FBI recommends no charges for Clinton

[pallidin]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yes and I didn't read those conditions or similar on them.

 

Edit to add:  I have got to stay away from this thread I'm so disgusted with our government and our law enforcement agencies right now I'm about to punch holes in the wall.

Don't worry too much. It appears that Congress is coming to our aid on this matter.

[aquatus1]

For the sake of completion, this is what James Comey stated the investigation addressed:

Quote

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors

Anything not there is still fair game.

[questionmark]

2 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Don't worry too much. It appears that Congress is coming to our aid on this matter.

Don't expect them to come out to hard on it either. They also handle classified information and have forgotten their briefcase somewhere.

But it will be a good show.

 

[pallidin]

6 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Here is (f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody...

There it is QM. A private, unauthorized, computer server containing sensitive State Dept. information and communications is NOT a "proper place of custody"

Edited July 6, 2016 by pallidin

[Aftermath]

14 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Here is (f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, 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.

----

The first part of the law has evidently been met, what has not been proven is the bolded part. And if (1) or (2) are not been proven then there is no year in jail nor a fine. The worst that could happen is that she gets fired.

 

Are you really this intellectually dishonest?  C'mon man...  I'm about to call you an idiot, but I know better than to do that.  Do you not see all the OR between?

"Removed from it's proper place" - that's good enough.  A personal email server is not a proper place.

Also, she had knowledge, President Dingbat also had knowledge (the 18 emails that are "missing" were to Obuma and the real reason Hillary isn't indicted), "that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody".

Edited July 6, 2016 by Aftermath

[questionmark]

Just now, pallidin said:

There it is QM. A private, unauthorized, private computer server containing sensitive State Dept. information and communications is NOT a "proper place of custody"

Lets let that stand for as moment, but did it also meet the conditions of (1) and (2)?

[aquatus1]

It doesn't have to meet both, QM.  It doesn't say "and".

[pallidin]

3 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Lets let that stand for as moment, but did it also meet the conditions of (1) and (2)?

It doesn't have to. That "private server" violation, admitted by herself and known to be true is, in itself alone, justification for prosecution of violating security laws.

[questionmark]

16 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

Are you really this intellectually dishonest?  C'mon man...  I'm about to call you an idiot, but I know better than to do that.  Do you not see all the OR between?  "Removed from it's proper place" - that's good enough.  A personal email server is not a proper place.  Also, she had knowledge, President Dingbat also had knowledge (and the real reason Hillary isn't indicted), "that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody".

If she had authorization to remove that information, handle it and work on it (which nobody can deny the Secretary of State has) she also can determine its proper place of custody. And if she wants to take it home overnight to work on it that is still not illegal. And it is not illegal if she sends it by e-mail to somebody who needs to know (and that by any server evidently as nobody is going after Powell or Rice known to have done the same).

The only thing that was illegal is the destruction of documents on her private server. And the only rule she broke is the new communication rules in the State Department. For both, as far as I remember, you can only get fired.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by questionmark

[Varelse]

11 minutes ago, questionmark said:

---

The worst that could happen is that she gets fired.

 

I'd be happy with that. Many people would be satisfied if she just went away. 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Varelse

[questionmark]

1 minute ago, pallidin said:

It doesn't have to. That "private server" violation, admitted by herself and known to be true is, in itself alone, justification for prosecution of violating security laws.

Does the law say "no private server" or how do you come to that conclusion?

[aztek]

lol, you would make a horrible lawyer, just like you are a horrible writer

[Aftermath]

Just now, questionmark said:

If she had authorization to remove that information, handle it and work on it (which nobody can deny the Secretary of State has) she also can determine its proper place of custody. And if she wants to take it home overnight to work on it that is still not illegal. And it is not illegal if she sends it by e-mail to somebody who needs to know (and that by any server evidently as nobody is going after Powell or Rice known to have done the same).

