Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

No Indictment For Hillary...

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Deleted User 8570

No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:31 am

Some of you guys were so sure one was coming (Bryce I'm looking at you) but in a statement only the FBI knew the contents of, Director James Comey announced that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges in a case like this despite some minor statute violations. That's a major blow to your hopes...



bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by bmw » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:37 am

I watched the entire statement. A few of the most damaging findings:
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.
We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
So basically she either knew or should have known what she did was wrong, her actions possibly led to hostile actors gaining access to classified information, yet no charges are being brought.

Anybody else would have been indicted based on those findings.

Full statement: http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/james-com ... statement/



bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by bmw » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:48 am

Another quote:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Sounds like a violation of 18 USC 793(f) to me:
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document...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.
Being "extremely careless" sure sounds like "gross negligence" to me. Intent is not an element of a violation of the above section, yet it sounds like she got off because of no clear intent.

EDIT - My feeling is that despite the lack of an indictment, the FBI's findings effectively render her unfit to be President. Anybody who is granted access to classified information and acts with "extreme carelessness" when handling that information - carelessness which may have led to hostile actors having access to said classified information, is in no position to be the most powerful person in the US.

Anybody who says that this email scandal is "much ado about nothing" apparently has no problem with our enemies having access to classified information.



Matt
Posts: 9845
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by Matt » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:36 pm

bmw wrote:EDIT - My feeling is that despite the lack of an indictment, the FBI's findings effectively render her unfit to be President. Anybody who is granted access to classified information and acts with "extreme carelessness" when handling that information - carelessness which may have led to hostile actors having access to said classified information, is in no position to be the most powerful person in the US.

Anybody who says that this email scandal is "much ado about nothing" apparently has no problem with our enemies having access to classified information.
Trump is equally unfit. Both are human garbage. An argument cannot not be made than either is worse than the other.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

Deleted User 8570

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:40 pm

bmw wrote:Another quote:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Sounds like a violation of 18 USC 793(f) to me:
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document...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.
Being "extremely careless" sure sounds like "gross negligence" to me. Intent is not an element of a violation of the above section, yet it sounds like she got off because of no clear intent.

EDIT - My feeling is that despite the lack of an indictment, the FBI's findings effectively render her unfit to be President. Anybody who is granted access to classified information and acts with "extreme carelessness" when handling that information - carelessness which may have led to hostile actors having access to said classified information, is in no position to be the most powerful person in the US.

Anybody who says that this email scandal is "much ado about nothing" apparently has no problem with our enemies having access to classified information.
We've had violations like this before... Here's a look in depth at one in 1987:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... nts-213999

One might argue this one that DID expose secrets is worse than Hillary's which MAY have exposed secrets... No charges there either and under Reagan no less...



TC Shuts Up
Posts: 2314
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:10 pm

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by TC Shuts Up » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:49 pm

This decision will pave the way to overturn many convictions. It's called equal protection under the law. General Petraeus, Scooter Libby, G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson and many others should have their charges and convictions overturned. It's sets a bad precedent for any case where intent is in question. Of course, it is impossible to PROVE intent without the accused admitting intent, but plenty of people are convicted under the assumption of intent when it really can't be proven. The lawyers will be busy overturning many convictions. Bill Ayers could say he didn't intend to have an explosion occur in that apartment where people died. Anyone charged with murder in a self defense or other situation could say they didn't INTEND to kill the person. People convicted of drunk driving could say they didn't INTEND to get drunk or drive drunk. There's just no end to the can of worms opened up by this decision. Of course, this will probably never happen. But then it calls into question the equal protection under the law clause, and whether we have a Republic or a Monarchy, even when the Monarch has not even been elected. Intent does not fall under ignorance of the law, so it's wide open. Which way do you want it?

In any event, this will affect the way many people view her when voting. Even an unnamed blind Rhythm and Blues singer born in Michigan can see the hypocrisy.


Disagreeing with Communists is NOT an impeachable offense.

Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.

Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.

User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10100
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by TC Talks » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:42 pm

I am thankful for all the hard work the GOP has put in to the Benghazi situation and I look forward to their investigation into the motives behind the Iraq was and the 4425 Americans killed.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by bmw » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:54 pm

Matt wrote:Trump is equally unfit. Both are human garbage. An argument cannot not be made than either is worse than the other.
What does Trump have to do with whether or not Hillary should have been indicted?

Answer: absolutely nothing.



bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by bmw » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:05 pm

NS8401 wrote:One might argue this one that DID expose secrets is worse than Hillary's which MAY have exposed secrets... No charges there either and under Reagan no less...
What secrets were exposed? The photo was apparently not of sufficient resolution to actually decode any of the text on the document beyond that of the page number. Or am I missing something here?



bmw
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by bmw » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:06 pm

TC Talks wrote:I am thankful for all the hard work the GOP has put in to the Benghazi situation and I look forward to their investigation into the motives behind the Iraq was and the 4425 Americans killed.
The Obama administration has had plenty of time to conduct that particular investigation. What was its findings?



Deleted User 8570

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by Deleted User 8570 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:29 pm

bmw wrote:
TC Talks wrote:I am thankful for all the hard work the GOP has put in to the Benghazi situation and I look forward to their investigation into the motives behind the Iraq was and the 4425 Americans killed.
The Obama administration has had plenty of time to conduct that particular investigation. What was its findings?
It would take something like 4500 years to investigate each Iraq war death if the same time was devoted to it as the committee devoted to it. You guys got nothin'...



Matt
Posts: 9845
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by Matt » Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:55 am

bmw wrote:
Matt wrote:Trump is equally unfit. Both are human garbage. An argument cannot not be made than either is worse than the other.
What does Trump have to do with whether or not Hillary should have been indicted?

Answer: absolutely nothing.
You made the statement that Hillary is unfit for the presidency and I countered saying that Trump is equally unfit. Try to keep up...


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

kager
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:10 pm
Location: GPS lost

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by kager » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:57 am

Yet the FBI director's report / statement wasn't exactly the vindication camp cLInton desired, was it?

An official indictment of cLInton isn't necessary unless you're still holding out for Bernie. USA has wasted enough court time on cLIntons. Let people draw their own conclusions - faster, cheaper, and more people speak the language. Those who forget (or don't learn) their history may be doomed to repeat it (along with the rest of us, if enough of 'em vote).

Considering the alternative, that may not be the worst thing that could happen.


"The problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred."

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 8854
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by Turkeytop » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:03 pm

Imageg


I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11870
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: No Indictment For Hillary...

Post by MWmetalhead » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:12 pm

I am not surprised in the least that Hillary was not indicted.

Still would love to know what's hiding in Donald's tax returns.
This decision will pave the way to overturn many convictions. It's called equal protection under the law. General Petraeus, Scooter Libby, G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson and many others should have their charges and convictions overturned. It's sets a bad precedent for any case where intent is in question. Of course, it is impossible to PROVE intent without the accused admitting intent, but plenty of people are convicted under the assumption of intent when it really can't be proven. The lawyers will be busy overturning many convictions.
Interesting point. Not sure your examples are entirely analogous to the situation at hand, but that being said, I definitely agree with your general premise that federal laws seem to be applied unequally and inconsistently.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic