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.
"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.
"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.
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".
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
It is illegal to removed classified documents from secured servers. They call that espionage.