The only thing that was illegal is the destruction of documents on her private server. And the only rule she broke is the new communication rules in the State Department. For both, as far as I remember you can only get fired.

 

 

No, no, no, no ,no!  Simply not true.  Sure she can send classified emails to people who are authorized to see them; also having classified material on your laptop is fine as USG computers are encrypted and secured to handle; but you are just WRONG about Clinton able to determine "its proper place".  That's ludicrous...  that opens the door to countless things (just a cornucopia of stupidity here).

Look - you are being intellectually dishonest.  The law cannot stipulate every little thing that violates the law, a bit of common sense and reasonableness is understood to interpret.  For instance, it's reasonable to expect an unsecured, private server is no place for classified material whereas a secured USG server at the State Department is.

[questionmark]

Just now, aztek said:

lol, you would make a horrible lawyer, just like you are a horrible writer

Thank you very much, so much praise out of a so educated pen makes me blush.

[aztek]

lol, keep talking 1180

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

Does the law say "no private server" or how do you come to that conclusion?

According to State Dept. regulations, any and all "methods of storage and communications" of State Dept. employee's and officials MUST...

1) Be approved.

2) Must be "access restricted"

3) Must be subject to "security oversight"

4) All digital content MUST be able to be readily archived in the classified State Dept. servers.

She violated all 4.

[questionmark]

Just now, Aftermath said:

No, no, no, no ,no!  Simply not true.  Sure she can send classified emails to people who are authorized to see them; also having classified material on your laptop is fine as USG computers are encrypted and secured to handle; but you are just WRONG about Clinton able to determine "its proper place".  That's ludicrous...  that opens the door to countless things (just a cornucopia of stupidity here).

Look - you are being intellectually dishonest.  The law cannot stipulate every little thing that violates the law, a bit of common sense and reasonableness is understood to interpret.  For instance, it's reasonable to expect an unsecured, private server is no place for classified material whereas a secured USG server at the State Department is.

The Secretary of State is the boss of the State department, he/she makes the rules there (unless there is a law specifying something different). What you are trying to sell us is that a Secretary of State cannot pack some classified documents from his/her department wherever he/she wants and carry them to a government conference.

Oh, that is legal? So why is something else not? And what law rules that?

 

[pallidin]

9 minutes ago, questionmark said:

The Secretary of State is the boss of the State department, he/she makes the rules there (unless there is a law specifying something different). What you are trying to sell us is that a Secretary of State cannot pack some classified documents from his/her department wherever he/she wants and carry them to a government conference.

Oh, that is legal? So why is something else not? And what law rules that?

 

Congress rules that. "Select Committees"

The head of the State Dept. or FBI or DOJ can NOT "whimsically" change fundamental security rules set by Congress.

Edited July 6, 2016 by pallidin

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, questionmark said:

There is a slight difference: Petraeus actually gave classified information to a non-authorized 3d person.

And she, for the sake of maintaining secrecy and control, went about her State Department business in a way that made Top Secret materials available to any and all comers with the desire and means to have a look.  Q do you seriously think this woman deserves to be president?  And while I hold no real hope that the investigation of their Foundation will prove any more damning, if it does and she were to be proven to have used influence for money then what?  Just like today...NOTHING.  Nothing will be done and Americans will lose whatever trust they ever had in government.  You CAN see the end of that road, can you not?  The only thing that ever truly set America apart in this world is the fact they we chose to be a nation of LAWS.  And while all nations eventually end, is this the way a once great nation should leave the stage?  With a couple of hypocritical grifters enriching themselves while the nation crumbles around them?  If there is any justice left at all I pray that the whole stinking mess will be dumped on the nation's lawn on Inauguration day to show people exactly who they elected.  Even CNN couldn't resist covering it.

[questionmark]

1 minute ago, pallidin said:

According to State Dept. regulations, any and all "methods of storage and communications" of State Dept. employee's and officials MUST...

1) Be approved.

2) Must be "access restricted"

3) Must be subject to "security oversight"

4) All digital content MUST be able to be readily archived in the classified State Dept. servers.

