First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply FBI REFUSES To Seek Justice Against Crooked Hillary
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

EJgarland1993 wrote:

You say Crooked Hillary, I say Tricky Dick.
You say Benghazi, I say Beirut.
For Republicans, everything that is old is suddenly new again.


Yes, yes, because two wrongs make a right, don't they?

Also, wasn't he, you know, IMPEACHED?
51411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

ranran-001 wrote:

Did you read the quote I talked about?



"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."


Comey says nothing about law breaking. He equates the word consequences with workplace related sanctions. Getting fired or demoted on the job is not the same thing as law breaking.


Comey bluntly stated in his announcement that anyone else in Hillary's position would've been punished. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. The only other thing that quote tells us is that the FBI's job isn't to put Hillary in court or jail, which we already knew. Their job is the investigate and make recommendations to other people (the Justice Department) who will do the work from there. It's not the FBI's decision (at least not directly). However, Loretta Lynch had already publicly stated beforehand that she'll do whatever the FBI recommends so there's not much difference. Comey said nothing about this being a case of normal workplace misconduct separate from breaking the law. All he said in that quote was that it is punishable but it's not specifically his job to punish people.

Here's that NYTimes article I mentioned in my post:


But in an extraordinary day of political drama in Washington, Mr. Comey rebuked Mrs. Clinton as being “extremely careless” in using a personal email address for sensitive communications. He raised questions about her judgment that will reverberate through her campaign and said that a person still employed by the government — Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — could face administrative punishment for such conduct.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?

I also put "extremely careless" in bold since that's the main criteria for determining whether or not the law was broken, not intent, which has already been stated several times in this thread. What Comey just stated is the equivalent of saying "this guy just had sex with a girl against her will but it's not rape."

The only way to defend Hillary at this point is to completely ignore the law in question and also ignore that people can get, AND HAVE gotten, thrown in jail for much less.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

PhantomGundam wrote:
Comey bluntly stated in his announcement that anyone else in Hillary's position would've been punished. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. The only other thing that quote tells us is that the FBI's job isn't to put Hillary in court or jail, which we already knew. Their job is the investigate and make recommendations to other people (the Justice Department) who will do the work from there. It's not the FBI's decision (at least not directly). However, Loretta Lynch had already publicly stated beforehand that she'll do whatever the FBI recommends so there's not much difference. Comey said nothing about this being a case of normal workplace misconduct separate from breaking the law. All he said in that quote was that it is punishable but it's not specifically his job to punish people.

Here's that NYTimes article I mentioned in my post:


But in an extraordinary day of political drama in Washington, Mr. Comey rebuked Mrs. Clinton as being “extremely careless” in using a personal email address for sensitive communications. He raised questions about her judgment that will reverberate through her campaign and said that a person still employed by the government — Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — could face administrative punishment for such conduct.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?

I also put "extremely careless" in bold since that's the main criteria for determining whether or not the law was broken, not intent, which has already been stated several times in this thread. What Comey just stated is the equivalent of saying "this guy just had sex with a girl against her will but it's not rape."

The only way to defend Hillary at this point is to completely ignore the law in question and also ignore that people can get, AND HAVE gotten, thrown in jail for much less.


"Administrative punishment", not criminal, which she wont face as she is no longer employed by the State Department.

As for "extremely careless", it is not the same thing as "gross negligence" (one is a legal phrase and the other is not, so it doesn't hold the same weight or implications legally, even if you believe them to be similar in non-legal definition) (and if intent to cause harm was proven, it would imply that there was a reasonable expectation that harm would be caused which is the main sticking point in calling this gross negligence).
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc

It's pretty funny, if you forget the fact that people who have done much much less are spending more time behind bars...

51411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:

I think a lot of people are drawing parallels between the phrase "extremely careless" and "gross negligence" where it isn't quite that black and white. Here is the legal definition of "Gross negligence":


Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.


The key here is the "likely to cause foreseeable injury or harm to [...] property". I don't think a reasonable person would assume that emails held on a private email server and sent to those with appropriate security clearance would be likely to cause foreseeable harm. While it is careless to not use the systems that are in place, I think it would be quite difficult for a prosecution to prove that these actions were "likely to cause foreseeable harm". I think what Clinton did could possibly be defined as vanilla negligence, but gross negligence holds a higher standard.


No offense to you or anything, but it doesn't make any sense to put classified information on an unsecured server and not expect harm. The reason we put classified information on government computers is because we would normally expect harm otherwise.
10646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

PhantomGundam wrote:

No offense to you or anything, but it doesn't make any sense to put classified information on an unsecured server and not expect harm. The reason we put classified information on government computers is because we would normally expect harm otherwise.


