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

[year2late]

Nah...the reaction of conservative America is MUCH, MUCH more fun.

Laughable, in fact.

I think there are some long form birth certificates that need to be looked at.....:lamo

 

[Abbazorkzog]

You left out NISP. Mishandling the flow of classified information.

And in the presence of Special-Access-Program intelligence.

 

[Risky Thicket]

??

The president has the ultimate authority on all classification information.


The SOS has the ultimate authority on all classification information in her department.

Where is that written?

 

[DA60]

Nobody on here is probably qualified to answer that question because no one on here is probably privy to ALL the evidence against her. And unless you have seen ALL the evidence against her, then you cannot rightfully determine her guilt or innocence.


Me? I don't really care...so she screwed up her emails? Big deal. Almost everyone screws up their emails at some point...especially seniors/anyone not familiar with emails for most of their lives. I assume EVERY major politician screws up their emails from time to time...many many times.
So long as they do not send huge secrets to enemies - I don't much care. Reprimand them...sure. Fine them...okay. Fire them...if you wish. But throwing them in jail for it...especially if they clearly gained nothing from doing it - RIDICULOUS.

And no one please waste their time trying to explain to me how it was a big deal because no matter what you type, I will almost certainly still not believe it was a big deal.


Having typed that...it is clear she and her co-workers REALLY screwed up with many emails. And she should be judged negatively for that...DEFINITELY. To what extent, that is up to the individual. I already hate her as a politician, so it's kinda 'whatever' for me.


I despise Hillary (and The Donald) as POTUS - but I am glad this nonsense seems to finally be over (from a legal perspective).

It was - legally speaking - a witch hunt, pure and simple, imo.

 

[yankintx]

She can only declassify something she classified, not just anything originating in the State Department. You know that right?

Okay, oh oracle of Hillary's e-mail, I'll bite. Where were the e-mails she had the headers removed from originated? And note, she simply removed the headers from the e-mail hitting her server. Since the classified headers remained on the e-mails in everybody else's e-mail, was it really declassified? How would any of the other recipients know?

And then of course, we would have to accept that you think the FBI Director is lying because he stated that the secure e-mails on her server came from other agencies.

Its over, by Mon its old news. The rest of us our moving on. This election was the GOP's for the taking, but the uneducated of the party have spoken, enjoy the next 4 years in the wilderness.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Disclaimer: I detest Clinton and Trump equally. Neither is fit to be POTUS.

IMO, Bill Clinton's tarmac visit with AG Loretta Lynch in Phoenix effectively ruined any governmental claims of impartiality and non-partisanship.

It will always seem to me that Mrs. Clinton took advantage of political connections to avoid prosecution/trial.

 

[jimbo]

Disclaimer: I detest Clinton and Trump equally. Neither is fit to be POTUS.

IMO, Bill Clinton's tarmac visit with AG Loretta Lynch in Phoenix effectively ruined any governmental claims of impartiality and non-partisanship.

It will always seem to me that Mrs. Clinton took advantage of political connections to avoid prosecution/trial.

The Clinton's have been getting away with that for 30 years.

 

[natsb]

I'm pretty sure as Head of State, she has the ultimate authority to classify or declassify items originating in Stare. Or you can prove me wrong,.

No she has no such authority. You can support your own claims. I am not here to do your homework for you. Feel free to post a link to support your assertion, or can't it be found on DailyKOS?

This was discussed in the testimony today.

Did you listen to it?

Yes, I did listen, that is why I asked. It appeared that you did not. There was secure content on her server that did not originate in the State Department. She, nor especially her lawyers, had any right to declassify any such content that alone delete it, or even have it on the server in the first place.

Are you actually supporting Hilary's slimy activities? Or is this an attempt to excuse them away in order to maintain some sense of dignity?

 

[natsb]

Its over, by Mon its old news. The rest of us our moving on. This election was the GOP's for the taking, but the uneducated of the party have spoken, enjoy the next 4 years in the wilderness.

