For JSO: A Tale of Forgiveness

[JohnStOnge]

Clinton never did anything close to as bad as that Trump University thing in terms of scamming people. Clinton didn't routinely tell people who agreed to do work for her that she would pay them for the work then renigged. Clinton didn't do stuff like borrow money from banks under specific terms knowing damn well she wouldn't live up to the terms then come back later to "renegotiate" the terms. You know, put the banks in the position of having to go ahead and change the terms or lose even more. The guy is completely corrupt. Yes, WAY more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. WAY more dishonest than Hillary Clinton.

Are you **** serious? Trump may have scammed people but did he mishandle classified information and use his government position for financial gain?

He wasn't using his government position for financial gain before because he wasn't in government but he's doing it right now. Also, he's "mishandled" classified information. It's just that he can't get in trouble for it because he's President.

Clinton had her e mail thing. They looked at like 30,000 e mails and ended up deciding that 110 of them were classified. Also they ended up deciding that it's reasonable to think she didn't know any of them were classified. They basically categorized her as careless rather than corrupt in that regard.

It's not close man. Be objective. Trump is way more dishonest than Clinton and he's way more corrupt than Clinton too.

[CID1990]

Are you **** serious? Trump may have scammed people but did he mishandle classified information and use his government position for financial gain?

He wasn't using his government position for financial gain before because he wasn't in government but he's doing it right now. Also, he's "mishandled" classified information. It's just that he can't get in trouble for it because he's President.

Clinton had her e mail thing. They looked at like 30,000 e mails and ended up deciding that 110 of them were classified. Also they ended up deciding that it's reasonable to think she didn't know any of them were classified. They basically categorized her as careless rather than corrupt in that regard.

It's not close man. Be objective. Trump is way more dishonest than Clinton and he's way more corrupt than Clinton too.

Um... JSO..

You can repudiate Trump without trying to rehabilitate Clinton.

You’re too smart to buy the BS around the Clinton non-prosecution

[JohnStOnge]

He wasn't using his government position for financial gain before because he wasn't in government but he's doing it right now. Also, he's "mishandled" classified information. It's just that he can't get in trouble for it because he's President.

Clinton had her e mail thing. They looked at like 30,000 e mails and ended up deciding that 110 of them were classified. Also they ended up deciding that it's reasonable to think she didn't know any of them were classified. They basically categorized her as careless rather than corrupt in that regard.

It's not close man. Be objective. Trump is way more dishonest than Clinton and he's way more corrupt than Clinton too.

Um... JSO..

You can repudiate Trump without trying to rehabilitate Clinton.

You’re too smart to buy the BS around the Clinton non-prosecution

Actually I trust Comey's judgment on the matter. But even if I'm wrong about that it doesn't matter with respect to the point. The idea that Clinton just screwed up and did not realize she was mishandling classified information is completely plausible. It's very plausible that she looked at e mails being handled through her personal server and concluded nothing was classified. We're talking about 110 e mails out of 30,000 plus.

There's a difference between being careless and being corrupt.

Look, I have long disagreed with some of Hillary Clinton's political/philosophical views. But this stuff that's been going on since the 1990s of trying to demonize her by saying she had people killed, had some kind of abnormal corruption in terms of making money off of speeches, etc., has always been over the top.

When it comes to which is the more corrupt person between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump it's Donald Trump. And it's not even close.

[BDKJMU]

Um... JSO..

You can repudiate Trump without trying to rehabilitate Clinton.

You’re too smart to buy the BS around the Clinton non-prosecution

Actually I trust Comey's judgment on the matter. But even if I'm wrong about that it doesn't matter with respect to the point. The idea that Clinton just screwed up and did not realize she was mishandling classified information is completely plausible. It's very plausible that she looked at e mails being handled through her personal server and concluded nothing was classified. We're talking about 110 e mails out of 30,000 plus.

There's a difference between being careless and being corrupt.

Look, I have long disagreed with some of Hillary Clinton's political/philosophical views. But this stuff that's been going on since the 1990s of trying to demonize her by saying she had people killed, had some kind of abnormal corruption in terms of making money off of speeches, etc., has always been over the top.

