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.
I have my doubts about Hillary beating Trump, but no doubt Biden could.
You do realize she committed a crime, right? I get that Democrats don't care though.
No, she did not commit a crime. If she had FBI Director Comey would have recommended an indictment for her from the Department of Justice.
As it happened, he carefully explained in testimony under oath as to why what she did failed rise to the level of criminality but was rather what he described as "reckless." There is a major difference between the absolute meaning of "criminality" & that of "recklessness".
I can't help it if you conflate the 2 terms terms here & elsewhere because you want to see her indicted.
Let the chips fall where they may but preferably on THE SIDE OF THE FACTS & not just opinion which obviously can be incorrect.
No, she did not commit a crime. If she had FBI Director Comey would have recommended an indictment for her from the Department of Justice.
As it happened, he carefully explained in testimony under oath as to why what she did failed rise to the level of criminality but was rather what he described as "reckless." There is a major difference between the absolute meaning of "criminality" & that of "recklessness".
I can't help it if you conflate the 2 terms terms here & elsewhere because you want to see her indicted.
Let the chips fall where they may but preferably on THE SIDE OF THE FACTS & not just opinion which obviously can be incorrect.
Comey knows Hillary is in the revenge business. He's not going to go through that; therefore, he presented the case that she was guilty while not coming out and saying the words.
She didn't commit a crime, why is it that Republicans can't get that through their heads? Comey doesn't like her if there was any evidence of her committing a crime he would have suggested prosecution
Quote:
Originally Posted by atler8
No, she did not commit a crime.
This is power politics at it's lowest common denominator. Comey stood up there and presented a case that would have forced the DOJ to indict anyone else. But Comey wasn't going down in political history as the FBI director who derailed the first woman presidential candidate, especially one named Clinton.
Yeah, she committed a crime folks. The FBI chose not to indict. Get over it.
They did not look at just 3 e-mails as you wrote but rather at thousands of them. But when push came to shove, under testimony before the committee, Comey revealed that the FBI only found 3 that were classified.
Marked or not it is her responsibility and the responsibility of her staff to know what is classified.
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
----------------
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
---------------------
Quote:
It's imperative that the vid segment I've referenced is seen to correctly understand the bottom line of the e-mail & classification debate.
What is imperative to understand is Clinton is either complete moron or risked exposing top secret information for her own selfish needs.There is no excuse for what she did.
How can Democrats NOT want a complete investigation BEFORE the election? 3 out of 30,000 emails is all he looked at. This is just insanity. They have a perfect guy right in front of them, Joe Biden who could probably beat Donald Trump. WHY WHY WHY?
They didn't say they only looked at 3 emails. He said only three contained marking on them, and they were not marked as "classified", but they had a "c" mark on them.
I won't be voting for her, but it's good to know the full story as opposed to some partisan witch hunt version of it. I am tired of the GOP playing these games on the taxpayer dime.
She didn't commit a crime, why is it that Republicans can't get that through their heads? Comey doesn't like her if there was any evidence of her committing a crime he would have suggested prosecution
There is people that have been prosecuted for what she did, the razor thin line separating them from Clinton is they admitted knowing it was classified material. This could of gone either way and it is certainly not an exoneration of her activities. If you want to stick with the excuse that she is complete moron and can't identify top secret information so be it.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
Seems to me that video clearly states only 3 emails out of 30K+ were in question and those 3 were improperly marked. RW desperation at its finest.Next strawman=
Wrong, see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atler8
You also mentioned 3 out of 30,000 emails. They did not look at just 3 e-mails as you wrote but rather at thousands of them. But when push came to shove, under testimony before the committee, Comey revealed that the FBI only found 3 that were classified.
Again you are wrong, see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
She didn't commit a crime, why is it that Republicans can't get that through their heads? Comey doesn't like her if there was any evidence of her committing a crime he would have suggested prosecution
Comey in fact said she did commit a crime, but they were not going to prosecute because he said they could prove intent. However, there is no need to prove intent with espionage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atler8
No, she did not commit a crime. If she had FBI Director Comey would have recommended an indictment for her from the Department of Justice.
As it happened, he carefully explained in testimony under oath as to why what she did failed rise to the level of criminality but was rather what he described as "reckless." There is a major difference between the absolute meaning of "criminality" & that of "recklessness".
I can't help it if you conflate the 2 terms terms here & elsewhere because you want to see her indicted.
Let the chips fall where they may but preferably on THE SIDE OF THE FACTS & not just opinion which obviously can be incorrect.
Comey in fact said she did committed a crime.
Just because you are not prosecuted doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Marked or not it is her responsibility and the responsibility of her staff to know what is classified.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
There were over 2000 classified emails one Hillary's server.
There were 110 emails that were classified at the time they were sent, or received, including top secret, and Special Access Program information (the most secret programs in the government).
It's literally only been a month, and already Democrats are trying to rewrite history.
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.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
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.