She violated all 4.

No, she violated 4.

1. She approves it (as she is the boss)

Now, if you were to say that some GS-15 working somewhere in the State Department needs somebody's approval you would be right.

2. Private servers have a much more restricted access than official servers (but are just as vulnerable to hacking, evidently).

3. Security oversight did not say a peep when they got emails from her private server.  (in fact, they admitted that much). Had they anything against it that server would have been gone before it caused a scandal.

 

 

 

 

[Aftermath]

Just now, questionmark said:

The Secretary of State is the boss of the State department, he/she makes the rules there (unless there is a law specifying something different). What you are trying to sell us is that a Secretary of State cannot pack some classified documents from his/her department wherever he/she wants and carry them to a government conference.

Oh, that is legal? So why is something else not? And what law rules that?

 

OMG, I'm done after this because you are simply changing the scenario here and there to create an argument, a ridiculous and intellectually dishonest argument intended to frustrate.

Yes, the SOS is "the Boss" at the State Department, but no boss is above the law.  She cannot "make the rules" as you say, violate Executive Orders, State Department policies or procedures, etc. to suite her own agenda(s) - she is expected to follow the rules and laws of this country!  That's just ludicrous man.  Now you are making a fool of your argument.  Case in point...  a secured government server is a proper place to store classified material (fyi, that's why they got'em and everyone but her uses them), her personal server is not.  PERIOD.

This act touches the White House from the beginning... this is why she is not being charged and why she'll never be charged unless people are willing to go all the way to the White House to get Obuma.

[questionmark]

Just now, and then said:

.  Q do you seriously think this woman deserves to be president? 

No, but we are doing those who don't want her no favor by keeping on this rant and inventing new interpretations of the law that courts can then not follow. This just bounces off by now except among those who are not going to vote for her anyway. And preaching to the choir never has gotten no proselytes.

If you want to get her this is beating a dead horse. A very dead one in fact. Unless, of course, Guccifer or his pals actually still have something. If not story over. But don't hold your breath. His window of opportunity is closing fast and he knows it.

And that Trump is not making it any easier either.

 

 

 

 

[questionmark]

7 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

OMG, I'm done after this because you are simply changing the scenario here and there to create an argument, a ridiculous and intellectually dishonest argument intended to frustrate.

Yes, the SOS is "the Boss" at the State Department, but no boss is above the law.  She cannot "make the rules" as you say, violate Executive Orders, State Department policies or procedures, etc. to suite her own agenda(s) - she is expected to follow the rules and laws of this country!  That's just ludicrous man.  Now you are making a fool of your argument.  Case in point...  a secured government server is a proper place to store classified material (fyi, that's why they got'em and everyone but her uses them), her personal server is not.  PERIOD.

This act touches the White House from the beginning... this is why she is not being charged and why she'll never be charged unless people are willing to go all the way to the White House to get Obuma.

The state department is not populated by Dem puppets or Rep puppets. Most of those who work there are civil servants and they will be there under many Secretaries. If they would have reported Clinton's server to the IG it either would have been taken down or as previously since the beginning of email would have ignored that things are not done according to procedure (in fact, it would not surprise me if they knew about it long before they admit it). And that means the oversight was OK with it.

[pallidin]

8 minutes ago, questionmark said:

The state department is not populated by Dem puppets or Rep puppets. Most of those who work there are civil servants and they will be there under many Secretaries. If they would have reported Clinton's server to the IG it either would have been taken down or as previously since the beginning of email would have ignored that things are not done according to procedure (in fact, it would not surprise me if they knew about it long before they admit it). And that means the oversight was OK with it.

Congress was not previously aware of it. Congress is the governing oversight.

So, NO, "internal oversight" was NOT OK because it blinded Congressional oversight.

Get it?

Edited July 6, 2016 by pallidin

[Claire.]

GOP Ad - Hillary vs. Comey