When it comes to which is the more corrupt person between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump it's Donald Trump. And it's not even close.

Trust Comey?
-You had the head of an investigative agency inappropriately hold a press conference (not his job to make such an announcement).
-Laid out the crimes that someone committed (the threshold of gross negligence was clearly met) as if he was making a closing argument.
-Said that he was recommending that person not be charged, mentioning that intent couldn't be proven (completely irrelevant since intent isn't part of the statute).
-Claimed that no prosecutor would bring charges in this case, when their was reportedly unanimity among the investigators & lawyers working the investigation that charges shouldn't be brought, with a # of former federal prosecutors later saying the same thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10 ... sider.html

But whether or not she knew her server had classified info is IRRELEVANT. Gross negligence is the standard, not intent. She either knew the server had classified info, or she would have had to have been incredibly incompetent not to have known. Either way she was violating the law:
"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Only 110 or whatever might have been marked classified at the time, but over 2000 contained classified material. You would have to suspend belief & have your head buried in the sand to think she didn't know her e-mails contained classified info. She was a former Senator & the Sec of State, not some low level govt employee. And she would have known that writing classified intelligence information into an unclassified email does not make the information unclassified.

Clinton e-mail lies:
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified "at the time".-Lie
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.- Lie
Turned over all of her work-related e-mails.- Lie
Claimed she only used 1 device- Lie
Claimed use of a private server and e-mail domain were legally permitted- Lie.
All her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.-Lie
Claimed was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.-Lie

And this is just one area of Clintons lies and corruption. But keep clinging to:

When it comes to which is the more corrupt person between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump it's Donald Trump. And it's not even close.

[BDKJMU]

"New revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary Clinton

..........The Clinton Foundation...most fruitful program has been leveraging Clinton’s position in the State Department to enrich her family, friends and cronies.

It’s against federal law for charities to act in the interests of private business or individuals. Yet the Clinton Foundation secured high-paying gigs for its namesakes and helped for-profit corporations with family ties set up lucrative deals.

As it turns out, that’s probably the least corrupt part of the story.

It is becoming clear the foundation was a center of influence peddling. Rock stars. Soccer players. Conglomerates. Crown princes. All of them paid in. All of them expected access to the US government.

Want a seat on a government intelligence advisory board even though you have no relevant experience? The Clinton Foundation may be able to help.

Recently released emails prove the charity’s officials had sought access to State Department personnel while Hillary was in charge. Folks like the prince of Bahrain, who donated $32 million to the foundation, needed to get in touch.

An Associated Press investigation finds that more than half the private citizens who met or spoke with Clinton while she was secretary of state also happened to donate to her foundation. What are the odds?

It’s implausible that a majority of the 154 citizens — people who’d kicked in at least $156 million to her charity — would also happen to catch Clinton’s ear as she toiled away at State. It’s also worth remembering this list doesn’t even include officials from the 16 governments — many of them autocrats — who threw the foundation another $170 million.

Recently, the foundation announced it would ban donations from corporations and foreign countries if Hillary is elected president. The question is: If it’s a conflict of interest when Hillary will be president, why wasn’t it a problem when she was secretary of state?

Let’s also not forget that during Clinton’s tenure at State, she failed to disclose that regimes across the world were giving her charity hundreds of millions. Because she needed to hide this, she ended up sending 110 emails containing classified information — eight of which had “top secret” information, according to the FBI.

These days, Hillary brazenly goes on Jimmy Kimmel to clown around about her “boring” emails.

Well, if they’re so irrelevant, why was she hiding them from the Justice Department? If it’s no big deal, why did it take four years and a lawsuit against the State Department to gain access to her planning schedules? Why did she lie to the American people? Erase tens of thousands of emails? Set up a private server in the first place?

Hillary claims running the State Department gave her the experience and temperament necessary to be president. But if anything, it reminds us of the Clintons’ propensity for scandal and dishonesty. And if Clinton wins this year, she’ll become the most ethically compromised president in contemporary times. Perhaps ever."
http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revela ... y-clinton/

JSO: But, but, but she's not as corrupt as Trump!...

