Experts: Hillary Broke The Law

[Sean Renaud]

Because they don't belong to her, and she doesn't get to decide which are private and which aren't.

Of course she does, that's just absurd. Can you imagine the millions upon millions upon millions of emails there would be if that were remotely true? I have no problems with them being forced to use government email for official business. How one decides where the line is drawn is fuzzy with somethings and I would encourage to err on the side of caution but every single email? Every time Bill couldn't be bothered to call and just shot her a text to see her at home? This is part of why we can't find shit when we're looking for it.

 

[RjThoughts]

Busybody, the most desperate right winger on Lit. Can't have a debate without name calling.

 

[RjThoughts]

That isn't the point at all. She has no right or authority to decide to delete any emails while she was in office.

EVERY politician, like it or not, uses private email, to discus...wait for it....private conversations. Do you honestly believe Boehner and McConnell use dot Gov accounts when they're communicating with their children and grandchildren? Do you believe that every politician kept their handwritten communication BEFORE email?

You're being absurd.

 

[sr71plt]

Both sides are flying out to the unsupportable fringes again here (on this forum).

A. The issue is a sticky one. Political leaders have kept separate channels of communications back nearly to Adam and Eve (for pretty good reasons for the good of their nations, actually) and it's really a nonpartisan issue. It's only partisan in the Hillary case because the Republicans are scared out of their socks of her and will do anything to needle her. Glass houses and all that, though.

B. She's admitted that she mixed in government business with her private e-mail channel, so it's useless to backtrack on that. You can't escape being dumb for mixing government and personal communications in a private channel. There are a whole lot of dumb politicians around in this sense, though.

C. Both sides aren't handling it well. She's muddling around in defense of the "not too bright" (mixing e-mails and using unsecured channels for government business) and not dealing with fallout from it all that well (it's been building for months; she's had time to devise the counter to it--and she hasn't done so), and the Republicans are inviting scrutiny of themselves (which is inevitable--take a look at the Brian Williams issue, for instance) and their timing is way off in bringing this to a head. She's got lots of time for voters not to care much anymore--especially as the Republicans are going to do overkill on it.

D. Both sides (and posters here too) should sit back a bit to see what happens. The Republicans should be satisfied (which they won't be) that she's genuinely got trouble over this and let her spin under official scrutiny for a while. As they continue to overplay their hand they not only show how scared they are of her (which gives her political strength) but they also invite inevitable scrutiny among their own ranks which will water it all down and also realization that they are engaging in overkill and that the electorate will say "Oh, just shut up," many months before the next presidential election.

In any event, I see the forum flying to unsupportable edges of the spectrum. So what else is new?

 

[miles]

She has to release it, face obstruction charges, or a federal judge.

No she doesn't - she's a Democrat.

 

[about_average]

She's muddling around in defense of the "not too bright" (mixing e-mails and using unsecured channels for government business)....

Has it been shown conclusively that the email system she used wasn't secure? Or has she, or anyone with access to the server, said that's the case?

 

[Busybody]

Hillary Clinton could face jail time as email scandal sparks legal challenges: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/11/hillary-clinton-could-face-jail-time-as-email-scan/ …

 

[Busybody]

Arrest her. Seize the server: For 3 months Hillary Clinton’s email access was unencrypted, vulnerable to spies http://for.tn/18cYJxM

 

[sr71plt]

Has it been shown conclusively that the email system she used wasn't secure? Or has she, or anyone with access to the server, said that's the case?

It's pretty much a given that if it's not in specially configured government communications channels, it's not secure for classified material. It's certainly not officially secure enough. That's a nonstarter argument.

Pretty much any defense of doing this in a nonstarter--especially since Hillary herself has stated that it was a mistake. That dog has already barked.

If it were me, I'd meet it head on by saying the communications were essentially the same as work product in the legal world and that it was the regulations--or "understandings"; it's not clear there is a law on this--that should change. It's idiocy to think that transparency in government should extend to the early stages of formulating policy and to the information, much of it classified intelligence, upon which those discussions are based. But politicians have a tendency to dig themselves deeper rather than just state what many would accept as common sense when it is presented well.

 

[Busybody]

Oh, I see mrs propeller head doesn't read my shit, cause if she would, she would seen all his comments have been addressed with links.....

Hello Mrs Prop Head

 

[Busybody]

Oh Oh

SEPARATION STATEMENT: Clinton was required to sign document claiming she turned over emails in 2013. “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, like all departing federal employees, was required to fill out and sign a separation statement affirming that she had turned over all classified and other government documents, including all emails dealing with official business. Fox News Megyn Kelly reported Wednesday evening on the requirement and that a spokesman for Clinton had not responded to a request for comment, including an explanation of when the former chief U.S. diplomat signed the mandatory separation agreement or, if she didn’t, why didn’t she. . . . Kelly also reported that State Department regulations in place when Clinton resigned as secretary required all departing employees to return all official documents, including emails, to ensure that the department would be able to respond to Freedom of Information Act and congressional requests, as well as subpoenas in litigation.


