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.
"Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported:
"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office.Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law"
This is exactly what it looks like. Donald Trump using the Department of Justice to punish his election adversaries AND provide cover for the ongoing investigation into his treasonous and crooked family.
His 30% may be gullible but most of America and other world leaders are not.
You'd need to prove INTENT to accuse her of the criminal crime that trump supporters are accusing her of.
But hey, since you know so much, why don't you join the their team, and go find her guilty of something. I mean, clearly, arm chair investigators know sooooo much more than the actual investigators.
Again, that list that comey listed would have put myself and anyone else with a SC/TS in jail, clearance removed, or fired...
Yes, I do know, I've have a current SC and have had a SC for the last 27 years.....I have to read and sign a yearly AUP that clearly states what I can or cannot do....
Both involved in the manufacture of the Dossier, that has made the FBI look like fools.
Bro. come on. if that were the case, the heaven would be filled with the howlings of the left.
there is a thing called due process. you don't get a tracker attached unless you have been found guilty and sentenced, or pre finding, you are considered a flight risk after you have been charged and arraigned. THAT would be subject to public access. you cant secretly charge someone, arraign them and grant them bail..... and find they are a flight risk.
You'd need to prove INTENT to accuse her of the criminal crime that trump supporters are accusing her of.
But hey, since you know so much, why don't you join the their team, and go find her guilty of something. I mean, clearly, arm chair investigators know sooooo much more than the actual investigators.
as a point of fact, the statute requires "gross negligence" as the standard. Intent is irrelevant
as a point of reference there is a guy that spent two years in jail for taking a picture on a Navy Sub. He did not have any ill intent. he was just taking a selfie to share with his girl friend. turns out there was a valve in the pic that was classified. No intent whatsoever. shoot, its a stretch to suggest gross negligence. but he went to jail for it.
Hillary set up a computer network with a server in a bathroom closet by a mom and pop shop that had no sophistication and did not have significant internet safety protocols. She used that network to set up a private email service that she received classified, top secret and Special Access information to. regardless of her reasons, (intent), He exposed American secrets of the most sensitive variety to every single hacker on the face of the earth. THAT is without question gross negligence. period.
The Comey letter that was used to clear her had an early draft with the words "grossly negligent". That wording was changed to "extremely careless" because the legal standard for the crime is in fact "gross negligence". INTENT IS NOT A STANDARD IN THE STATUTE.
as a point of fact, the statute requires "gross negligence" as the standard. Intent is irrelevant
as a point of reference there is a guy that spent two years in jail for taking a picture on a Navy Sub. He did not have any ill intent. he was just taking a selfie to share with his girl friend. turns out there was a valve in the pic that was classified. No intent whatsoever. shoot, its a stretch to suggest gross negligence. but he went to jail for it.
Hillary set up a computer network with a server in a bathroom closet by a mom and pop shop that had no sophistication and did not have significant internet safety protocols. She used that network to set up a private email service that she received classified, top secret and Special Access information to. regardless of her reasons, (intent), He exposed American secrets of the most sensitive variety to every single hacker on the face of the earth. THAT is without question gross negligence. period.
The Comey letter that was used to clear her had an early draft with the words "grossly negligent". That wording was changed to "extremely careless" because the legal standard for the crime is in fact "gross negligence". INTENT IS NOT A STANDARD IN THE STATUTE.
I think you're missing the part that what she's being accused of, was NOT a crime when she did it. It doesn't matter what people on message boards think, or what arm chair warriors say is the case....fact is, when she had the server, it was not illegal. No crime was broken.
I'm not familiar with that man getting 2 years, nor can I find it online, but as far as Hillary goes, what she did wasn't a crime, and almost most professionals in the field of law pretty much understands this to be true. That is the reason why despite the many attempts, they all come back to the same place....there's simply not enough to go on.
(by the way, the change in wording doesn't indicate guilt. The knew that it wasn't a case that would probably find her guilty anyway, so it would have been a waste of time)
At this point, it's really just beating a dead horse.
I think you're missing the part that what she's being accused of, was NOT a crime when she did it. It doesn't matter what people on message boards think, or what arm chair warriors say is the case....fact is, when she had the server, it was not illegal. No crime was broken.
I'm not familiar with that man getting 2 years, nor can I find it online, but as far as Hillary goes, what she did wasn't a crime, and almost most professionals in the field of law pretty much understands this to be true. That is the reason why despite the many attempts, they all come back to the same place....there's simply not enough to go on.
(by the way, the change in wording doesn't indicate guilt. The knew that it wasn't a case that would probably find her guilty anyway, so it would have been a waste of time)
At this point, it's really just beating a dead horse.
You are completely misinformed.
Hillary was not under investigation for using a private email server.
Hillary was under investigation for espionage.
It has always been a crime to store classified information in an unauthorized/non secure location, if you do it intentionally, or through gross negligence.
Hillary's actions were intentional, but were without question grossly negligent, therefore a crime.
FBI internal documents show agents believed Hillary's actions were grossly negligent. Comey edited the final documents to say extremely careless, instead of the previous gross negligence.
I think you're missing the part that what she's being accused of, was NOT a crime when she did it. It doesn't matter what people on message boards think, or what arm chair warriors say is the case....fact is, when she had the server, it was not illegal. No crime was broken.
I'm not familiar with that man getting 2 years, nor can I find it online, but as far as Hillary goes, what she did wasn't a crime, and almost most professionals in the field of law pretty much understands this to be true. That is the reason why despite the many attempts, they all come back to the same place....there's simply not enough to go on.
(by the way, the change in wording doesn't indicate guilt. The knew that it wasn't a case that would probably find her guilty anyway, so it would have been a waste of time)
At this point, it's really just beating a dead horse.
I don't know where you heard all that from, but you are completely, utterly wrong.
There is no question, that Hilary sent and received classified material over her unauthorized email domain server.
Her home servers were not authorized to store or transmit classified material, and neither were those of the private company that was hosting her servers off site. She is guilty of committing multiple felony counts. The facts of this are not even in question.
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.