[CID1990]

Um... JSO..

You can repudiate Trump without trying to rehabilitate Clinton.

You’re too smart to buy the BS around the Clinton non-prosecution

Actually I trust Comey's judgment on the matter. But even if I'm wrong about that it doesn't matter with respect to the point. The idea that Clinton just screwed up and did not realize she was mishandling classified information is completely plausible. It's very plausible that she looked at e mails being handled through her personal server and concluded nothing was classified. We're talking about 110 e mails out of 30,000 plus.

There's a difference between being careless and being corrupt.

Look, I have long disagreed with some of Hillary Clinton's political/philosophical views. But this stuff that's been going on since the 1990s of trying to demonize her by saying she had people killed, had some kind of abnormal corruption in terms of making money off of speeches, etc., has always been over the top.

When it comes to which is the more corrupt person between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump it's Donald Trump. And it's not even close.

Everything Clinton does is calculated to insulate her and her business from scrutiny.

Even my most liberal colleagues at DoS don't defend her... she knew EXACTLY what she was doing. She didn't want to do business on government servers because she didn't want the unwashed masses (who she works for) to be able to FOIA her communications.

If you really believe that she didnt know what she was doing, then what you are really doing is making a case against her competence.

Finally, you've been fooled by the people who wanted Comey to tapdance around the word "gross negligence", because intent is not the controlling element of the statute she violated.

Like I said, repudiating Trump does not require one to rehabilitate Clinton. She's dishonest and corrupt. So is Trump. The varying degrees you seem so eager to debate are irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Are you **** serious? Trump may have scammed people but did he mishandle classified information and use his government position for financial gain?

He wasn't using his government position for financial gain before because he wasn't in government but he's doing it right now. Also, he's "mishandled" classified information. It's just that he can't get in trouble for it because he's President.

Clinton had her e mail thing. They looked at like 30,000 e mails and ended up deciding that 110 of them were classified. Also they ended up deciding that it's reasonable to think she didn't know any of them were classified. They basically categorized her as careless rather than corrupt in that regard.

It's not close man. Be objective. Trump is way more dishonest than Clinton and he's way more corrupt than Clinton too.

It doesn't matter if 1 was classified... it's a mishandling of information and people have been fired for that.

You be objective - Trump and Clinton are of the same ilk. Wealthy, corrupt, blowhards that shouldn't be charged with running a PTA meeting.

[css75]

Way more? Clinton must not have been a politician.

Clinton never did anything close to as bad as that Trump University thing in terms of scamming people. Clinton didn't routinely tell people who agreed to do work for her that she would pay them for the work then renigged. Clinton didn't do stuff like borrow money from banks under specific terms knowing damn well she wouldn't live up to the terms then come back later to "renegotiate" the terms. You know, put the banks in the position of having to go ahead and change the terms or lose even more. The guy is completely corrupt. Yes, WAY more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. WAY more dishonest than Hillary Clinton.

You might want to amend this after they are done investigating her. The Body count is 34 after Seth Rich.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[css75]

Clinton never did anything close to as bad as that Trump University thing in terms of scamming people. Clinton didn't routinely tell people who agreed to do work for her that she would pay them for the work then renigged. Clinton didn't do stuff like borrow money from banks under specific terms knowing damn well she wouldn't live up to the terms then come back later to "renegotiate" the terms. You know, put the banks in the position of having to go ahead and change the terms or lose even more. The guy is completely corrupt. Yes, WAY more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. WAY more dishonest than Hillary Clinton.

You might want to amend this after they are done investigating her. The Body count is 34 after Seth Rich.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

You might want to amend this after they are done investigating her. The Body count is 34 after Seth Rich.

Yeah! Just wait until they're done investigating Pizza Gate!!

[Ibanez]

You might want to amend this after they are done investigating her. The Body count is 34 after Seth Rich.

Yeah! Just wait until they're done investigating Pizza Gate!!

I didn't know Sean Hannity was an active member of this board.

