Clinton faces new questions over emails - CNN

[Paperview]

As much as I cant stand Hillary, all I know is the last 8 years I have heard of scandal after scandal after scandal, and yet seen no evidence of anything that would hold up in a court of law. I bet I have seen a dozen "smoking gun" articles about his topic alone, never mind Benghazi, the IRS and dozens of other outrages, Remember Obama's lapel flag? I hope there really is some evidence that will hold up in court and make it so I never/ or at least rarely have to look at her on TV, but I still don't see it. Either the RWers are so amazingly incompetent they cannot do anything with the evidence that is everywhere out there, or they live in a fantasy land.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[eohrnberger]

Obama was offered on a silver-platter upon assuming office in 2009 the consequences of the Great Recession, the origins of which were in the previous administration.

Incorrect sir. The origins of the mortgage bubble go all the way back to Clinton's administration, multiple administrations, both parties, as well as the private sector contributed to it, and didn't take opportunities to stop it and / or lessen its impact.

Upon entering office, Obama passed the ARRA-bill that was $831M of stimulus spending in 2009. ARRA-spending effectively spiked an exploding unemployment rate at 10%. (See here.)

For this "achievement", the American people in 2012 voted control of the HofR to the Replicants.

As regards our tripartite system of governance (Executive, Legislative and Judicial), "leadership" by the PotUS is not enough. The leadership of which you are thinking seems to pertain to European monarchs of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries whose rule was absolute (since they were ordained by God).

Incorrect. The leadership of which I speak is best exemplified by Regan and Tip O'Neil. Didn't agree on much, but yet found common ground on which to work from and accomplish something.

Nowadays, we mere mortals must do with an electoral system where barely 40% of the electorate vote. It was a plurality of that 40% that handed the HofR to the Replicant Party in 2010, which instituted a benighted regime of "Austerity Budgeting". The true purpose of which (at the time, just two years before the 2012 PotUS election) was to assure that Obama would be defeated.

Which didn't happen. What did happen, however, because of their chicanery, was not only Obama's reelection but an additional four more years when the American economy produced no jobs. See that in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Unemployment-to-population Ratio:

FOUR MORE YEARS of no improvement of job-prospects ... because the Replicants stooped to foul-play to unseat a PotUS and maintained that Austerity Budgeting had no room for "stimulus spending" .

That, dear friend, is the kind of power-politics of which this nation of ours has no need whatsoever ... !

That, dear friend, is an example of an incompetent, petulant, leadership incapable POTUS. Making a deal and getting something is the mark of leader, not 'I've got my pen and I've got my phone'.

 

[legalimmigrant]

The leadership of which I speak is best exemplified by Regan and Tip O'Neil. Didn't agree on much, but yet found common ground on which to work from and accomplish something.

Nonsense. Reagan was naive to the point of pain.

Like a school boy, he trusted the crooked Dems and Tip, and gave amnesty to 3 millions of Latino trespassers in exchange for the fence. Predictably, the Dems, instead of the promised fence, gave naive Reagan their middle finger and no fence.

That was one of the "common grounds".

The other was the budget. Naive Reagan never got the cuts he was promised and the deficit and the debt went way up there to the budget hell.

Lately, we got a Chicago agitator playing president who made a promise to the naive RINO's and the naive nation that "you can keep your plan and your doctor". Close to 30 times. And what did you get? Another version of the Democrat middle finger.

So, how does it feel finding that elusive "common ground" with the Democrats?

Did you finally figure out that Democrats lie always, or you are still not sure?

 

[Bootlace]

I thought so.

This was encountered on another thread, -- it seems to be passing around in connie circles -- and as I said there

1st. She'd have to be charged with the crime first.
--and would likely not be found in a court of law found guilty by a jury.

Why?

Let's look at it:

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing,
filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

That part in red. Let the noggin roll around for a bit on that one.


2. There's this part too:

What a prosecutor would have to show to meet the "willfully and unlawfully" element of this law.

It's a strike out on that one.

Maybe, maybe not. She authored 104 emails with sensitive info. She received the info from somewhere and put it in an email.
We have to wait for the fbi though.

 

[Paperview]

Maybe, maybe not. She authored 104 emails with sensitive info. She received the info from somewhere and put it in an email.
We have to wait for the fbi though.

Not "maybe not." Even if...

Congress cannot set qualifications for president. That is spelled out in the Constitution.

/fin.

 

[Bootlace]

Not "maybe not." Even if...

Congress cannot set qualifications for president. That is spelled out in the Constitution.

/fin.

Congress isn't involved in this. Just hillary, FBI, and DOJ.

 

[Paperview]

Congress isn't involved in this. Just hillary, FBI, and DOJ.

Wasn't it you that pointed to a law that said "the punishment is a lifetime ban from holding public office" ??

 

[Lafayette]

I just can't cross the line to full-on libertarian at all, even though I had a brief brush with it earlier in my life.

"Turn on, tune in, drop out"?

(Boston/Cambridge, late '60s ... ;^)
______________________________

 

[Lafayette]

The origins of the mortgage bubble go all the way back to Clinton's administration, multiple administrations, both parties, as well as the private sector contributed to it, and didn't take opportunities to stop it and / or lessen its impact.

Nice try, but no Kewpie Doll.

The origins are indeed in the subprime mortgages (of the Clinton era), the intent of which was to offer lower-classes the opportunity to obtain the same means of savings as the middle-classes.

Most Net Worth in America is provided by means of realty holding. Meaning, one's house and home. So, was it really wrong that Clinton wanted more of the poor to be able to purchase rather than pay-off the mortgage of someone more rich? Methinks not, because it is unfair.

The source of the fraud arrived with the real-estate frenzy from 2004/2008 when the creditors took on all and sundry willy-nilly. Why? Because a property would "turn-over" within a short-period of time (during which payments were sustained) in order to obtain a profit gain.

When the bubble-burst is when the subprimes became "inoperable". Maintenance payments stopped, and the banks suddenly had a lot of "dead-weight" on their books. That began to happen in 2007 when "securitization" stumbled to nothing and in 2008 when they barely recovered - because nobody was mortgaging any longer. As shown here:


Excerpted from The SubPrime Mortgage Crisis:

The expansion of household debt was financed with mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), which initially offered attractive rates of return due to the higher interest rates on the mortgages; however, the lower credit quality ultimately caused massive defaults. While elements of the crisis first became more visible during 2007, several major financial institutions collapsed in September 2008, with significant disruption in the flow of credit to businesses and consumers and the onset of a severe global recession.

There were many causes of the crisis, with commentators assigning different levels of blame to financial institutions, regulators, credit agencies, government housing policies, and consumers, among others. A proximate cause was the rise in subprime lending. The percentage of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated during a given year rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S. A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 80% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.

These two changes were part of a broader trend of lowered lending standards and higher-risk mortgage products. Furthermore, U.S. households had become increasingly indebted with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007; much of this increase mortgage-related.

____________________________________________

 

[Lafayette]

... (not bloody likely) Even still -- there's also the thing called the US Constitution & No federal statute ...

We are talking about a misdemeanor, not crime. And she was certainly not the only Cabinet Member to use their personal computer from the home ever since emailing became a prominent means of communication in the early 1990s.

But, of course, this is an election year and in the mentality of a great many people "winning" is ample justification of the means employed including mudslinging.

If I had made an unsubstantiated derogatory remark publicly of someone here in Europe, I'd be in front of a judge for "defamation of character". Meaning the Donald (in Europe) would have been "shut-down" long ago due to his disparaging slurs. Yes, of course, the US is not the EU. In the US, the law is interpreted otherwise. (See here if interested.)

My point? Any murder needs a body, otherwise it is pure improvisation. Show me the body ...
______________________

 

[RetiredUSN]

We are talking about a misdemeanor, not crime. And she was certainly not the only Cabinet Member to use their personal computer from the home ever since emailing became a prominent means of communication in the early 1990s.

But, of course, this is an election year and in the mentality of a great many people "winning" is ample justification of the means employed including mudslinging.

If I had made an unsubstantiated derogatory remark publicly of someone here in Europe, I'd be in front of a judge for "defamation of character". Meaning the Donald (in Europe) would have been "shut-down" long ago due to his disparaging slurs. Yes, of course, the US is not the EU. In the US, the law is interpreted otherwise. (See here if interested.)

My point? Any murder needs a body, otherwise it is pure improvisation. Show me the body ...
______________________

Misdemeanors are a crime.

Distinction between felonies and misdemeanors. In the United States, the federal government generally considers a crime punishable with incarceration for one year or less to be a misdemeanor. All other crimes are considered felonies.

She deleted a few thousand emails that were required to be screened prior to doing so, which violated the Federal records Act, Freedom of information Act, and NARA regulations. Any lower government worker would be fired with loss of pension, and brought up on charges.

 

[joG]

Why do I get the feeling I've just gotten *punked*? :mrgreen:

Because you are soo distrustful?

 

[Lafayette]

As much as I cant stand Hillary, all I know is the last 8 years I have heard of scandal after scandal after scandal, and yet seen no evidence of anything that would hold up in a court of law.

OK, I'll walk down this road a bit with you.

Scandal? What scandal?

Be precise, please. I would like to know EXACTLY which "scandal" you are referring to and why.

Btw, or is it "hearsay" that you mean ... ?
______________________

 

[Lafayette]

Misdemeanors are a crime.

Definition of misdemeanor: LAW, a non-indictable offence, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony.

No indictment, no crime. No crime, no court-trial. No court-trial, no offense punishable.

From “Personal” Email, or Government Property? Did Hillary Clinton Violate Federal Laws?, excerpt:

It was a Saturday evening at the Justice Department, and a colleague and I were finishing up a brief to be filed the following Monday. When we tried to put some documents into the secure filing cabinet, the cabinet would not lock properly.

We called the DOJ security officer, who found another secure cabinet to put the files in, and we spent the evening moving files from one cabinet to another – files related to long dormant cases.

These included the DOJ and court files on national security cases dating back to the 1920’s – the Rosenberg case; investigations of Martin Luther King; the Chicago Seven case; parts of the Watergate case.

Those records were all eventually transferred to the National Security Archive, and will ultimately make for a rich heritage for historians.

But in the era of email and digital communications, will future generations be able to learn about the inner workings of the CIA, the Department of Defense, and … um … the State Department? Maybe. Maybe not. And that’s a problem.

So recently there has been a controversy (it will heat up) over allegations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclusively used a personal email address while conducting official government business at the Department of State. The New York Times has reported that such use “may be illegal.”

Or maybe not.

The law is complicated. The principles are not. Government records (including emails) must be created, stored, maintained and disclosed as provided by law. That’s it.

Whether Hillary’s emails are “government records” does not turn on the domain through which they are sent or received. It depends on the nature of the email and the purpose for creating it.

It doesn’t matter if it’s Secretary@state.gov or Hilary.clinton@compuserve.net. The test is, and properly should be a functional one. Thus, when a government employee uses personal email for official business, that email may be a government record subject to retention and disclosure. Whether the record is personal or business is dictated by its content and purpose, not the mode of communication

So, yes, she handed the communications over to an investigating authority, as required by law since the documents are indeed government property. But, did she commit a crime given the transmission-media employed? Nope.

Have other Cabinet Ministers of previous Cabinets committed any "crime". Have they handed over their email communications? Especially the ex-VP, Mr. Richard CHENEY? How I wonder 'n wonder 'n wonder.

From here: Bush White House email controversy, excerpt:

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available.

Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.

Five million emails lost? "Oh wow! How disgraceful!!!" (Uh, btw - "lost" or "erased" ... ?)

Much Ado About Nothing: Were she not a candidate, we could have sooo much fun finding out how many past and present Cabinet Members have used their home-PCs (or smartphones) for inter-governmental emailing whilst not understanding the law ... !
________________________________________________

 

[RetiredUSN]

Definition of misdemeanor: LAW, a non-indictable offence, regarded in the US (and formerly in the UK) as less serious than a felony.

No indictment, no crime. No crime, no court-trial. No court-trial, no offense punishable.

From “Personal” Email, or Government Property? Did Hillary Clinton Violate Federal Laws?, excerpt:



So, yes, she handed the communications over to an investigating authority, as required by law since the documents are indeed government property. But, did she commit a crime given the transmission-media employed? Nope.

Have other Cabinet Ministers of previous Cabinets committed any "crime". Have they handed over their email communications? Especially the ex-VP, Mr. Richard CHENEY? How I wonder 'n wonder 'n wonder.

From here: Bush White House email controversy, excerpt:


Five million emails lost? "Oh wow! How disgraceful!!!" (Uh, btw - "lost" or "erased" ... ?)

Much Ado About Nothing: Were she not a candidate, we could have sooo much fun finding out how many past and present Cabinet Members have used their home-PCs (or smartphones) for inter-governmental emailing whilst not understanding the law ... !
________________________________________________

You are the one that said a misdemeanor is not a crime. I said it was. Don't change it up....just because you are wrong,

 

[eohrnberger]

Nice try, but no Kewpie Doll.

The origins are indeed in the subprime mortgages (of the Clinton era), the intent of which was to offer lower-classes the opportunity to obtain the same means of savings as the middle-classes.

Most Net Worth in America is provided by means of realty holding. Meaning, one's house and home. So, was it really wrong that Clinton wanted more of the poor to be able to purchase rather than pay-off the mortgage of someone more rich? Methinks not, because it is unfair.

The source of the fraud arrived with the real-estate frenzy from 2004/2008 when the creditors took on all and sundry willy-nilly. Why? Because a property would "turn-over" within a short-period of time (during which payments were sustained) in order to obtain a profit gain.

When the bubble-burst is when the subprimes became "inoperable". Maintenance payments stopped, and the banks suddenly had a lot of "dead-weight" on their books. That began to happen in 2007 when "securitization" stumbled to nothing and in 2008 when they barely recovered - because nobody was mortgaging any longer. As shown here:
View attachment 67202038

Excerpted from The SubPrime Mortgage Crisis:

____________________________________________

This particular topic has been the proverbial beaten dead horse.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-bush-mortgage-bubble-faqs-w-1083-1531-a.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-mortgage-defaults-finally-back-normal-4.html

Suffice it to say, yes, there are roots of the mortgage bubble that do in fact go all the way back to the Clinton administration.

To re-litigate this topic yet again in this thread isn't the most appropriate forum behavior.

 

[Lafayette]

To re-litigate this topic yet again in this thread isn't the most appropriate forum behavior.

I agree, but I am not the one who brings up the subject of a poorly-learned IMPORTANT LESSON OF OUR POLITICAL HISTORY. (George Santayana, "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it ...")

And here is another that the Replicants have concocted for US. Read it and weep: The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret. Excerpt:

But Simon (Sec. Treasury under Nixon) ... understood the appeal of U.S. government debt and how to sell the Saudis on the idea that America was the safest place to park their petrodollars. With that knowledge, the administration hatched an unprecedented do-or-die plan that would come to influence just about every aspect of U.S.-Saudi relations over the next four decades.

The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.

With a handful of Treasury and Federal Reserve officials, the secret was kept for more than four decades—until now. In response to a Freedom-of-Information-Act request submitted by Bloomberg News, the Treasury broke out Saudi Arabia’s holdings for the first time this month after “concluding that it was consistent with transparency and the law to disclose the data,” according to spokeswoman Whitney Smith. The $117 billion trove makes the kingdom one of America’s largest foreign creditors.

And do explain how the American people had no right to know to whom THEIR DEBT was being sold, and what were its ramifications?

This is the way the Replicants think and work. Behind the scenes, beholden to no one. "Keep everything secret, we don't want the children to know. They'll just get worried ..."

But I don't blame only them. The first Dem PotUS after Nixon should have outed the Great Middle-east Debt Secret; and how Saudi Arabia has had, all these years, Uncle Sam by the you-know-whats ... But how was it kept a secret for so long ... ?
________________________

 

[Lafayette]

I agree. I made the mistake of thinking that a misdemeanor (disturbing the peace, petty theft, drunk driving with no injury to others, public drunkenness, simple assault and battery, and traffic violations) is not punishable by law. It is, apparently, in the US.

But not elsewhere - in some countries, it is punishable only if you collect more than a few misdemeanors. Only then does the guilty one spend time in jail.

So, you were right. I was wrong ...
_____________________________

 

[eohrnberger]

I agree,

Oh good.

but I am not the one who brings up the subject of a poorly-learned IMPORTANT LESSON OF OUR POLITICAL HISTORY. (George Santayana, "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it ...")

And here is another that the Replicants have concocted for US. Read it and weep: The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia’s 41-Year U.S. Debt Secret. Excerpt:


And do explain how the American people had no right to know to whom THEIR DEBT was being sold, and what were its ramifications?

This is the way the Replicants think and work. Behind the scenes, beholden to no one. "Keep everything secret, we don't want the children to know. They'll just get worried ..."

But I don't blame only them. The first Dem PotUS after Nixon should have outed the Great Middle-east Debt Secret; and how Saudi Arabia has had, all these years, Uncle Sam by the you-know-whats ... But how was it kept a secret for so long ... ?
________________________

And all this has what to do in a thread with the title: 'Clinton faces new questions over emails - CNN' ?
I admit being complicit in off topic posts, but am trying to get it back on topic.

 

[blackjack50]

OK, I'll walk down this road a bit with you.

Scandal? What scandal?

Be precise, please. I would like to know EXACTLY which "scandal" you are referring to and why.

Btw, or is it "hearsay" that you mean ... ?
______________________

Hillary and "scandal" go together like peas and carrots. I just googled it and found 22 different ones. Take your pick. The Clinton family motto is "I forgot."

https://youtu.be/l00GGEy_72c

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lafayette]

Right! Because it shows up on Google, it MUST be a scandal.

Your remarks are "ad hominem", in this case "ad feminen".

Try harder ...

 

[Lafayette]

And all this has what to do in a thread with the title: 'Clinton faces new questions over emails - CNN' ? I admit being complicit in off topic posts, but am trying to get it back on topic.

Threads meander. You should know that by now ...
_________________________________________

 

[eohrnberger]

Threads meander. You should know that by now ...
_________________________________________

True. I guess the question is how far afield before it's too far?

 

[Chomsky]

"Turn on, tune in, drop out"?

(Boston/Cambridge, late '60s ... ;^)
______________________________

And remember: "Reality's for those that can't handle drugs ..."

 

[Chomsky]

Of course, these guys never ever inhaled pot!