Please, feel free to ignore the corruption and move on. The rest of us will maintain our dignity. It's only just begun.

I trust that in the future, if President Trump commits some aggression, you will also dismiss it and move on?

 

[upsideguy]

Gary Johnson doesn't have an icicle's chance in hell.

yes, even less of a chance than Trump..... but, we are splitting hairs.

 

[chuckiechan]

You might as well indict the Queen of England.

We always "sort of" knew that there was special justice for the elite. Now it's official.

If I was a lawyer, I'd specialize in appealing security convictions based on Hillary's case.

 

[Paperview]

No she has no such authority. You can support your own claims. I am not here to do your homework for you. Feel free to post a link to support your assertion, or can't it be found on DailyKOS?

What? No such authority?

I'll state again:As Head of State, she has the ultimate authority to classify or declassify items originating in State.

You're the one disputing it.

Prove me wrong. Basic Laws and Authorities

Yes, I did listen, that is why I asked. It appeared that you did not. There was secure content on her server that did not originate in the State Department.

Not those bits you referred to. Maybe you should read the underlined sentence again.

Those talking points information originated in State. Watch it again or read the transcript.
Here's a start: #2102

The other items (TS) were marked classified by other agencies after -- for FOIA release.

She, nor especially her lawyers, had any right to declassify any such content that alone delete it, or even have it on the server in the first place.

Her lawyers didn't "declassify anything --
Nothing in that bit she asked to have stripped was wrong. The testimony I provided in the above link shows Comey stating she had the authority to declassify those talking points "with markings." As it turned out - that piece *was* sent by secure fax.

Again: :As Head of State, she has the ultimate authority to classify or declassify items originating in State.

 

[WCH]

typo .. my right arm is immobilized and post surgery drugs do the rest

but I suspect you got the point just the same ... and ignored it.

I'm thinking Freudian slip...on drugs or not.

 

[yankintx]

Please, feel free to ignore the corruption and move on. The rest of us will maintain our dignity. It's only just begun.

I trust that in the future, if President Trump commits some aggression, you will also dismiss it and move on?

Doubt it

Trump is an idiot

 

[Boo Radley]

Please be so good as to point out in the law where the requirement of intent, at least at the level Mr. Comey has suggested, exists. Also, I don't see how it applies to anything you've stated in the rest of this post.

Meanwhile, explain how Hillary's actions in setting up a private, unsecured email server, then using several unsecured methods of accessing it, all clear violations of the regulations cited does not demonstrate willful intent.

Or that she did not lie both about the existence of classified documents on this server and that she did not know she was violating classified security measures when she sent this information to other unsecured servers.

More how it's been done in practice. Precedence always matter. It's hard to convict with out intent. Read much prior to this pointing out how rare it is to prosecute without intent.

 

[Boo Radley]

I use a simple reading of the statute. You try to minimize the actions by equivocation - who's being political here, it isn't me.

There is nothing simple about any statute. Meaning is seldom crystal clear and precedence plays a role. But, she isn't the first to not be charged. In fact, it's the norm not to charge.

 

[Beaudreaux]

There is nothing simple about any statute. Meaning is seldom crystal clear and precedence plays a role. But, she isn't the first to not be charged. In fact, it's the norm not to charge.

... therefore it's okay to break the law and to act with gross negligence in regard to classified information.

That's the standard you and those accepting of the actions taken and the actions not taken by Hillary Clinton are putting forward.

I respectfully disagree with as much strength and conviction in support of the law and against a bifurcated enforcement level as I possibly can.

Democrats are marching in the streets to protest what they see as an unequal law enforcement system that they see as protecting whites and harming blacks - while at the exact same time, those same Democrats are supporting an unequal law enforcement system that allows a protected political class to obviously break laws, lie about breaking those laws, and then continue to be supported by their supporters up to and including being put forth for election as President of the United States.