[CID1990]

Clinton never did anything close to as bad as that Trump University thing in terms of scamming people. Clinton didn't routinely tell people who agreed to do work for her that she would pay them for the work then renigged. Clinton didn't do stuff like borrow money from banks under specific terms knowing damn well she wouldn't live up to the terms then come back later to "renegotiate" the terms. You know, put the banks in the position of having to go ahead and change the terms or lose even more. The guy is completely corrupt. Yes, WAY more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. WAY more dishonest than Hillary Clinton.

You might want to amend this after they are done investigating her. The Body count is 34 after Seth Rich.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

THIS is one reason she gets a pass on the crap she actually did do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Trust Comey?
-You had the head of an investigative agency inappropriately hold a press conference (not his job to make such an announcement).
-Laid out the crimes that someone committed (the threshold of gross negligence was clearly met) as if he was making a closing argument.
-Said that he was recommending that person not be charged, mentioning that intent couldn't be proven (completely irrelevant since intent isn't part of the statute).
-Claimed that no prosecutor would bring charges in this case, when their was reportedly unanimity among the investigators & lawyers working the investigation that charges shouldn't be brought, with a # of former federal prosecutors later saying the same thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10 ... sider.html

But whether or not she knew her server had classified info is IRRELEVANT. Gross negligence is the standard, not intent. She either knew the server had classified info, or she would have had to have been incredibly incompetent not to have known. Either way she was violating the law:
"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Only 110 or whatever might have been marked classified at the time, but over 2000 contained classified material. You would have to suspend belief & have your head buried in the sand to think she didn't know her e-mails contained classified info. She was a former Senator & the Sec of State, not some low level govt employee. And she would have known that writing classified intelligence information into an unclassified email does not make the information unclassified.

Clinton e-mail lies:
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified "at the time".-Lie
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.- Lie
Turned over all of her work-related e-mails.- Lie
Claimed she only used 1 device- Lie
Claimed use of a private server and e-mail domain were legally permitted- Lie.
All her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.-Lie
Claimed was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.-Lie

And this is just one area of Clintons lies and corruption. But keep clinging to:

When it comes to which is the more corrupt person between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump it's Donald Trump. And it's not even close.

Trump IS more corrupt than Clinton ever was. And it's not even close. A lot of that stuff you just typed is conservative talking points that have been going on since Comey made his announcement.

I don't think I should have said I trust Comey's judgement overall because I don't think it was good judgement to have a press conference instead of just letting the Justice Department know the FBI didn't recommend charges. Also I don't bringing up Weiner's computer 10 or so days prior to the election was good judgement.

What I should have said is that I trust his interpretation of the law and precedent. I was not surprised at all when he took the positions he did because I saw numerous talking head lawyers on TV before the fact saying basically the same thing he said.

Also, you don't know that Clinton lied about any of that stuff. In fact Comey pretty much said it's reasonable to think she didn't. There's no doubt that she made false statements. But, for instance, Comey said that it's very plausible that a person would not recognize that documents marked classified in the way associated associated with the Clinton case. If Clinton had lied to the FBI about any of that she'd have been charged with lying to the FBI.

We'll see what happens with Trump if he ever does get questioned by the FBI. For now he's never been through that. But we do know he will tell absolutely ridiculous and obvious lies. Like the thing where he said the NFL wrote him a letter expressing concern about the debates during the campaign. No, the subject matter of the lie wasn't important. But who does that sort of thing? You're going to have a hard time finding a situation in which you can be 100% certain that Clinton knowingly made false Statements. I'm pretty sure Trump knew the NFL didn't write him a letter. Or the Trump University thing where he made a video saying he hand picked the instructors then later admitted in a deposition that he didn't. Again: That's 100% certainty that he didn't just make a false statement. He lied.

To be certain that someone lied you have to establish that they made a false statement AND knew it was false. You're not going to find that with Ciinton. You're not going to have a problem finding that with Trump.

Finally, for now, it's not at all a stretch to say she didn't know anything she wrote in emails handled by her private server was classified. My understanding is that if she recognized something as classified she did use a government server. The very fact that there were tens of thousands of e mails and they only found 110 identified as containing classified information tells you...or should tell you...that she wasn't willy nilly using her private server to handle classified material. That is unless you think that as Secretary of State she handled so little classified material that only 110 out of tens of thousands of e mails contained some.

