Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:03 PM
 
693 posts, read 355,789 times
Reputation: 395

Advertisements

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/wh...-clinton-case/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:05 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbernard View Post
No, but neither was it a crime if it wasn't intentional.

Period, full stop.




THAT is the crux of it all. Was there knowledgeable INTENT to commit a crime. To date, there has been ZERO evidence that shows that she intentionally tried to commit espionage or steal information from the government. This is why they have nothing else but.......let me say this slowly, negligence. Which, by definition, is merely failure to take proper care in doing something.
Negligence, despite being extreme, doesn't mean she set out to intentionally commit a crime of espionage.

But hey, if you have evidence of espionage intent, by all means, go after her.


I'm sure the kid that took a selfie on a submarine had no intent, yet he sat in jail for how long????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:05 PM
 
17,389 posts, read 11,938,010 times
Reputation: 16137
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbernard View Post
"Violations" does not equate criminal intent.
Proof of intent isn't needed for a crime to have been committed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:06 PM
 
693 posts, read 355,789 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster View Post
Deleting 33,000 emails that were already under subpoena is a federal crime.
She didn't delete the emails, nor is there any evidence (as in, nothing, nada, zilch) that shows she instructed anyone to delete emails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:07 PM
 
693 posts, read 355,789 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I'm sure the kid that took a selfie on a submarine had no intent, yet he sat in jail for how long????
Like I said, I'm not aware of that case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:09 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbernard View Post
Like I said, I'm not aware of that case.

Because it does not fit the narrative they are feeding you in the echo chamber.
Trump even mentioned it in his tweet.


Are you informed or uninformed, trying to debate? This instance, you are uninformed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:10 PM
 
693 posts, read 355,789 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Proof of intent isn't needed for a crime to have been committed.
But proof of intent is usually needed to prove guilt.


I bring up, once again, Zimmerman. He killed someone. That is a fact. We all know it. He admits it. Yet....he's walking the streets, a free man. Why? No one could prove intent to murder DESPITE all the evidence showing that he initiated the provocation with his following Trayvon.


Comey had it right. Most lawyers agree and back Comey. They do believe there was negligence, but simply not enough to actually go after her. Sitting behind your screen claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:12 PM
 
20,421 posts, read 12,338,684 times
Reputation: 10207
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbernard View Post
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.
again, you are utterly and entirely incorrect on the facts. having a server may or may not have been illegal (I actually think it was but that's irrelevant). The statute in question has been the law for decades.


She processed many details of classified information that included, Classified, Top Secret and Special Access information over her private server system. She had those details stored on her private server. That server did not have security capable of protecting the information. That information was outside of the control of United States PROTOCOL. period.


The ONLY thing you have said here that is debatable is if the action she took (according to Comey was a violation of the statue) might not find her guilty. That was the standard Comey used to indict her. That's is debatable. if the standard was Gross Negligence, there certainly is enough evidence for an indictment. Others sit in prison for far less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:14 PM
 
Location: NC
5,129 posts, read 2,588,189 times
Reputation: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbernard View Post
But proof of intent is usually needed to prove guilt.

Intent
is not in the USC she broke
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2018, 01:15 PM
 
693 posts, read 355,789 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Because it does not fit the narrative they are feeding you in the echo chamber.
Trump even mentioned it in his tweet.


Are you informed or uninformed, trying to debate? This instance, you are uninformed.


We are all uninformed in a great many areas....or do you propose that you know about every single case out there, historically?????????????
I need not be informed of every case out there, especially since this sub story is not even related to Hillary.



So, I further my searched, and did find the case, and yes, he got a raw deal, as do many americans, all the time. But one thing doesn't have anything to do with another.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top