Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 19:55:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 17:20:22 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? Are you just acting obtuse or are you honestly unaware that he was found not guilty of a crime that evidence is clear that he committed. His jurors have come out and clearly stated that it was decided that way because of his race and to get back at the LA police department. But there's no question that the evidence pointed squarely to him. This case is the same even if it's not a criminal case. The evidence is clear that she violated the law. In a big way. It lands squarely in her lap. But the FBI has chosen to recommend that no charges be brought. Obviously they have their reasons, but they have nothing to do with the evidence because she obviously violated law.
|
|
|
Post by Layce on Jul 5, 2016 17:22:36 GMT
I agree with those of you who are saying, "HUH?!" I work near Oak Ridge, TN, and man, just ask anybody around here with a security clearance what would happen to them if they posted highly classified information on an unsecured server. Good grief! They cannot even take pictures of their cubicles for heaven's sake. An employee did just that recently to call attention to a very unkempt workspace and he was escorted out of the building the same day. They certainly cannot take work home with them. For the most part the nature of their work is far from stamped highly classified. I'm guessing SECRETARY OF STATE is a pay grade or two above most of these folks and it appears our future POTUS has gotten off scot-free. Hail to the chief.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 17:23:27 GMT
What does OJ have to do with any of this? Are you just acting obtuse or are you honestly unaware that he was found not guilty of a crime that evidence is clear that he committed. His jurors have come out and clearly stated that it was decided that way because of his race and to get back at the LA police department. But there's no question that the evidence pointed squarely to him. This case is the same even if it's not a criminal case. The evidence is clear that she violated the law. In a big way. It lands squarely in her lap. But the FBI has chosen to recommend that no charges be brought. Obviously they have their reasons, but they have nothing to do with the evidence because she obviously violated law. I'm wondering if those reasons have anything to do with the Clinton Foundation they are also currently investigating. Note how there is not one single mention of the foundation in the FBI statement.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 5, 2016 17:29:09 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. But apparently okay then otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Jul 5, 2016 17:29:13 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. You are correct in your wording. I just think of it as the same as recusing oneself if she wasn't going to use the rights she had to influence the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 5, 2016 17:31:36 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.^^^ to play devil's advocate-- are you saying this from the standpoint of 'hindsight is 20/20' or just because it was the WH Chief of Staff in the previous case?? there's really no evidence of WHAT type of information he may have had that was deleted, is there?? is that just a supposition?? And would you (general you) be okay with this whole thing if she was NOT running for President?? Somehow I rather doubt it. eta: papercrafteradvocate put it much more succinctly than I did... lol
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Jul 5, 2016 17:35:44 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. I was impressed by Comey's explanation. He explained everything they looked at. It was amazing they seemed to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. Even to the point of tracking down the emails that they couldn't get to. Totally a side note....gosh Comey's tall!! I am not a Hillary fan. I think she is arrogant and does what SHE thinks is right regardless of certain actions. However, I believe that Benghazi is something that would have happened under any Secretary of State and I do think it was a witch hunt (which Paul Ryan basically said it was). The investigation cost something like $7M and I do think that the Republicans were out to get her. This email situation came out of that and the Republicans jumped on it. So fair and impartial? It doesn't exist in Washington. That said, I agree with CeeScraps . 10 years was a different world technologically. Personally, I think she didn't trust that the Republicans wouldn't try to intercept private emails and was trying to avoid them. I don't think she dares say that, but I really believe that is why she did it. I do not believe she had criminal intent and that - criminal intent - is what the FBI would have to prove. So if you or I did it now, in 2016, we would know, but she did not. Do you all remember one Supreme Court justice years ago? The 90s I think, who didn't pay taxes for his Nanny. Now he was a lawyer and should have known better, but a lot of people were surprised that you had to do that for a domestic employee. All I am saying is that today we are aware of far more things than we were even a mere 10 years ago. I also think that if we were to spend $7 million looking into nearly any member of Congress or the administration, we would find something that isn't quite correct, I am sorry to say.