It's pretty clear that people can disagree on what should and should not be classified. It's not at all hard to believe that someone who handles tens of thousands of e mails could fail to recognize 110 of them as containing information that somebody else decided should be classified.

[CID1990]

Trust Comey?
-You had the head of an investigative agency inappropriately hold a press conference (not his job to make such an announcement).
-Laid out the crimes that someone committed (the threshold of gross negligence was clearly met) as if he was making a closing argument.
-Said that he was recommending that person not be charged, mentioning that intent couldn't be proven (completely irrelevant since intent isn't part of the statute).
-Claimed that no prosecutor would bring charges in this case, when their was reportedly unanimity among the investigators & lawyers working the investigation that charges shouldn't be brought, with a # of former federal prosecutors later saying the same thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10 ... sider.html

But whether or not she knew her server had classified info is IRRELEVANT. Gross negligence is the standard, not intent. She either knew the server had classified info, or she would have had to have been incredibly incompetent not to have known. Either way she was violating the law:
"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Only 110 or whatever might have been marked classified at the time, but over 2000 contained classified material. You would have to suspend belief & have your head buried in the sand to think she didn't know her e-mails contained classified info. She was a former Senator & the Sec of State, not some low level govt employee. And she would have known that writing classified intelligence information into an unclassified email does not make the information unclassified.

Clinton e-mail lies:
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified "at the time".-Lie
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.- Lie
Turned over all of her work-related e-mails.- Lie
Claimed she only used 1 device- Lie
Claimed use of a private server and e-mail domain were legally permitted- Lie.
All her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.-Lie
Claimed was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.-Lie

And this is just one area of Clintons lies and corruption. But keep clinging to:

Trump IS more corrupt than Clinton ever was. And it's not even close. A lot of that stuff you just typed is conservative talking points that have been going on since Comey made his announcement.

I don't think I should have said I trust Comey's judgement overall because I don't think it was good judgement to have a press conference instead of just letting the Justice Department know the FBI didn't recommend charges. Also I don't bringing up Weiner's computer 10 or so days prior to the election was good judgement.

What I should have said is that I trust his interpretation of the law and precedent. I was not surprised at all when he took the positions he did because I saw numerous talking head lawyers on TV before the fact saying basically the same thing he said.

Also, you don't know that Clinton lied about any of that stuff. In fact Comey pretty much said it's reasonable to think she didn't. There's no doubt that she made false statements. But, for instance, Comey said that it's very plausible that a person would not recognize that documents marked classified in the way associated associated with the Clinton case. If Clinton had lied to the FBI about any of that she'd have been charged with lying to the FBI.

We'll see what happens with Trump if he ever does get questioned by the FBI. For now he's never been through that. But we do know he will tell absolutely ridiculous and obvious lies. Like the thing where he said the NFL wrote him a letter expressing concern about the debates during the campaign. No, the subject matter of the lie wasn't important. But who does that sort of thing? You're going to have a hard time finding a situation in which you can be 100% certain that Clinton knowingly made false Statements. I'm pretty sure Trump knew the NFL didn't write him a letter. Or the Trump University thing where he made a video saying he hand picked the instructors then later admitted in a deposition that he didn't. Again: That's 100% certainty that he didn't just make a false statement. He lied.

To be certain that someone lied you have to establish that they made a false statement AND knew it was false. You're not going to find that with Ciinton. You're not going to have a problem finding that with Trump.

Finally, for now, it's not at all a stretch to say she didn't know anything she wrote in emails handled by her private server was classified. My understanding is that if she recognized something as classified she did use a government server. The very fact that there were tens of thousands of e mails and they only found 110 identified as containing classified information tells you...or should tell you...that she wasn't willy nilly using her private server to handle classified material. That is unless you think that as Secretary of State she handled so little classified material that only 110 out of tens of thousands of e mails contained some.

