U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2016, 07:30 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,858,298 times
Reputation: 2606

Advertisements

Another failed scandal and the right wing is weeping.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2016, 07:41 AM
 
11,327 posts, read 5,927,532 times
Reputation: 3544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus View Post
"According to Department spokesperson Harf, use by government officials of personal email for government business is permissible under the Federal Records Act, so long as relevant official communications, including all work-related emails, are preserved by the agency.[32] The Act (which was amended in late 2014 after Clinton left office to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days) requires agencies to retain all official communications, including all work-related emails, and stipulates that government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records"

In other words, at the time Hillary was SoS, it was allowed for government officials to receive and transmit classified content via private email accounts as long as certain protocol was followed.

All that was required is that she follow that protocol to the best of her knowledge and ability. The fact that Hillary's team wasn't perfect in finding all relavent classified material among over 55,000 emails and Hillary wasn't perfect in forwarding every classified piece of information is not proof she "lied" or of her "guilt" or intent.

That's why there is no case for action. Get it? Good. Now can we move on or do I have to explain this again?
Can you also provide the legal language that allows Queen Hillary to lie under oath to Congress? I mean she can do no wrong, right? There must be some legal reason that she was able to lie to congress, right? I only ask because you seem to know everything and the rest of us that question your chosen one are way too dumb to understand this without your supreme guidance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 07:45 AM
 
Location: In the reddest part of the bluest state
3,253 posts, read 1,228,478 times
Reputation: 2754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus View Post
"According to Department spokesperson Harf, use by government officials of personal email for government business is permissible under the Federal Records Act, so long as relevant official communications, including all work-related emails, are preserved by the agency.[32] The Act (which was amended in late 2014 after Clinton left office to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days) requires agencies to retain all official communications, including all work-related emails, and stipulates that government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records"

In other words, at the time Hillary was SoS, it was allowed for government officials to receive and transmit classified content via private email accounts as long as certain protocol was followed.

All that was required is that she follow that protocol to the best of her knowledge and ability. The fact that Hillary's team wasn't perfect in finding all relavent classified material among over 55,000 emails and Hillary wasn't perfect in forwarding every classified piece of information is not proof she "lied" or of her "guilt" or intent.

That's why there is no case for action. Get it? Good. Now can we move on or do I have to explain this again?
Better be careful shank, Paul Ryan might start an investigation on you. He's going to get to the bottom of this and subpoena anyone with information. He will keep asking the questions until he gets the answer he wants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 07:51 AM
 
3,119 posts, read 1,258,472 times
Reputation: 2919
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought lying was saying something that you know is not true. My bad. Perhaps the dictionary should be changed...

Lying | Define Lying at Dictionary.com
There can be no hope for one who's head is so deeply buried in the sand...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 08:29 AM
 
Location: The Island of Misfit Toys
2,767 posts, read 2,292,012 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
Government business is not the same as classified business It is illegal to removed classified documents from secured servers. They call that espionage.
That is if there was a conscious and deliberate intent to knowingly move or keep classified material against protocol.

The problem is, even though it might have happened, there was no evidence it was intentional or deliberate or part of a plan to funnel government material out of network and into the wrong hands.

That's why the FBI director correctly and fairly ruled it as "careless" but not "criminal" or "prosecutable".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 08:35 AM
 
3,119 posts, read 1,258,472 times
Reputation: 2919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus View Post
That is if there was a conscious and deliberate intent to knowingly move or keep classified material against protocol.

The problem is, even though it might have happened, there was no evidence it was intentional or deliberate or part of a plan to funnel government material out of network and into the wrong hands.

That's why the FBI director correctly and fairly ruled it as "careless" but not "criminal" or "prosecutable".
What the FBI director say was that she committed a felony. The reason it was not recommended for prosecution was purely because the director was given his marching orders. He prefers to live to fight another day...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 08:47 AM
 
Location: The Island of Misfit Toys
2,767 posts, read 2,292,012 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy ol' Man View Post
What the FBI director say was that she committed a felony. The reason it was not recommended for prosecution was purely because the director was given his marching orders. .
Wrong. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

The reason it was not recommended for prosecution was because, in all similar cases, there was a provable intent to do so and/or the material was passed on to someone out-of-network.

There is no evidence for either intent or out-of-network distribution in Hillary's case.

So, basically, your criminal case against her is sunk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 08:59 AM
 
11,327 posts, read 5,927,532 times
Reputation: 3544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus View Post
Wrong. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

The reason it was not recommended for prosecution was because, in all similar cases, there was a provable intent to do so and/or the material was passed on to someone out-of-network.

There is no evidence for either intent or out-of-network distribution in Hillary's case.

So, basically, your criminal case against her is sunk.
No YOU are wrong. This has nothing to do with previous cases. Chaffetz asked if there was an investigation into Clinton lying to congress under oath. Comey said no there as not because he was not asked to look into that. I found this surprising that it needs to be asked, but apparently it does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8bc_story.html

Quote:
Chaffetz asked whether the FBI had specifically investigated Clinton’s previous statements, which were in his view false, to Congress. Comey said to open a criminal investigation, he would need a referral from Congress.

“You’ll have one; you’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 09:19 AM
 
Location: The Island of Misfit Toys
2,767 posts, read 2,292,012 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
No YOU are wrong. This has nothing to do with previous cases. Chaffetz asked if there was an investigation into Clinton lying to congress under oath. Comey said no there as not because he was not asked to look into that. I found this surprising that it needs to be asked, but apparently it does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8bc_story.html
And once again, I have to explain the difference between lying and answering to the best of your knowledge and ability.

Clinton did not have or employ the investigative powers, technical experts and technology that the FBI brought to bear on this investigation of her emails when she testified. The FBI had to conduct laborious and technically intensive search and extraction of many disjointed and "lost" files that Clinton or her team of lawyers could not have done at the time of her testimony.

It took a professional investigative team, with access to the email accounts of multiple parties, to find and piece together much of what they found.

So Clinton testified to the best of her knowledge and ability at the time. If some of what the FBI un-covered via a professional investigation involving computer experts contradicts her own knowledge, that's not
surprising or evidence of knowledge or guilt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2016, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,294,576 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYJoe View Post
Do you ever lie in your private life? I think we all have at some time. Trump has always been a private citizen. She was Sec of State and First Lady and a governors wife. A much higher standard to be held to( at least in the minds of intellectually honest people).
Excuses, excuses, excuses ...

Trump is a con man who has deliberately and repeatedly lied to bilk people out of tens of millions of dollars.

He's probably been lying about his fortune for decades, too, which is why he won't show his tax returns ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:38 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top