|
|
|
Post by whopea on Jul 5, 2016 17:41:04 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. I was impressed by Comey's explanation. He explained everything they looked at. It was amazing they seemed to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. Even to the point of tracking down the emails that they couldn't get to. Totally a side note....gosh Comey's tall!! That said, I agree with CeeScraps . 10 years was a different world technologically. Personally, I think she didn't trust that the Republicans wouldn't try to intercept private emails and was trying to avoid them. I don't think she dares say that, but I really believe that is why she did it. I do not believe she had criminal intent and that - criminal intent - is what the FBI would have to prove. So if you or I did it now, in 2016, we would know, but she did not. Personally, I think the reason she did it was to delete anything that showed a conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation fund raising efforts and quid pro quo deals from nations seeking favor from the State Dept. All along, that's where I think the greatest stench emanates from. I noted that Dir Comey very carefully navigated away from that issue.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 17:44:27 GMT
That said, I agree with CeeScraps . 10 years was a different world technologically. Personally, I think she didn't trust that the Republicans wouldn't try to intercept private emails and was trying to avoid them. I don't think she dares say that, but I really believe that is why she did it. I do not believe she had criminal intent and that - criminal intent - is what the FBI would have to prove. So if you or I did it now, in 2016, we would know, but she did not. Personally, I think the reason she did it was to delete anything that showed a conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation fund raising efforts and quid pro quo deals from nations seeking favor from the State Dept. All along, that's where I think the greatest stench emanates from. I noted that Dir Comey very carefully navigated away from that issue. Bears repeating...
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jul 5, 2016 17:56:11 GMT
I thought it was interesting that he said there was a whole culture of carelessness in the State Dept. about email security. Although it doesn't excuse HRC's actions, it does put them in a more understandable context. I agree that her fans are going to cheer and her haters are going to sneer - you can pick things out of the FBI's report to support either side.This is what I heard on GMA too.
|
|
|
Post by gailoh on Jul 5, 2016 17:59:11 GMT
I did not expect a different outcome. Hillary can destroy emails and her daily schedules, impede investigations by failing to turn over required documents and lie to the American people repeatedly with impunity. Par for the course. i agree...get out of jail free pass...again...I would feel the same way if a Republican did all she has
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 19:55:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 18:04:02 GMT
I knew that they would never be able to find what they needed to charge her and that was WILLFUL INTENT. I'm not sure how instructing her staff to remove classified headings from classified documents so they can be sent through an unsecured system doesn't clearly demonstrate willful intent.
|
|
|
Post by moretimeplease on Jul 5, 2016 18:04:35 GMT
Only for her. If you or I were to violate a law by accident, we'd still be charged. SaveExactly. In fact, I amended my comment above to include the rest of Comey's statement (emphasis mine): So...because she's Hillary, she won't be charged. She is now officially declared "above the law". Nowhere in that bolded segment s there anything that alludes to illegality. "Similar circumstance" and "face consequences" does not equal "illegal activity" and "going to jail". This may have been brought up already. If so, I apologize because I haven't read the entire thread yet.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 5, 2016 18:09:21 GMT
0 lives potentially at risk. 0 participants running for president. But apparently okay then otherwise? Of course not.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 18:16:39 GMT
Exactly. In fact, I amended my comment above to include the rest of Comey's statement (emphasis mine): So...because she's Hillary, she won't be charged. She is now officially declared "above the law". Nowhere in that bolded segment s there anything that alludes to illegality. "Similar circumstance" and "face consequences" does not equal "illegal activity" and "going to jail". This may have been brought up already. If so, I apologize because I haven't read the entire thread yet. I agree to a point. However, in this statement by Comey, it is absolutely alluded to .
Note what isn't being said here: “We did not find clear evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law,” Comey said. “There is evidence that they were extremely careless.” That means she unintentionally violated the law. No where does he say she is innocent. Others have been brought up on charges for similarly unintentional violations. "Sailor pleads guilty to mishandling documents"What is so implausible to me is that regular people are charged and prosecuted for being "extremely careless" all the time, yet someone who is trying to run our country who does the same thing isn't held to the same standard?