It's pretty clear that people can disagree on what should and should not be classified. It's not at all hard to believe that someone who handles tens of thousands of e mails could fail to recognize 110 of them as containing information that somebody else decided should be classified.

There you go again

I'd be in jail if I did what she did. Period.

Also- the degree of corruption between Trump and Clinton is immaterial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think this was discussed enough in 2016. Who is more corrupt and a shittier human being? Trump or Clinton?

Maybe we can finally work it out in this thread about evangelical support for Trump.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think this was discussed enough in 2016. Who is more corrupt and a shittier human being? Trump or Clinton?

Maybe we can finally work it out in this thread about evangelical support for Trump.

It's Trump and it's obvious. The fact that we are even having a debate about it is sad.

[CID1990]

I don't think this was discussed enough in 2016. Who is more corrupt and a shittier human being? Trump or Clinton?

Maybe we can finally work it out in this thread about evangelical support for Trump.

It's Trump and it's obvious. The fact that we are even having a debate about it is sad.

Well now there's the first reasoned thing you've said in this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I'd be in jail if I did what she did. Period.

Well, you say that and a number of lawyers and former prosecutors who happen to be on the "conservative" side agree with you.

Meanwhile Comey says otherwise and a number of lawyers and former prosecutors who happen to be on the "liberal" side say otherwise.

And I really don't think Comey is a liberal.

As I said, I saw a number of talking head lawyers saying ahead of time that things would play out just about exactly as Comey indicated. Whatever the truth is, it's pretty clear that he's not just one person who is qualified to analyze the situation taking that position. Like the thing about whether it takes knowledge and intent or not. I saw people saying that matters ahead of time. Other people said it doesn't matter. But it's pretty clear to me that it's not this slam dunk thing.

[BDKJMU]

Trust Comey?
-You had the head of an investigative agency inappropriately hold a press conference (not his job to make such an announcement).
-Laid out the crimes that someone committed (the threshold of gross negligence was clearly met) as if he was making a closing argument.
-Said that he was recommending that person not be charged, mentioning that intent couldn't be proven (completely irrelevant since intent isn't part of the statute).
-Claimed that no prosecutor would bring charges in this case, when their was reportedly unanimity among the investigators & lawyers working the investigation that charges shouldn't be brought, with a # of former federal prosecutors later saying the same thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10 ... sider.html

But whether or not she knew her server had classified info is IRRELEVANT. Gross negligence is the standard, not intent. She either knew the server had classified info, or she would have had to have been incredibly incompetent not to have known. Either way she was violating the law:
"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Only 110 or whatever might have been marked classified at the time, but over 2000 contained classified material. You would have to suspend belief & have your head buried in the sand to think she didn't know her e-mails contained classified info. She was a former Senator & the Sec of State, not some low level govt employee. And she would have known that writing classified intelligence information into an unclassified email does not make the information unclassified.

Clinton e-mail lies:
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified "at the time".-Lie
Didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.- Lie
Turned over all of her work-related e-mails.- Lie
Claimed she only used 1 device- Lie
Claimed use of a private server and e-mail domain were legally permitted- Lie.
All her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.-Lie
Claimed was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.-Lie

And this is just one area of Clintons lies and corruption. But keep clinging to:

Trump IS more corrupt than Clinton ever was. And it's not even close. A lot of that stuff you just typed is conservative talking points that have been going on since Comey made his announcement.

I don't think I should have said I trust Comey's judgement overall because I don't think it was good judgement to have a press conference instead of just letting the Justice Department know the FBI didn't recommend charges. Also I don't bringing up Weiner's computer 10 or so days prior to the election was good judgement.

What I should have said is that I trust his interpretation of the law and precedent. I was not surprised at all when he took the positions he did because I saw numerous talking head lawyers on TV before the fact saying basically the same thing he said.

Also, you don't know that Clinton lied about any of that stuff. In fact Comey pretty much said it's reasonable to think she didn't. There's no doubt that she made false statements. But, for instance, Comey said that it's very plausible that a person would not recognize that documents marked classified in the way associated associated with the Clinton case. If Clinton had lied to the FBI about any of that she'd have been charged with lying to the FBI.

Finally, for now, it's not at all a stretch to say she didn't know anything she wrote in emails handled by her private server was classified. My understanding is that if she recognized something as classified she did use a government server. The very fact that there were tens of thousands of e mails and they only found 110 identified as containing classified information tells you...or should tell you...that she wasn't willy nilly using her private server to handle classified material. That is unless you think that as Secretary of State she handled so little classified material that only 110 out of tens of thousands of e mails contained some.

It's pretty clear that people can disagree on what should and should not be classified. It's not at all hard to believe that someone who handles tens of thousands of e mails could fail to recognize 110 of them as containing information that somebody else decided should be classified.

I saw numerous legal talking heads saying that the the standards were absolutely met for prosecution, including multiple former Fed prosecutors. From member of the large investigation team, near unanimity that she should have been prosecuted.

they only found 110 identified as containing classified information tells you...or should tell you...that she wasn't willy nilly using her private server to handle classified material.

They found over 2,000 containing classified info. Those 110 were the ones marked classified.
Again, as she was a former Senator & a Sec of State with YEARS of dealing with classified info it would have been virtually impossible to not know there was classified info there. You literally have to suspend belief to think she didn’t know exactly what she was doing.

But by all means continue to believe that she didn’t know there was classified info, wasn’t lying on multiple accounts, and that a lesser person/govt employee wouldn’t have been prosecuted for the exact same thing.

[BDKJMU]

Actually I trust Comey's judgment on the matter. But even if I'm wrong about that it doesn't matter with respect to the point. The idea that Clinton just screwed up and did not realize she was mishandling classified information is completely plausible. It's very plausible that she looked at e mails being handled through her personal server and concluded nothing was classified. We're talking about 110 e mails out of 30,000 plus.

There's a difference between being careless and being corrupt.

Look, I have long disagreed with some of Hillary Clinton's political/philosophical views. But this stuff that's been going on since the 1990s of trying to demonize her by saying she had people killed, had some kind of abnormal corruption in terms of making money off of speeches, etc., has always been over the top.

When it comes to which is the more corrupt person between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump it's Donald Trump. And it's not even close.

Everything Clinton does is calculated to insulate her and her business from scrutiny.

Even my most liberal colleagues at DoS don't defend her... she knew EXACTLY what she was doing. She didn't want to do business on government servers because she didn't want the unwashed masses (who she works for) to be able to FOIA her communications.

If you really believe that she didnt know what she was doing, then what you are really doing is making a case against her competence.

Finally, you've been fooled by the people who wanted Comey to tapdance around the word "gross negligence", because intent is not the controlling element of the statute she violated.

Like I said, repudiating Trump does not require one to rehabilitate Clinton. She's dishonest and corrupt. So is Trump. The varying degrees you seem so eager to debate are irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. He can’t seem to grasp that fact.

[CID1990]

I'd be in jail if I did what she did. Period.

Well, you say that and a number of lawyers and former prosecutors who happen to be on the "conservative" side agree with you.

Meanwhile Comey says otherwise and a number of lawyers and former prosecutors who happen to be on the "liberal" side say otherwise.

And I really don't think Comey is a liberal.

As I said, I saw a number of talking head lawyers saying ahead of time that things would play out just about exactly as Comey indicated. Whatever the truth is, it's pretty clear that he's not just one person who is qualified to analyze the situation taking that position. Like the thing about whether it takes knowledge and intent or not. I saw people saying that matters ahead of time. Other people said it doesn't matter. But it's pretty clear to me that it's not this slam dunk thing.

You are willfully ignorant on the subject of Clinton's email shenanigans

People have been, and continue to be prosecuted. Clinton got a pass.

You used to not like this kind of crap. You're the perfect analog of the evangelical voter who went for Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Trump IS more corrupt than Clinton ever was. And it's not even close. A lot of that stuff you just typed is conservative talking points that have been going on since Comey made his announcement.

I don't think I should have said I trust Comey's judgement overall because I don't think it was good judgement to have a press conference instead of just letting the Justice Department know the FBI didn't recommend charges. Also I don't bringing up Weiner's computer 10 or so days prior to the election was good judgement.