It also creates a backup of those emails, so there is a clear chain of evidence of possession.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:

"Administrative punishment", not criminal, which she wont face as she is no longer employed by the State Department.

As for "extremely careless", it is not the same thing as "gross negligence" (one is a legal phrase and the other is not, so it doesn't hold the same weight or implications legally, even if you believe them to be similar in non-legal definition) (and if intent to cause harm was proven, it would imply that there was a reasonable expectation that harm would be caused which is the main sticking point in calling this gross negligence).


The "reasonable expectation" clause generally doesn't mean that the person who was grossly negligent personally expected harm would be done, the clause means that an average person of sound judgement would have, in the same situation, had reason to believe harm could be done.

Also, whether harm was done or not (or even whether Clinton thought harm would be done), is completely immaterial.

Straight from 18 US Code Paragraph 793, subparagraph 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, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or 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."

Clinton deliberately removed classified material from its proper place of custody (the IT program-of-record systems certified by USG for handling of classified materials) and deliberately placed those materials in a position to be lost, stolen, or abstracted.

Under the reasonable-person-of-sound-judgement principle, she should have known that placing them on that system put them at risk of being lost, stolen, or abstracted.

But even we just assume that she's the most naive idiot *ever*, and somehow truly could not conceive that this could cause the compromise of the classified materials, she *still* deliberately removed them from their proper place of custody, and that alone is sufficient to meet all the elements of the crime. Now, either we admit that she deliberately committed a crime, *or* we admit that she's SO mind-numbingly stupid that she, in good faith, made such an epic error of judgement *completely unintentionally*. Personally, I find the latter prospect much more damning to her ability to faithfully execute the duties of any government post.

The law says ten year federal prison for Clinton and each and every one of her staffers that knew classified materials were being processed on an un-certified system and chose not to report it.
5019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
Everyone knew she wouldn't after Bill met with Loretta Lynch.
35191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
The FBI belongs to the Executive Branch.

The head of the Executive Branch is the President of the United States.

The current President of the United States is Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, and she is his party's nominee for President.

So did anyone actually not see this coming?
9805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/5/16
Same old, same old. Clinton is a politically influential piece of shit with the right connections. This is to be expected. Should the hammer have come down on her, I'd be utterly shocked.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16 , edited 7/5/16

PhantomGundam wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

I think a lot of people are drawing parallels between the phrase "extremely careless" and "gross negligence" where it isn't quite that black and white. Here is the legal definition of "Gross negligence":


Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.


The key here is the "likely to cause foreseeable injury or harm to [...] property". I don't think a reasonable person would assume that emails held on a private email server and sent to those with appropriate security clearance would be likely to cause foreseeable harm. While it is careless to not use the systems that are in place, I think it would be quite difficult for a prosecution to prove that these actions were "likely to cause foreseeable harm". I think what Clinton did could possibly be defined as vanilla negligence, but gross negligence holds a higher standard.


No offense to you or anything, but it doesn't make any sense to put classified information on an unsecured server and not expect harm. The reason we put classified information on government computers is because we would normally expect harm otherwise.


I think that is would be extremely difficult to prove that these actions were "likely to cause foreseeable harm". The reason we put classified info on government computers isn't so much as we would "normally expect harm otherwise", it is that there is an increased risk of harm otherwise (that is not being debated). However, I don't think the level of harm elevates to a level which would be considered "likely" and I think that part of the case would be virtually impossible to prove without intent to cause harm. Further, with the information I have seen, I think the level of obscurity of these emails and the security issues of the State Department, it wouldn't be ludicrous to believe that this information was actually more safe on these private servers, whether or not it was technically more vulnerable.


outontheop wrote:

The "reasonable expectation" clause generally doesn't mean that the person who was grossly negligent personally expected harm would be done, the clause means that an average person of sound judgement would have, in the same situation, had reason to believe harm could be done


I know. I think you misunderstood me here. Say someone threw a flowerpot out of there backyard window and hit someone in the head. Under normal circumstances you could say that they didn't know someone would be back there so there was no reasonable expectation of harm with the information that individual had. Now lets say you proved that they did this to specifically harm someone. The element of intent would imply that there was a reasonable expectation of harm with the information that individual had. Proving that Clinton intended to do harm would prove that an individual with the knowledge she had, would expect harm to be done. However, without that intent, we have no reason to assume that the information she had would lead a reasonable individual to expect harm.