Failure to do so carries with it both fines and possible jail time.”

 

[Busybody]

SEPARATION STATEMENT: Clinton was required to sign document claiming she turned over emails in 2013. “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, like all departing federal employees, was required to fill out and sign a separation statement affirming that she had turned over all classified and other government documents, including all emails dealing with official business. Fox News Megyn Kelly reported Wednesday evening on the requirement and that a spokesman for Clinton had not responded to a request for comment, including an explanation of when the former chief U.S. diplomat signed the mandatory separation agreement or, if she didn’t, why didn’t she. . . . Kelly also reported that State Department regulations in place when Clinton resigned as secretary required all departing employees to return all official documents, including emails, to ensure that the department would be able to respond to Freedom of Information Act and congressional requests, as well as subpoenas in litigation.


Failure to do so carries with it both fines and possible jail time.”

by NOT commenting

it means she didn't sign....BIG TROUBLE

if she did, and now says she deleted emails

JAIL TIME

but in reality, the NIGGERS love her and she will be PRES

after all, its sexist to NOT LOVE her

 

[miles]

All this talk about The Beast going to jail is bullshit. The worst that could happen to her is she won't run for President, but nothing is going to stop her.

 

[Busybody]

http://iotwreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/555x631xwddim.jpg.pagespeed.ic.saRJDKy-yR.jpg

 

[possum123]

Has it been shown conclusively that the email system she used wasn't secure? Or has she, or anyone with access to the server, said that's the case?

Come on, you are smarter than that. Why would another country admit they hacked into the system? They can keep their mouth shut and continue to hack the system and the people in the U.S. will be happy their favorite politician can break the law. Doesn't matter if it means some of our military gets killed because of it. That makes it even better. Gets rid of more of the worthless veterans anyway.

 

[Sean Renaud]

All this talk about The Beast going to jail is bullshit. The worst that could happen to her is she won't run for President, but nothing is going to stop her.

Exactly, so why get so uppity when your goal should be winning on ideals not petty bullshit that you know can't touch her?

Come on, you are smarter than that. Why would another country admit they hacked into the system? They can keep their mouth shut and continue to hack the system and the people in the U.S. will be happy their favorite politician can break the law. Doesn't matter if it means some of our military gets killed because of it. That makes it even better. Gets rid of more of the worthless veterans anyway.

Honestly I think if another country hacked the system, not only would they probably get caught but they'd brag like hell. I'm not happy my "favorite" politician can break the law, I accept a few things however. First that they will, rich people get away with shit all the time. Once you get to a certain level there is a vast difference between breaking a law that nobody gives a shit about except for partisan reasons, like this email shit that we're finding out several Republicans have been doing, or the Logan Act. At some point we have to be adults. Just not today apparently.

No sane person thinks any of our military was killed because of this. That's never even been the claimed narrative. The claim was that the without the cover up Obama would have lost to Romney in the election. With the idea that if an act of terror had occured under Obama it would prove him a bad president.

 

[possum123]

No sane person thinks any of our military was killed because of this. .

How would anyone know this as Hillary got to pick and choose what emails she wanted to show and deleted what she didn't want them to see.

It is just human nature to wonder why some one would give up some emails and not give up others. They know what they would do in the same situation.

 

[Sean Renaud]

How would anyone know this as Hillary got to pick and choose what emails she wanted to show and deleted what she didn't want them to see.

It is just human nature to wonder why some one would give up some emails and not give up others. They know what they would do in the same situation.

Some things kinda come down to common sense. I mean you can claim that Hillary's deleted emails told Russia now was the time to move on the Ukraine but it doesn't make it remotely likely.

It is human nature to wonder why someone would give up this and not that. Except that too is common sense. First in her case I do believe her when she claims that a good chunk of those emails were nothing more than "Dear Bill, see you at home. God I hate Boehner." But there was probably something in some if not a fair number of them that were fairly damning of her, it might have been something political where she made the wrong call, it might be something where she tried to contact a foreign power and in todays world of politics Bill might have sent her a dick pic and lets be honest with the idiotic way our public thinks Hillary receiving a dick pic at work would probably end her career faster than eating a live baby on stage.

I have no doubt she did something wrong, I have no doubt that every single person in our government from the fucking school board on up has done something if not flat out illegal certainly ethically questionable. We know they are going to get away with a lot of it, perhaps it's wiser to focus on the bigger things.

 

[sr71plt]

Come on, you are smarter than that. Why would another country admit they hacked into the system? They can keep their mouth shut and continue to hack the system and the people in the U.S. will be happy their favorite politician can break the law. Doesn't matter if it means some of our military gets killed because of it. That makes it even better. Gets rid of more of the worthless veterans anyway.