What I should have said is that I trust his interpretation of the law and precedent. I was not surprised at all when he took the positions he did because I saw numerous talking head lawyers on TV before the fact saying basically the same thing he said.

Also, you don't know that Clinton lied about any of that stuff. In fact Comey pretty much said it's reasonable to think she didn't. There's no doubt that she made false statements. But, for instance, Comey said that it's very plausible that a person would not recognize that documents marked classified in the way associated associated with the Clinton case. If Clinton had lied to the FBI about any of that she'd have been charged with lying to the FBI.

We'll see what happens with Trump if he ever does get questioned by the FBI. For now he's never been through that. But we do know he will tell absolutely ridiculous and obvious lies. Like the thing where he said the NFL wrote him a letter expressing concern about the debates during the campaign. No, the subject matter of the lie wasn't important. But who does that sort of thing? You're going to have a hard time finding a situation in which you can be 100% certain that Clinton knowingly made false Statements. I'm pretty sure Trump knew the NFL didn't write him a letter. Or the Trump University thing where he made a video saying he hand picked the instructors then later admitted in a deposition that he didn't. Again: That's 100% certainty that he didn't just make a false statement. He lied.

To be certain that someone lied you have to establish that they made a false statement AND knew it was false. You're not going to find that with Ciinton. You're not going to have a problem finding that with Trump.

Finally, for now, it's not at all a stretch to say she didn't know anything she wrote in emails handled by her private server was classified. My understanding is that if she recognized something as classified she did use a government server. The very fact that there were tens of thousands of e mails and they only found 110 identified as containing classified information tells you...or should tell you...that she wasn't willy nilly using her private server to handle classified material. That is unless you think that as Secretary of State she handled so little classified material that only 110 out of tens of thousands of e mails contained some.

It's pretty clear that people can disagree on what should and should not be classified. It's not at all hard to believe that someone who handles tens of thousands of e mails could fail to recognize 110 of them as containing information that somebody else decided should be classified.

There you go again

I'd be in jail if I did what she did. Period.

Also- the degree of corruption between Trump and Clinton is immaterial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. He can’t seem to grasp that fact either..

[JohnStOnge]

They found over 2,000 containing classified info. Those 110 were the ones marked classified.
/quote]

I don't think that accurately conveys the situation. Here is the statement from Comey's testimony posted at https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system:

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.

It's a little confusing because of use of the terminology "up classified." But they were not "upgraded" to "classified." They were upgraded to "confidential."

In any case they were not either classified or confidential at the time they were sent.

The FBI investigated her and decided whatever she did was not sufficient to recommend charges. You and others don't agree with it so you're looking for boogeymen. You had a Republican FBI director who EVERYBODY said ahead of time was just the most reliable guy in the world leading the investigation then when conservatives/Republicans didn't get what they wanted all of a sudden he was awful.

That in spite of the fact that, as I've written before, the way he handled it couldn't have been better in terms of helping Trump.

[CID1990]

They found over 2,000 containing classified info. Those 110 were the ones marked classified.
/quote]

I don't think that accurately conveys the situation. Here is the statement from Comey's testimony posted at https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ail-system:

It's a little confusing because of use of the terminology "up classified." But they were not "upgraded" to "classified." They were upgraded to "confidential."

In any case they were not either classified or confidential at the time they were sent.

The FBI investigated her and decided whatever she did was not sufficient to recommend charges. You and others don't agree with it so you're looking for boogeymen. You had a Republican FBI director who EVERYBODY said ahead of time was just the most reliable guy in the world leading the investigation then when conservatives/Republicans didn't get what they wanted all of a sudden he was awful.

That in spite of the fact that, as I've written before, the way he handled it couldn't have been better in terms of helping Trump.

You really have no understanding of classification or the rules and laws that surround it. You should seriously go read about it because you are making a fool of yourself.

Hillary Clinton had security clearances off and on for many years. She also had the associated training and admonitions. And as I said before - what you are doing is arguing that she was incompetent to possess a security clearance. Those are really the two options here: incompetence or corruption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

This thread...