Presidential Race 2016

[rehmwa]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

No, you missed the point that I was never discussing the politics at all.  Just the definitions and such.

you bitch, how dare you...   

[Ernest Jones]

18 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

you bitch, how dare you...   

Now you're just being cock!

[Elmer]

16 hours ago, newtogolf said:

  

I'm not betting anyone on something as corrupt as politics because ultimately Obama can get her off the hook just like all the criminals he's been releasing from jail.

When someone drives drunk they don't intend on getting into an accident and killing someone but that doesn't mean it was okay to drive drunk.  

first off, Obama can not "get her off the hook", especially when a federal prosecutor is handling the case. If convicted Obama could pardon her, just as GWB did for Scooter Libby.
I think you are confused about the law and your bad DWI analogy.
DWI & Vehicular manslaughter are 2 different charges.

1-You are drunk and get in a car and drive, your intent was to drive drunk- This is breaking the law.

2- while driving in the above condition you get in an accident and kill someone, that is vehicular manslaughter.

Manslaughter =the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

So once again was Hillary's intent to break the law? Did she knowingly send her emails to people who should not have received them 
or did she just send emails from her personal server to authorized staff?
Furthermore can her intent be proven in a court of law? Federal prosecutors have been known to only take cases to trial that they have a very good chance of winning. 

16 hours ago, Gunther said:

 None of us truly know if she is guilty on that front, but I strongly believe she is.  

But to get a conviction you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that her intent was to knowingly break the law. Now if you compare Clinton's actions to Snowden you would see the difference in intent. Snowden meant to steal, leak & distribute classified documents without authorization. 

CNN had a report and some talking heads last night. They addressed the issue of Trump not having a "ground team", therefore all talking points that are received by Trump Surrogates are usually sent from DT.
However as on Trump surrogate indicated, DT likes to change his mind, which means that at any moment the talking points change on a whim.
The problem this creates is Hillary's team stays on point, DT is bouncing around messages.

[Jeremie Boop]

Here's my take on the whole Hillary email thing. Even in regular business environments, it's pretty much taboo and often times grounds for removal if you are caught forwarding work emails to a personal email account. It doesn't even matter if it's sensitive material or not. How in the world would anyone think that it's OK to do such a thing in a Government situation is beyond me. You can't give me the "but this other person did it, so it must be OK" line either, because ignorance is no excuse. To borrow from the DUI line of talk, people drink and drive all the time, but that doesn't make it OK or mean it's a valid excuse for me if I get caught. Neither is the justification of "nobody got hurt, so it's OK" / "nothing was classified at the time so it's OK".

Her private email issue is just one of the many things about her career as well as her stances on many political and social issues that make me not want to see her become President. Unfortunately for us, the choices are not exactly stellar in this election.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Here's my take on the whole Hillary email thing. Even in regular business environments, it's pretty much taboo and often times grounds for removal if you are caught forwarding work emails to a personal email account. It doesn't even matter if it's sensitive material or not. How in the world would anyone think that it's OK to do such a thing in a Government situation is beyond me. You can't give me the "but this other person did it, so it must be OK" line either, because ignorance is no excuse. To borrow from the DUI line of talk, people drink and drive all the time, but that doesn't make it OK or mean it's a valid excuse for me if I get caught. Neither is the justification of "nobody got hurt, so it's OK" / "nothing was classified at the time so it's OK".

Her private email issue is just one of the many things about her career as well as her stances on many political and social issues that make me not want to see her become President. Unfortunately for us, the choices are not exactly stellar in this election.

Thanks for responding because @Elmeris so blinded by HRC and his hate for Trump that he can't see how the analogy applies.  She knew it was wrong to use her personal e-mail for government business, anyone that works in government knows this to be the case.   She did it because she thinks she's above the law and didn't want to be inconvenienced by having to carry two phones and manage two e-mail addresses, something many of us in the business world have to do.  

She knowingly sent classified or at least sensitive information using personal e-mail, do you really need to be a lawyer or security expert to know that was wrong?  She didn't take proper precautions to protect her server and when asked to hand over its contents, she deleted everything on the server.  