As for your point that gross negligence is irrelevant, your wording handles things in a way which doesn't really make it clear what you are referring to. Are you suggesting she violated section (2) and not section (1)? Section 2 would require Clinton to know that what she was doing was illegal, which again I think you would have quite a tough time proving.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:

I know. I think you misunderstood me here. Say someone threw a flowerpot out of there backyard window and hit someone in the head. Under normal circumstances you could say that they didn't know someone would be back there so there was no reasonable expectation of harm with the information that individual had. Now lets say you proved that they did this to specifically harm someone. The element of intent would imply that there was a reasonable expectation of harm with the information that individual had. Proving that Clinton intended to do harm would prove that an individual with the knowledge she had, would expect harm to be done. However, without that intent, we have no reason to assume that the information she had would lead a reasonable individual to expect harm.


Right, and if someone throws a flowerpot out a window without looking, and hits someone in the head and kills them, they are, by letter of the law, guilty of negligent homicide, because they caused death through gross negligence. Just as Clinton is guilty of 18 USC 793 f).
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

outontheop wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

I know. I think you misunderstood me here. Say someone threw a flowerpot out of there backyard window and hit someone in the head. Under normal circumstances you could say that they didn't know someone would be back there so there was no reasonable expectation of harm with the information that individual had. Now lets say you proved that they did this to specifically harm someone. The element of intent would imply that there was a reasonable expectation of harm with the information that individual had. Proving that Clinton intended to do harm would prove that an individual with the knowledge she had, would expect harm to be done. However, without that intent, we have no reason to assume that the information she had would lead a reasonable individual to expect harm.


Right, and if someone throws a flowerpot out a window without looking, and hits someone in the head and kills them, they are, by letter of the law, guilty of negligent homicide, because they caused death through gross negligence. Just as Clinton is guilty of 18 USC 793 f).


Actually that would really depend on the facts of the case. The way I established it, they are throwing the flowerpot out the window into their own backyard, where they believed no one else would be. You need to establish that the defendant was aware of the risks, which wouldn't be possible with just the information I gave.
51411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:

Actually that would really depend on the facts of the case. The way I established it, they are throwing the flowerpot out the window into their own backyard, where they believed no one else would be. You need to establish that the defendant was aware of the risks, which wouldn't be possible with just the information I gave.


Well that's a really random example that doesn't match what you're defending. If you throw something into a private space where you don't expect anyone else to be in and it just happens to hit a person like an act of God, that would be one insanely difficult situation to predict since there's no reason for that to happen in the first place. That's nothing like knowingly removing top secret government documents from a secured server and moving them to a less secured server where you can reasonably expect them to be more vulnerable to hackers and thieves. And that's only the best possible outcome, assuming the person in this scenario isn't deliberately giving this information away, which could be considered treason.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/5/16

sundin13 wrote:

Right, and if someone throws a flowerpot out a window without looking, and hits someone in the head and kills them, they are, by letter of the law, guilty of negligent homicide, because they caused death through gross negligence. Just as Clinton is guilty of 18 USC 793 f).


Actually that would really depend on the facts of the case. The way I established it, they are throwing the flowerpot out the window into their own backyard, where they believed no one else would be. You need to establish that the defendant was aware of the risks, which wouldn't be possible with just the information I gave.

All persons holding a clearance receive a security indoctrination briefing on what they can and cannot do. Clinton is not some neophyte intern working in the post office; she's been at this a while. To propose that she could have actually not had *any* opportunity to have learned that this was completely negligent is just... well, foolish.

Like I said, if we accept that there was national defense information on the server, that Clinton *knew* about the presence of the national defense information, and Clinton failed to report the information, that alone constitutes a felony violation of 18 USC 793 f). To have deliberately directed the construction of the server, and have solicited national defense information be sent to it (or even to have a reasonable expectation it would be sent- and I would contend that any person of sound mind and passing knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of State should expect that some of the official email sent to the SoS), it a violation of 18 USC 793 d) and f), and possibly a) as well, depending on how it was requested.

The FBI already established that all of those things happened. Clinton ordered a server built. The server was not accredited to process classified data. Clinton received classified information on the server. Clinton did not report receipt of classified information on the server. The first classified email may have been excusable; Clinton could, if we're *really* stretching, have not anticipated classified information would be sent to that account. However, Clinton *continued* to use the server (violating 18 USC 793-f-1), and failed to report the removal of the materials (violating 18 USC 793-f-2). All elements of the crime present; this is a felony.

Also, there's that whole "perjury" thing with the deleting of and lying about classified information on the server in the first place.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.