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 5, 2016 18:18:37 GMT
While I find it strange that she would use a personal email, her explanation of why made sense and she wasn't the first high ranking govt official to do so. I think it deplorable that she had to make public all her personal emails to her daughter, etc. I have no real opinion of her either way, but I do think at this point that she has taken so many attacks on her, I have to wonder if it's just because she's a woman? I bet when she wrote her book she didn't realize at that time she would have so much more material for the next book. lol Yes, I think that does have something to do with it. I read an interesting article yesterday on Hillary's approval ratings. She has high approval when she's doing a job, but once she asks/campaigns for a job with more power, all of a sudden her approval ratings go down. It's not just a presidential candidate thing, it is something fairly common in many different situations. A man who looks for a promotion or tries to move into a position of more responsibility is seen as ambitious, and a go-getter who knows how to go after what he wants. A woman who does the exact same thing is bitchy, conniving, manipulative, and needs to know her place. I know there are some people out there who truly have a beef with Hillary - but there are also some who have bought into the whole meme of "crooked Hillary" even if there is plenty of evidence to show that she's no more - and in fact LESS - crooked than many other politicians. In a male politician, that's just expected - you can't get ahead in politics without being a little crooked, etc. But for Hillary, it's proof that she's sheer evil and too ambitious for her own good. America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotionI found that article to be illuminating as well. All I can say at this point is at least she hasn't been accused of raping a child.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 5, 2016 18:19:52 GMT
But apparently okay then otherwise? Of course not. So why, then, if Karl Rove skipped off scot-free after deleting his emails, would you expect that things would be any different for Hillary? Keep in mind that the Rove incident was during the height of the war against al Qaeda - a CIA spy was outed and potentially put in danger, and it's possible that things kept on that server were hacked and used against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, a sitting president was involved with/had knowledge of the emails being kept on a personal server, and nothing was done.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 18:22:36 GMT
BREAKING: CNN is projecting that Hillary Clinton has win the FBI primary. [/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by moretimeplease on Jul 5, 2016 18:28:56 GMT
Nowhere in that bolded segment s there anything that alludes to illegality. "Similar circumstance" and "face consequences" does not equal "illegal activity" and "going to jail". This may have been brought up already. If so, I apologize because I haven't read the entire thread yet. I agree to a point. However, in this statement by Comey, it is absolutely alluded to .
Note what isn't being said here: “We did not find clear evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law,” Comey said. “There is evidence that they were extremely careless.” That means she unintentionally violated the law. No where does he say she is innocent. Others have been brought up on charges for similarly unintentional violations. "Sailor pleads guilty to mishandling documents"What is so implausible to me is that regular people are charged and prosecuted for being "extremely careless" all the time, yet someone who is trying to run our country who does the same thing isn't held to the same standard? I don't see "extremely careless" the same as "violated the law". If your extreme carelessness results in you violating the law, you are prosecuted for violating the law, not for being careless. And for for the record, I'm still in la-la-land wishing for Bernie to somehow come away with the nom...
|
|
|
Post by littlemama on Jul 5, 2016 18:33:01 GMT
I did not watch, but I do recall hearing back in the beginning that having a personal email server is something that many, many government employees at that level have done in the past.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 5, 2016 18:53:22 GMT
So why, then, if Karl Rove skipped off scot-free after deleting his emails, would you expect that things would be any different for Hillary? Keep in mind that the Rove incident was during the height of the war against al Qaeda - a CIA spy was outed and potentially put in danger, and it's possible that things kept on that server were hacked and used against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, a sitting president was involved with/had knowledge of the emails being kept on a personal server, and nothing was done. Look, I've said it's not okay. If you want to re-prosecute the Valerie Plame affair, you will need to do it without me.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 18:53:34 GMT
I agree to a point. However, in this statement by Comey, it is absolutely alluded to .
Note what isn't being said here: “We did not find clear evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law,” Comey said. “There is evidence that they were extremely careless.” That means she unintentionally violated the law. No where does he say she is innocent. Others have been brought up on charges for similarly unintentional violations. "Sailor pleads guilty to mishandling documents"What is so implausible to me is that regular people are charged and prosecuted for being "extremely careless" all the time, yet someone who is trying to run our country who does the same thing isn't held to the same standard? I don't see "extremely careless" the same as "violated the law". If your extreme carelessness results in you violating the law, you are prosecuted for violating the law, not for being careless. And for for the record, I'm still in la-la-land wishing for Bernie to somehow come away with the nom... Neither do I, but I do see “We did not find clear evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law” the same as "she broke the law but didn't mean to."
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 18:56:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southerngirl on Jul 5, 2016 18:59:23 GMT
I did not watch, but heard about the outcome and I'm ready to put it in the past. I think huge mistakes were made, I think she's not the only one to make those types of mistakes (not going to nitpick the details, but others have made similar security mistakes, even if the method was different). It is what it is.