[Gunther]

14 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Thanks for responding because @Elmeris so blinded by HRC and his hate for Trump that he can't see how the analogy applies.  She knew it was wrong to use her personal e-mail for government business, anyone that works in government knows this to be the case.   She did it because she thinks she's above the law and didn't want to be inconvenienced by having to carry two phones and manage two e-mail addresses, something many of us in the business world have to do.  

She knowingly sent classified or at least sensitive information using personal e-mail, do you really need to be a lawyer or security expert to know that was wrong?  She didn't take proper precautions to protect her server and when asked to hand over its contents, she deleted everything on the server.  

She did it to prevent responding to FOIA requests, that's already been established by her own emails and the FBI know it cuz they grilled Cheryl Mills on that topic last week.  Also, she told a subordinate to scrub the classified marking off a document and send it to her.  Intent has been shown.  I've heard numerous lawyers and judges say she can be charged just by what is known in the public domain.  She's guilty on that front, no question.

The question still remains about favors for foreign governments based on donations to her.  I'm pretty sure there is a there there but that's the only part we in the public don't yet know.

Still, an indictment is unlikely unless she pisses off Obama.  They're already saying they're going to hold off on a lot of it til after the election.  So, so corrupt.

[saevel25]

24 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

She did it because she thinks she's above the law and didn't want to be inconvenienced by having to carry two phones and manage two e-mail addresses, something many of us in the business world have to do.  

It doesn't mean she broke any criminal laws. It might be frowned upon. It might get her fired from her position (speaking in general terms, not actually could happen since she's not SOS anymore). It's not an actual criminal offense unless she gives information to someone who isn't allowed to see that information. 

Wrong but not criminal based on who she sent it to. As of right now all information says all the emails sent were to her own staff, who is allowed to view that information. 

 

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It doesn't mean she broke any criminal laws. It might be frowned upon. It might get her fired from her position (speaking in general terms, not actually could happen since she's not SOS anymore). It's not an actual criminal offense unless she gives information to someone who isn't allowed to see that information. 

Wrong but not criminal based on who she sent it to. As of right now all information says all the emails sent were to her own staff, who is allowed to view that information. 

 

From what I understand her email systems are all classified, and if they are she broke the law.

[Chilli Dipper]

Many, many companies have rules on the books against the improper use of e-mails. In practice, though, those rules are mainly enforced against employees who management wants to find some justification to get rid of.

Naturally, Democrats are going to look at Hillary's e-mail indiscretions and say, "who cares," and Republicans are going to look at them and want to throw the book at her. If Trump wins in November, his administration can prosecute her all it wants, but the Obama administration is obviously not going to treat it as a priority. This is just politics: if it was the Republican candidate under fire for administrative errors under a Republican president, I'd be screaming bloody murder and the conservatives in this thread would be responding, "so what?"

[rehmwa]

1 minute ago, Chilli Dipper said:

This is just politics: if it was the Republican candidate under fire for administrative errors under a Republican president, I'd be screaming bloody murder and the conservatives in this thread would be responding, "so what?"

I'm not a rep or a dem.  But I've held various security clearances and know exactly how important this is.  I am screaming bloody murder as this wasn't an administrative error, this is blatant disregard of security protocol for merely personal convenience.  I don't think it's a jail offense - but I do think it should exclude her from holding any job that needs a security clearance.

And I'm terrified of a Trump presidency and still feel she should be disqualified for cause.

[Jeremie Boop]

10 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

This is just politics: if it was the Republican candidate under fire for administrative errors under a Republican president, I'd be screaming bloody murder and the conservatives in this thread would be responding, "so what?"

I disagree, anyone who cares/knows about network and information systems security would feel the same regardless of politics. You don't send work email to a personal email, you just don't. I don't care if it's Hillary, Trump, Rubio, or some random person on my work network. If you do it, you get disciplined and/or fired. It's not just some justification to get rid of someone, it's a legitimately significant break in network security and privacy rules. I would never say "so what" about these types of things.

[saevel25]

42 minutes ago, Lihu said:

From what I understand her email systems are all classified, and if they are she broke the law.

Here is the law, 

Quote

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

Did she do any of the following knowingly or willfully, 

First- communicate, furnish, transmit, or make available to an unauthorized person any classified information. No evidence has shown she did. 

Second- publish this information. No evidence showed she did. 

Third- use the information in any manner that was damaging to the safety or interest of the United States. All evidence says she didn't. 

