized people's safety." The air around the campaign and, frankly, most Democrats is "No big deal." I disagree. It IS a big deal, irrespective of criminal charges or intent. There's a reason I would get fired for this and lose my access, and it's not because we just do those types of things lightly with lowly Commanders.
Agree on all counts.
Again, agree on all counts, though I think this will have some staying power for Hillary because (1) this is something that is directly germane to her job as Commander in Chief, and (2) her single biggest issue already is trust, and this continues to hammer at that point. Whether or not that matters, I suspect you are correct given the opponent.
I admit that it pisses me off (obviously) and makes me want someone else all the more, but as you suggested that's not wholly surprising given my other political leanings. We'll see. I'm beginning to rationalize a 3rd party vote if only because I know Hillary will win CA anyway. If I think that Trump by some end-of-the-world scenario has a shot at CA, then I'm sure I'll vote for Hillary because #neverTrump.
Well, technically you responded to me and I've said repeatedly that I don't think she should be indicted. But nevermind.
I think it was closer to 200 emails, 8 of which were TS/SAP-level. Yeah, that IS serious. Perhaps the real problem here is that you and other civilians - even some of those with experience working with Classified information - don't think that it's a big deal.
And, yes, it would've been a big deal if we'd discovered Colin Powell did it, but I'm guessing he was probably a little more sensitive to it...
Qaz, if I am correct I believe you have served or are currently serving in the armed forces. I greatly appreciate your service.
Isn't it disgusting to you the comments HRC made to the parents of heroes who gave their lives to save a few fellow Americans. I'm refering to the video comment when she knew differently all along.
In my post above you mention I was insinuating HRC was guilty. Not at all. I was stating she was brilliant how she managed the situation, to minimize the result she got.
She lied, at least to the public. She must have been up front with the FBI. Scrubbing some 30,000 e-mails though is concerning. Especially after the FBI asked for ALL e-mails.
Yes I do serve and have for coming up on 20 years.
No, it is not disgusting to me because you assume facts I don't agree with WRT Benghazi and the video and her comments. It was a fluid situation with different information coming at different times. Some folks jump to malfeasance, and I've found the principle that never assume malice where incompetence (or lack of information, or fluid circumstances, or a whole host of things) will suffice.
I don't think she managed it brilliantly at all. I think the biggest issue to me is not the emails, but her ham-handed approach to them. She should have, from the beginning said, yep, I did some dumb stuff that in retrospect I shouldn't have done. I never intentionally tried to flout the rules or harm our security. I've learned a lesson on this that I will not only follow diligently the rest of my political career but make sure those that work for me do as well.
You make a statement like that, and then you don't have to say/answer anything else.
She didn't lie to the FBI no. Her dealings with the public are the only thing I'm concerned about to be honest. I assume that State has had an issue with email security since forever
As for the scrubbing, it's not like she personally went through those emails herself. Her team of lawyers did. Now, what people forget is that Comey said he found ZERO ill intent in how those lawyers did the scrubbing, but simply they missed some.
Similar threads
