That's the thing. Violations of policy. Violations of the agency's legal duties. You can't charge Clinton for that, even if she was responsible for the agency at the time. If she were still in the state department, she could be disciplined, but since she doesn't work there, there's not much you can do.
I will not vote for trump
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
That's the thing. Violations of policy. Violations of the agency's legal duties. You can't charge Clinton for that, even if she was responsible for the agency at the time. If she were still in the state department, she could be disciplined, but since she doesn't work there, there's not much you can do.
ClimateSanity
New member
I don't believe you know what you are talking about. It may officially be a non political department, but what is the reality? What do you know about Loretta Lynch apart from what you have learned in your leftist websites?
Do you think the FBI went easy on her? There's enough damning findings in the report without criminal charges to fill Trump ads for months. If they were trying to cover for her, they could have soft-peddalled much more. No one has successfully tied Clinton to a real criminal liability in this case. There are just tons of people trying to spin one way or the other.
ClimateSanity
New member
Then why did they charge David Petraeus for the same thing?
What do you know about her that you didn't read in conspiracy-minded right-wing media? It can be argued both ways, and I think we'd both admit to not knowing any of the players personally. What I do have some familiarity with is how a federal agency is structured, how the civil service is isolated from the political process, including political appointees. You don't have to believe me, but I'm telling you what I know.
It's not the same thing. Patraeus knowingly gave classified information to a reporter. There's no evidence Clinton did anything like that. There is a serious question about how classified information got onto her personal server. But that's just it:. There are questions. For there to be a criminal case, a prosecutor would have to know, and be able to lay out what happened in court. No one even seems to know how this information got out. That's a question that deserves an answer, but a prosecution requires that answer to be known.
jeffblue101
New member
wrong, that is not what the FBI directer said, instead it was indeed a violation of law based on the gross negligence clause . In his opinion it was a matter of prosecutorial discretion based on past cases of only "small time" gross negligence being involved. If Hillary gets off the hook then what exactly is the standard for gross negligence that can be prosecuted. she was emailing for years discussing numerous classified topics,if it were anyone else doing the exact same thing Hillary did,the FBI would have thrown that person in jail.
ClimateSanity
New member
Hillary clearly broke the law.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
The decision not to prosecute must be seen as political if no other reason can be reasonably shown .
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
The decision not to prosecute must be seen as political if no other reason can be reasonably shown .
jeffblue101
New member
stop repeating false talking points, the law includes a gross negligence clause
You're just pretending to care about it.
ClimateSanity
New member
This is irrefutable from Jeff blues post.
If Hillary gets off the hook then what exactly is the standard for gross negligence that can be prosecuted. she was emailing for years discussing numerous classified topics,if it were anyone else doing the exact same thing Hillary did,the FBI would have thrown that person in jail.
If Hillary gets off the hook then what exactly is the standard for gross negligence that can be prosecuted. she was emailing for years discussing numerous classified topics,if it were anyone else doing the exact same thing Hillary did,the FBI would have thrown that person in jail.
ClimateSanity
New member
All he knows is leftist talking points. He spends 16 hours a day scouring and memorizing and forwarding lefty talking points from sites like mother Jones to his pals.
journey
New member
I disagree. Clinton is a heavyweight when it comes to corruption. I don't think that the comparison is even close between Trump and Clinton.
I'll quote the statement directly:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. 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. |
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi....lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
So, there you have it. They didn't recommend charges, because they couldn't prove the intent necessary. And they noted that people who violate these laws and regulations may experience administrative discipline and penalties, which is what I suggested above.
jeffblue101
New member
wow still wrong even in what you said.
secondly,I already addressed FBI's false argument of comparison to other cases. Anyone else other than Clinton would have been thrown in jail for what she did.
jeffblue101
New member
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi....lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
only a Clinton could escape the clear the wording of the law
only a Clinton could escape the clear the wording of the law
jeffblue101
New member
Is anyone here surprised that "transparent" Hillary has not said a single word about the FBI's recommendation.
The intent is what makes the difference between a breach of policy and a crime in this case. And it's hard to prove.
Do you have anything to back it up other than your assertion? The FBI seems to disagree. The Patraeus situation was not the same, as mentioned previously.
Gross negligence means a conscious lack of care. The Justice Department would have to prove that she knew better in the case of specific emails.