Finally- did any of the information benefit any foreign government to the detriment of the United States. No evidence said it did. 

Is it lazy, yes. Is it negligent, it could have been. Is it criminal, not by the law. 

[Gunther]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Here is the law, 

Did she do any of the following knowingly or willfully, 

First- communicate, furnish, transmit, or make available to an unauthorized person any classified information. No evidence has shown she did. 

Second- publish this information. No evidence showed she did. 

Third- use the information in any manner that was damaging to the safety or interest of the United States. All evidence says she didn't. 

Finally- did any of the information benefit any foreign government to the detriment of the United States. No evidence said it did. 

Is it lazy, yes. Is it negligent, it could have been. Is it criminal, not by the law. 

Wrong law.  She has clearly violated US 18, section 1924.  We know this based on the public record.

a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

The question becomes, if this were the only law she violated (it cannot be disputed) why did the FBI assign 100 agents to the case?  There is a helluva lot more to it and who knows if we'll ever learn the extent but this one we know she broke.

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Wrong law.  She has clearly violated US 18, section 1924.  We know this based on the public record.

Not the law they are trying to get her on though. 

It also begs the question who authorizes when information can be removed? 

Quote

knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Now the question becomes, does she have the authority to remove such material. She was the Secretary of State. What level of security clearance does that grant her? Does being the Secretary of State allow her the authority to remove documents.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

We may try to say she violated that part of the law unless the position she holds allows her the authority to do so. 

[Gunther]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not the law they are trying to get her on though. 

It also begs the question who authorizes when information can be removed? 

Now the question becomes, does she have the authority to remove such material. She was the Secretary of State. What level of security clearance does that grant her? Does being the Secretary of State allow her the authority to remove documents.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

We may try to say she violated that part of the law unless the position she holds allows her the authority to do so. 

You are really reaching now.  Did you see the State Dept IG report a couple weeks ago?  MSM was in a panic, she had no authority to do it, that was clear.

The FBI will charge her with any law she broke, so yes, of course this law applies.  It wouldn't surprise me if she had 20 charges filed against her.  But the one we know she broke is USC 18, section 1924.  

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It also begs the question who authorizes when information can be removed? 

That's a good question, I've joked about "the stuff" in a generic sense and we have no idea what happens...but I think she does as Secretary of State.

What I understand is that anything she writes is over secure channels.

 

Quote

Now the question becomes, does she have the authority to remove such material. She was the Secretary of State. What level of security clearance does that grant her? Does being the Secretary of State allow her the authority to remove documents.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

We may try to say she violated that part of the law unless the position she holds allows her the authority to do so. 

Yes it does, but that's probably not why it's taking so much effort to figure it all out. As Secretary of State she also carries much more responsibility. In fact, all of it.

They're being very careful as she was also a former First Lady.

[newtogolf]

I've had a number of security clearances in my lifetime.  There is no way she can claim ignorance to receiving work related e-mail to a private unsecure server in her home, it's not possible.  

She was Secretary of State, what did she think other co-workers were going to send her, recipes and pictures of their kids?  C'mon, you're Secretary of State, you deal with international crisis and sensitive operations going on abroad, do you really think she's so ignorant to the laws (she is a lawyer) that she didn't see any problem receiving these emails to her private e-mail server in her home that could have been and was hacked more than once?  

Then we're to believe she had everything deleted because she didn't want anyone to see her love notes to Bill?  Her entire life has been one scandal after another, open your eyes.  If she really is that stupid or ignorant she has no business running for POTUS

[drmevo]

15 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I've had a number of security clearances in my lifetime.  There is no way she can claim ignorance to receiving work related e-mail to a private unsecure server in her home, it's not possible.  

She was Secretary of State, what did she think other co-workers were going to send her, recipes and pictures of their kids?  C'mon, you're Secretary of State, you deal with international crisis and sensitive operations going on abroad, do you really think she's so ignorant to the laws (she is a lawyer) that she didn't see any problem receiving these emails to her private e-mail server in her home that could have been and was hacked more than once?  

Then we're to believe she had everything deleted because she didn't want anyone to see her love notes to Bill?  Her entire life has been one scandal after another, open your eyes.  If she really is that stupid or ignorant she has no business running for POTUS

Source for the bold please? Lots of claims being made in this thread with no evidence to back them up.