sweetpeasmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,592
Jun 27, 2014 14:04:01 GMT
|
Post by sweetpeasmom on Jul 5, 2016 16:17:24 GMT
Soooo, should she be elected President, will she have security limitations? Sorry Ms President, you don't know how to handle Top Secret information, so you won't be privy to the most important information for our country. Mmmm k? Save
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 5, 2016 16:18:16 GMT
I'm not sure this has been mentioned, but in tech years her emails were ages ago. Tech was not what it is today. Security regarding tech was not what it is today. Heck, 10 years from now it won't be the same. Sorry, but that is not accurate. As far back as 2004 (when I started working in IT), there were PLENTY of security measures to be taken and the government had plenty of measures in place to protect classified information. She has zero excuse. Zero. But who cares right? And if anyone else did what she did... "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." fbi.gov: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System Well, it's possible that State will decide to sanction her after the fact, though I'm not sure how that would work. I do want to point out that there was a similar scandal with high-level folks in the Bush administration, and no charges were brought then, either.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 16:19:25 GMT
Don't worry, sweetpeasmom, Hillary will in no way be held accountable for her actions. That kind of accountability is only reserved for "those individuals".
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 5, 2016 16:20:31 GMT
I'm not sure this has been mentioned, but in tech years her emails were ages ago. Tech was not what it is today. Security regarding tech was not what it is today. Heck, 10 years from now it won't be the same. Sorry, but that is not accurate. As far back as 2004 (when I started working in IT), there were PLENTY of security measures to be taken and the government had plenty of measures in place to protect classified information. She has zero excuse. Zero. But who cares right? And if anyone else did what she did... "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." fbi.gov: Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System ETA: Please note how he separates Hillary from "those individuals" (as being those who engage in similar activities) by saying "those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions," not that Hillary would be, just "those individuals". So, for all intents and purposes, she's getting a completely free pass. No, what he said was that sanctions, etc. were not for the FBI to decide, but those had happened in the past. Leaving it open as a possibility. But don't let a close reading get in the way of your outrage.
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jul 5, 2016 16:22:04 GMT
[ She is now officially declared "above the law". [/quote]
This, exactly.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 16:23:35 GMT
No, what he said was that sanctions, etc. were not for the FBI to decide, but those had happened in the past. Leaving it open as a possibility. But don't let a close reading get in the way of your outrage. And tell me you wouldn't be outraged if she had been indicted?
|
|
|
Post by mzza111 on Jul 5, 2016 16:26:03 GMT
...but hey, anyone but Trump, right? Yes
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jul 5, 2016 16:27:46 GMT
the courts do take intent into consideration.. which is why there is manslaughter if you get in an accident and it is an accident and someone dies. and it is not considered murder..due to intent.
this probably will not change anyone's mind about hillary though.. she has been scrutinized so much... and donald..where are your taxes returns? hiding anything? how many people have to sue you to get money they are owed?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 9:33:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 16:32:18 GMT
OJ was found not guilty by a jury of his peers but we all know he's a scumbag who committed a crime. His jury had their reasons which are coming out now, years later and at least some of which were certainly not founded in the law.
Hillary committed stupid, irresponsible, and probably illegal actions but the FBI says she wont be to charged. I'm sure they have their reasons but I'm not convinced they are founded solely on the law either.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 16:33:03 GMT
...but hey, anyone but Trump, right? Yes Except even Bush knew to stop using private mail. January 17, 2001: George W. Bush stops using email due to public records laws. Within days of his inauguration, president-elect George W. Bush stops using email. He mentions in his last email, "Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace." Bush's close aide Karen Hughes says Bush stopped using e-mail because of public records laws, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Source: CNET: "Obama's new BlackBerry: The NSA's secure PDA?"
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 5, 2016 16:33:26 GMT
What's the difference? Putting it on her private server is more secure than Powell logging into yahoo mail. Colin Powell did not conduct State business over private e-mail exclusively, let along a private server. In fact, I believe Powell only used his personal e-mail a handful of times on State business. From everything I've read, the security on her private server was a joke and what little security there was was actually turned off a few times because it was inconvenient.
|
|
|
Post by Fairlyoddparent on Jul 5, 2016 16:34:54 GMT
I work with clients everyday and their private information that is handled with utmost care to insure that the information remains confidential. If I were to act in a "carelees" and "irresponsible" manner with this information, I would not likely face legal charges but I would certainly lose my job and suffer professionally. And, for the record, I'm not radical against her but I worry to support a presidential nominee who lacks judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 5, 2016 16:37:18 GMT
No, what he said was that sanctions, etc. were not for the FBI to decide, but those had happened in the past. Leaving it open as a possibility. But don't let a close reading get in the way of your outrage. And tell me you wouldn't be outraged if she had been indicted? I didn't plan to vote for her either way. I'd actually be happy to see her out of the running, leaving the nomination for Bernie or even a new face like Elizabeth Warren. Were you outraged when Karl Rove wasn't indicted for his use of person email back in 2007?
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 5, 2016 16:38:16 GMT
I do want to point out that there was a similar scandal with high-level folks in the Bush administration, and no charges were brought then, either. So a Secretary of State used a private server exclusively and then went on to delete the e-mails?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 5, 2016 16:39:01 GMT
OJ was found not guilty by a jury of his peers but we all know he's a scumbag who committed a crime. His jury had their reasons which are coming out now, years later and at least some of which were certainly not founded in the law. Hillary committed stupid, irresponsible, and probably illegal actions but the FBI says she wont be to charged. I'm sure they have their reasons but I'm not convinced they are founded solely on the law either. What does OJ have to do with any of this?
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 16:40:57 GMT
And tell me you wouldn't be outraged if she had been indicted? I didn't plan to vote for her either way. I'd actually be happy to see her out of the running, leaving the nomination for Bernie or even a new face like Elizabeth Warren. Were you outraged when Karl Rove wasn't indicted for his use of person email back in 2007? Not gonna fight with you Merge. And yes, I was.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 5, 2016 16:43:52 GMT
I do want to point out that there was a similar scandal with high-level folks in the Bush administration, and no charges were brought then, either. So a Secretary of State used a private server exclusively and then went on to delete the e-mails? Nah, it was the White House Chief of Staff, and yes, he deleted emails from a private server in the wake of a couple of different scandals. No charges were brought.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 9:33:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 16:44:23 GMT
You'd be in jail for it, but hey, Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Jul 5, 2016 16:48:54 GMT
I think this will satisfy the middle-grounders. But not the haters or lovers. Nothing anyone could say would satisfy either extremes. ETA the findings did not surprise me at all. I agree. As a middle of the road voter, I am satisfied that nothing she did was criminal. But I think there is nothing that will satisfy everyone.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Jul 5, 2016 16:49:49 GMT
I'm thrilled about this, if only because of the apoplectic reactions I get to see on the interwebz.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 5, 2016 16:56:53 GMT
"Comey made the statement Tuesday morning, just days after Clinton was interviewed for several hours as part of the investigation.
“Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.
“Although we did not find clear evidence” of intentional misconduct,” he added, “There is evidence that they were extremely careless of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
The Justice Department has been looking into whether anyone mishandled classified information that flowed through Clinton’s email server.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said last week that she would accept the recommendations of Comey and of career prosecutors."
So no clear evidence then.
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Jul 5, 2016 16:57:11 GMT
My how fast this has all moved since Bill Clinton had what many people thought was a foolish impromptu meeting with Loretta Lynch. It may have been foolish on her part but I believe Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to push this along. He knew that Lynch would have to recuse herself and further she would want this wrapped up and her name out of the news cycle. Just days ago we were hearing that the email investigation might not wrap up until after the convention. Now it is essentially done. Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton is not careless (except with pretty young women) or stupid.
