• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Hillary Clinton be Indicted For Violation of Federal Record-Keeping Law?

Should Hillary Clinton be Indicted for Violations of Federal Law?

  • YES, there are enough facts supporting and indictment.

    Votes: 37 52.9%
  • No, there is insufficient evidence to suport an indictment.

    Votes: 25 35.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 11.4%

  • Total voters
    70

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,892
Reaction score
25,003
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?

The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:

1. 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.

2. Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmailthere was no archiving at all of her e-mails.

3. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they (Clinton's lawyers) did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

4. There is evidence that they (Clinton and email associates) were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received... There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

5. None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

6. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

7. 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...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.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Law Involved w/links:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101

3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22

NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?

The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:



https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Law Involved w/links:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101

3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22

NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.

Yes. And, by all means necessary. I tried to make this point in another thread, but was basically ignored. I'm very happy to see you making it here. Maybe people will pay attention to it here, and learn the truth.

She broke the law. She is not above the law. She must be held responsible for her actions.

If not, then I want the FBI, the President, the Congress, and the US Supreme Court, to tell me and everyone else - Which laws actually matter so I know which ones to obey, and which laws are just suggestions that I can ignore if wish?
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Chew on these facts:

"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.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,892
Reaction score
25,003
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Now I will present my opinion on this issue. I believe that there is enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of Federal record-keeping law, and that she lied about her activity to investigators.

1. The evidence shows that contrary to Mrs. Clinton's public statements, she did access and transmit information that was classified at the time it was utilized on her private server. Not classified afterwards.

2. The evidence shows that she did use a private server in violation of the regulations cited.

3. The evidence shows that a reasonable person should have known it was reckless to discuss such information over non-secure private email servers.

4. The evidence shows that it is likely both her and her associates email was accessed by hostile actors.

5. The evidence shows that the information was not properly archived per law.

6. The evidence shows that it is highly likely that work-related information was destroyed (deleted) and is unrecoverable.

7. The evidence shows that there was no need for this non-secure private server system. She was the top official at the Dept. of State, and would have top priority for secure server access.

All of this shows a willful intent to circumvent the legally establish record-keeping system so as to maintain improper privacy and control over government records. Records which were not properly archived, and as a result some of which were destroyed.

This is clear evidence of gross negligence and any other government official would rightfully be facing charges.
 
Last edited:

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,170
Reaction score
17,051
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For me the FBI proved she lied to the American people. The FBI demonstrated her action and her staff actions was very careless with sensitive documents. Not very deserving of a candidate running for President. Yet, our current President states she is more than qualified. Not telling the truth must be a qualification one must have to be President.

What a mess. Think the American people deserve s do over and throw both Trump and Hilary out for the bid for President.

At the minimum, the case should be presented to a grand jury. Let them decide the level of the crime or its not worth pursuing.

No way can I vote for Hilary. Don't like Trump. Will have to look hard at Johnson.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,409
Reaction score
36,847
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The only people that should be clamoring for an indictment should be Bernie Sanders supporters that are still in the mix. Thats their only shot. Trump may actually benefit from Bill Clintons backdoor session with Lynch.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,892
Reaction score
25,003
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Chew on these facts:

"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.

Only an intentionally blind person could "not see these things here."

The evidence lists 110 documents that were classified at the time she used them on this private server, and that she was aware of this at the time. That she was also aware at the time that she should not have used a private server to discuss them. YET SHE DID ANYWAY! This is evidence of willful intent to violate the law.

The evidence shows that hostile parties did access the email servers of those she sent the information to, and that her personal usage indicates it is likely that her emails were also accessed by hostile parties. The FBI investigation states that her willful use of a private server in violation of the law was "recklessly careless." This is evidence of gross negligence.

The evidence shows that her system did not properly archive the records, resulting in the probable loss through destruction of government records that were supposed to be archived under the law. More evidence of gross negligence.

I could go on...but I already listed most of this in a post above.
 
Last edited:

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Only an intentionally blind person could "not see these things here." (Still typing DONT QUOTE)

Think I'll take the republican head of the FBI's word over an keyboard warrior who fancies himself part of the Internet Bar Association.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Extreme Carelessness v. Gross Negligence

I guess that depends on what the definition of is is...
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,892
Reaction score
25,003
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Think I'll take the republican head of the FBI's word over an keyboard warrior who fancies himself part of the Internet Bar Association.

What part of "still typing, don't quote" did you have trouble reading??? :confused:

Having served as a Public Defender I was tasked with arguing on behalf of the guilty party. That did not blind me to the facts of a case and the law that pertains. :coffeepap:
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?

The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:



https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Law Involved w/links:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101

3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22

NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.

Of course she should be indicted if only to make her innocence transparent. As it is, we stand to have a President that most people think a criminal.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For me the FBI proved she lied to the American people. The FBI demonstrated her action and her staff actions was very careless with sensitive documents. Not very deserving of a candidate running for President. Yet, our current President states she is more than qualified. Not telling the truth must be a qualification one must have to be President.

What a mess. Think the American people deserve s do over and throw both Trump and Hilary out for the bid for President.

At the minimum, the case should be presented to a grand jury. Let them decide the level of the crime or its not worth pursuing.

No way can I vote for Hilary. Don't like Trump. Will have to look hard at Johnson.

Trump won fair and square. Hillary was trust upon a bunch of morons who will vote for anyone with a 'D' besides their name.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course she should be indicted if only to make her innocence transparent. As it is, we stand to have a President that most people think a criminal.

Right. If she had the balls she claims to have, she would insist on a trial to prove her innocence. ;)
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
696
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?

The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:



https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Law Involved w/links:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101

3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22

NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.

You left one off. Remember that she testified before Congress that she did not delete pertinent e-mails, and that she did not have classified content on her e-mail server.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 : US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally - See more at: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 : US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally

a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Right. If she had the balls she claims to have, she would insist on a trial to prove her innocence. ;)

But she has the brains to suspect she would go down in flames, if she did that.
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
696
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"knowingly and willfully."

And...

Some of her e-mails directed that the classification be removed. "knowingly and willfully." is established.
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And...

Some of her e-mails directed that the classification be removed. "knowingly and willfully." is established.

Yes. Public talking points. If the classification originated from the State Dept, she has the authority to remove classification.

You know that right?
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I predicted that a no-bill would drive the right nuts.

Not sure it was a drive...(more of a short chip)...but the essentials came to be.

You guys ought to have the self-respect not to show just how much you are hurting because your hate campaign against Hillary Clinton has fizzled.

You ought really to go back to Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I predicted that a no-bill would drive the right nuts.

Not sure it was a drive...(more of a short chip)...but the essentials came to be.

You guys ought to have the self-respect not to show just how much you are hurting because your hate campaign against Hillary Clinton has fizzled.

You ought really to go back to Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

I think we should stick with the extremely careless with national security top secrets and other classified documents. Why would we want someone that stupid after years of government service to be our president? That will be pounded home by the VP Trump chooses.
 

Frank Apisa

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
11,492
Reaction score
2,718
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think we should stick with the extremely careless with national security top secrets and other classified documents. Why would we want someone that stupid after years of government service to be our president? That will be pounded home by the VP Trump chooses.

I understand where you are coming from, cj...but Hillary Clinton is by far the better choice this election.

Do what ya gotta do. I know I will be voting for her...and hoping a vast majority of the others voters do also.
 
Top Bottom