That's true, of course. Several countries with the capability, including the U.S. bigtime, are hacking into whatever communications systems they can for intelligence value (And also including Germany, which recently screamed bloody murder over the U.S. doing it on Merkel)--and have been doing so as long as there have been any form of communications system. That classified government e-mails should have been in her private e-mail files really isn't arguable. To argue otherwise is just to be blindly partisan politically. We don't know to what extent they were, though. (I'm assuming they were to some extent and that this is why she legitimately has a big problem.)

 

[sr71plt]

How would anyone know this as Hillary got to pick and choose what emails she wanted to show and deleted what she didn't want them to see.

Yep, that's an unavoidable point.

 

[sr71plt]

I have no doubt she did something wrong, I have no doubt that every single person in our government from the fucking school board on up has done something if not flat out illegal certainly ethically questionable. We know they are going to get away with a lot of it, perhaps it's wiser to focus on the bigger things.

Yep, that's true too. Which is what makes this media feeding frenzy mostly partisan political. Unfortunately, that also doesn't mean she should be given a pass for it.

That said, I note again that it's idiotic to expect (or even want) full transparency on work product in gathering intelligence and formulating policy from that intel and that this is what really is at the base of why this problem arises and that this is what needs to be fixed the most.

 

[possum123]

Some things kinda come down to common sense. I mean you can claim that Hillary's deleted emails told Russia now was the time to move on the Ukraine but it doesn't make it remotely likely.

And you can claim that she only deleted the emails containing family matters.
How would anyone know for sure one way or the other when she gets to do the picking?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Germany, as I took it, was crying bloody murder because we fucked up and got caught. Not that they were genuinely upset, not that they didn't know. I would bet anything that not only does everybody have hackers and agents in every country allied and otherwise, there are probably hundreds of incidents that end with. "Hey dum dum, if you're gonna hack my email remember to change your goddamn server to an Iranian one and bounce it off a few in Russia." (Or however that works, my knowledge of hacking comes from watching 24 admittedly.) The problem here was it was made public we'd hacked Germany and they can't publically say "We don't mind, keep doing that!" So they huff and they puff but what they were actually upset about was the gross incompetence that got us caught/honesty where we didn't bury it deep and good.

The thing about a free pass is. . .what exactly do we plan to do? Jail her? Unthinkable. Fine her? I'd bet the fine for fucking this up is so low she'd just take off her watch and walk away. Maybe she doesn't run for pres if this looks bad enough but that would have to be a personal choice. What other tools do we even have to throw at her if we wanted to, what does the law say the punishment is for violation or did they magically leave that out?

 

[sr71plt]

The thing about a free pass is. . .what exactly do we plan to do? Jail her? Unthinkable. Fine her? I'd bet the fine for fucking this up is so low she'd just take off her watch and walk away. Maybe she doesn't run for pres if this looks bad enough but that would have to be a personal choice. What other tools do we even have to throw at her if we wanted to, what does the law say the punishment is for violation or did they magically leave that out?

I'm presuming it blows over eventually, as she isn't one of those possible candidates that voters haven't pretty much made up their minds on already--and this tempest comes too early in the election cycle to engage the attention span of American voters. The Dems will just come up with a passel of Republican examples (because I believe it's an unreasonable demand for transparency for all that has led to this) and we'll be back to square one.

She's no spring chicken, though, and it's always possible that she'll just decide to be governor of New York instead of going through all the hassle to be president (and face eight more years of selfish and childish "just say no").

It's unfortunate for the nation, though. There are so few actually qualified folks (Obama wasn't really qualified when he played through to snarf up the presidency, and we're suffering from his taking it too early--with more steeling up front, he would have been much better at it). Hillary is one of the ones actually qualified to do the job (Truth be told, she was probably at least 60 percent of the doing the job during Bill's eight years). That doesn't mean there aren't ones on the Republican side and wouldn't be more on both sides if Americans weren't so good at killing their babies in this regard before they can get close enough to take a run at the office.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I agree it's too early, and by the time Republicans try to bring this back up the research will be done and the American people won't care. (One day I'm gonna build a website that's basically a tick list for people on who they would consider and why.)

It doesn't answer really what tools the government has to wield but I don't know and don't expect you to know, certainly not off the top of your head. I have found that if you're willing ti wade in there are some very knowledgable people on here though, or at least willing to go a googling with the slightest nudge.

I don't know how many, if any people are truly "qualified" to be president. Traditionally it has been governors, I think Obama's the first senator in decades to win. But I think Senators SHOULD be better.

As for Obama while I do think a few more years of learning the ropes would have benefited him greatly whether it's because he's black or because he's a democrat doesn't really matter. With an obstructionist party you're just not going to get anything done. I just kinda hope when the shoes on the other foot the Democrats do their fucking job and take a knee.