However, it happened, I'm glad this is moving forward. We needed a clear decision before the Democratic National Convention.
|
|
|
Post by mzza111 on Jul 5, 2016 17:01:19 GMT
Except even Bush knew to stop using private mail. January 17, 2001: George W. Bush stops using email due to public records laws. Within days of his inauguration, president-elect George W. Bush stops using email. He mentions in his last email, "Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace." Bush's close aide Karen Hughes says Bush stopped using e-mail because of public records laws, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Source: CNET: "Obama's new BlackBerry: The NSA's secure PDA?"I'll just regurgitate what the republicans on this board always spout....why do you have to bring up Bush. That was 15 years ago. The tit for tat gets old and doesn't lead to any sort of constructive conversation.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 5, 2016 17:04:30 GMT
My how fast this has all moved since Bill Clinton had what many people thought was a foolish impromptu meeting with Loretta Lynch. It may have been foolish on her part but I believe Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to push this along. He knew that Lynch would have to recuse herself and further she would want this wrapped up and her name out of the news cycle. Just days ago we were hearing that the email investigation might not wrap up until after the convention. Now it is essentially done. Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton is not careless (except with pretty young women) or stupid. However, it happened, I'm glad this is moving forward. We needed a clear decision before the Democratic National Convention. I had not read that she recused herself--that she stated before HC's interviews that she would accept the DOJ recommendations as they came.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 17:05:19 GMT
FBI used words like "careless" and "negligent." I think we can add "monumentally stupid" to set up their own server. Bad judgment personified. My favorite part was when Comey actually suggested that Gmail would have been a better option to what she did:
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 5, 2016 17:07:05 GMT
it's about freakin' time, and they can finally stop spending money on it. Those are my thoughts.
(my other thought is that they pretty much HAD to get it resolved before the convention...)
|
|
ginacivey
Pearl Clutcher
refupea #2 in southeast missouri
Posts: 4,685
Jun 25, 2014 19:18:36 GMT
|
Post by ginacivey on Jul 5, 2016 17:12:06 GMT
"no clear evidence Clinton intended to violate the law" this is ridiculous so they needed to find 'intent'? well officer i didn't intend to speed - i just wasn't paying very good attention...and look where i ended up! for the love of all that's holy! gina
|
|
|
Post by whopea on Jul 5, 2016 17:14:29 GMT
I thought his explanation was very clear and comprehensive. I was not honestly sure what the recommendation would be until he stated it. I don't think this will end the issue for some people, by any means, but I think many people will understand the decision. I agree with this. Having said that, I understand that he doesn't feel a criminal prosecution would be advised, but I think there is another angle to this that hasn't been discussed much. He said somewhere along the way that HC both sent and received seven emails that contained Top Secret information with sensitive compartmentalized restrictions. He also said that someone in her position should have known that the subject matter made it classified in that manner. I know that even if criminal charges aren't brought, every government employee (civilian or military) would have their security clearance yanked in a NY minute for violations of that magnitude. So should she and that alone, disqualifies her from the presidency. As a country, we impeached Richard Nixon for erasing several minutes from office data records, yet we tolerate her deleting emails at her discretion of what is business related and what is not and maintaining a private, insecure server. And yet, 50% of this nation thinks she should sit in the highest office. It boggles my mind.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 17:14:55 GMT
Except even Bush knew to stop using private mail. January 17, 2001: George W. Bush stops using email due to public records laws. Within days of his inauguration, president-elect George W. Bush stops using email. He mentions in his last email, "Since I do not want my private conversations looked at by those out to embarrass, the only course of action is not to correspond in cyberspace." Bush's close aide Karen Hughes says Bush stopped using e-mail because of public records laws, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Source: CNET: "Obama's new BlackBerry: The NSA's secure PDA?"I'll just regurgitate what the republicans on this board always spout....why do you have to bring up Bush. That was 15 years ago. The tit for tat gets old and doesn't lead to any sort of constructive conversation. Because it is generally acknowledged what a numpty he turned out to be (at best - total criminal a worst). If even he knew not to use private email, what the hell was Hillary thinking (someone who is generally acknowledged to be very educated and intelligent)? Or was she thinking at all, and if this is evidence of her state of mind in general, we're in a lot of trouble because it is likely that her server was hacked (the FBI statement makes that clear) therefore that also makes it possible that other nations have leverage over the presumptive Democratic nominee. That is a very scary likelihood.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 5, 2016 17:17:54 GMT
Nah, it was the White House Chief of Staff, and yes, he deleted emails from a private server in the wake of a couple of different scandals. No charges were brought. 0 lives potentially at risk. 0 participants running for president.
|
|