My real hope from this whole thing, is that everyone in these positions, regardless of political party, has learned from this and greater care will be taken by everyone in the future - that the good that will come from this is a better understanding of technology risks and the related security measures that must be taken.
For the record, I am not a member of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. I am not a Hillary fan-girl, but I don't hate her either. It does seem to me to be somewhat naive and partisan for people to say this outcome is only "because she's Hillary". The fact is that often situations that would be disastrous for the average citizen turn out to have very little consequence for high ranking public officials. It's not because she's Hillary, it's because she is a very powerful politician. It is what it is. Just like no one seems to care that Trump has been actively soliciting illegal foreign campaign contributions. (Not saying that's the same thing at all, just noting that politicians do stupid things all the time and they get a pass for them.)
I do think that Hillary is very smart and I do think she will learn from this and not make these same mistakes again, so it's not a worry that I have for the future. So this outcome is enough for me personally - I'm ready to move on.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 19:55:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 19:17:58 GMT
Yes, I think that does have something to do with it. I read an interesting article yesterday on Hillary's approval ratings. She has high approval when she's doing a job, but once she asks/campaigns for a job with more power, all of a sudden her approval ratings go down. It's not just a presidential candidate thing, it is something fairly common in many different situations. A man who looks for a promotion or tries to move into a position of more responsibility is seen as ambitious, and a go-getter who knows how to go after what he wants. A woman who does the exact same thing is bitchy, conniving, manipulative, and needs to know her place. I know there are some people out there who truly have a beef with Hillary - but there are also some who have bought into the whole meme of "crooked Hillary" even if there is plenty of evidence to show that she's no more - and in fact LESS - crooked than many other politicians. In a male politician, that's just expected - you can't get ahead in politics without being a little crooked, etc. But for Hillary, it's proof that she's sheer evil and too ambitious for her own good. America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotionI found that article to be illuminating as well. All I can say at this point is at least she hasn't been accused of raping a child. No, but she did laugh about the processes SHE used to set a child rapist free and laughed about the fact that she knew he was lying.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 5, 2016 19:25:24 GMT
by southerngirl : "The fact is that often situations that would be disastrous for the average citizen turn out to have very little consequence for high ranking public officials. It's not because she's Hillary, it's because she is a very powerful politician. It is what it is. Just like no one seems to care that Trump has been actively soliciting illegal foreign campaign contributions. (Not saying that's the same thing at all, just noting that politicians do stupid things all the time and they get a pass for them.)"
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 5, 2016 19:37:57 GMT
Thoughts? I have lost all faith in justice and fairness in this country. It's dead and gone. If you are a Clinton or an Obama, you are basically free to commit any offense or crime you like.
I am sickened by my country's government today and ashamed to have any of these people represent us. We are now officially a disgrace.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative, this should nauseate you. We are all supposed to be equal under the law and it is so clear that we are not. I don't care which candidate you support, as an American, this should offend you.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 5, 2016 19:39:11 GMT
I found that article to be illuminating as well. All I can say at this point is at least she hasn't been accused of raping a child. No, but she did laugh about the processes SHE used to set a child rapist free and laughed about the fact that she knew he was lying. For the big old self proclaimed fact checker-- The What's crystal clear in this thread is that there are a few who go to great lengths to just spit vitriol over Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 5, 2016 19:39:55 GMT
I did not expect a different outcome. Hillary can destroy emails and her daily schedules, impede investigations by failing to turn over required documents and lie to the American people repeatedly with impunity. Par for the course. Martha Stewart has been held to account more than Hillary ever has.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 5, 2016 20:27:24 GMT
So basically... 110 emails had classified info 8 chains top secret info 36 secret info 8 confidential (lowest) +2000 "up-classified" to confidential after the fact Recommendation to the Justice Department: file no charges in the Hillary Clinton email server case. Comey further stated: Summary Comey: So, plenty of evidence she actually did violate the law, just "no clear evidence Clinton intended to violate the law". Guess that's all it takes to get a free pass in politics...as long as you didn't intend to, you don't have to be held accountable but if anyone else does it, they will be. If she's this careless with classified emails, I don't know what the hell to expect if she becomes president...but hey, anyone but Trump, right? We do not have equal justice under the law.
|
|