Does no one else see the dichotomy in those positions, the paradoxical implications of being concerned with one because of race and accepting of the other because of politics, and the repugnance to the rule of law and equal treatment that their position presents to those of us that believe in the Constitution and the our country as a beacon of freedom and liberty?

You and others, including Director Comey, continue to say that it is the norm to not bring charges under this statute, yet it is not the norm for a Secretary of State to be the object of the legal transgression. Also, how can there be a precedence to prosecute, until someone is prosecuted? In fact, the opposite is the case here - as I said above, the precedence is now that ... therefore it's okay to break the law and to act with gross negligence in regard to classified information.

 

[ludin]

There is nothing simple about any statute. Meaning is seldom crystal clear and precedence plays a role. But, she isn't the first to not be charged. In fact, it's the norm not to charge.

People are charged and are forced from their positions and their security clearances are yanked.
Which is what should have happened to Clinton.

They are doing it to a navel officer and they did it to a marine who sent 1 email not 2000+.

So at minimum her security clearances should be revoked.
That would pretty much disqualify her from president.

That is bear minimum. At worst and what should have been done since the infraction was so bad is her arrested and thrown in jail.

 

[Boo Radley]

... therefore it's okay to break the law and to act with gross negligence in regard to classified information.

That's the standard you and those accepting of the actions taken and the actions not taken by Hillary Clinton are putting forward.

I respectfully disagree with as much strength and conviction in support of the law and against a bifurcated enforcement level as I possibly can.

Democrats are marching in the streets to protest what they see as an unequal law enforcement system that they see as protecting whites and harming blacks - while at the exact same time, those same Democrats are supporting an unequal law enforcement system that allows a protected political class to obviously break laws, lie about breaking those laws, and then continue to be supported by their supporters up to and including being put forth for election as President of the United States.

Does no one else see the dichotomy in those positions, the paradoxical implications of being concerned with one because of race and accepting of the other because of politics, and the repugnance to the rule of law and equal treatment that their position presents to those of us that believe in the Constitution and the our country as a beacon of freedom and liberty?

You and others, including Director Comey, continue to say that it is the norm to not bring charges under this statute, yet it is not the norm for a Secretary of State to be the object of the legal transgression. Also, how can there be a precedence to prosecute, until someone is prosecuted? In fact, the opposite is the case here - as I said above, the precedence is now that ... therefore it's okay to break the law and to act with gross negligence in regard to classified information.

Again, gross negligence actually has a definition she didn't meet. Precedence rules. It's the way it works. Sorry.

 

[Boo Radley]

... therefore it's okay to break the law and to act with gross negligence in regard to classified information.

That's the standard you and those accepting of the actions taken and the actions not taken by Hillary Clinton are putting forward.

I respectfully disagree with as much strength and conviction in support of the law and against a bifurcated enforcement level as I possibly can.

Democrats are marching in the streets to protest what they see as an unequal law enforcement system that they see as protecting whites and harming blacks - while at the exact same time, those same Democrats are supporting an unequal law enforcement system that allows a protected political class to obviously break laws, lie about breaking those laws, and then continue to be supported by their supporters up to and including being put forth for election as President of the United States.

Does no one else see the dichotomy in those positions, the paradoxical implications of being concerned with one because of race and accepting of the other because of politics, and the repugnance to the rule of law and equal treatment that their position presents to those of us that believe in the Constitution and the our country as a beacon of freedom and liberty?

You and others, including Director Comey, continue to say that it is the norm to not bring charges under this statute, yet it is not the norm for a Secretary of State to be the object of the legal transgression. Also, how can there be a precedence to prosecute, until someone is prosecuted? In fact, the opposite is the case here - as I said above, the precedence is now that ... therefore it's okay to break the law and to act with gross negligence in regard to classified information.

Again, gross negligence actually has a definition she didn't meet. Precedence rules. It's the way it works. Sorry.

 

[Boo Radley]

People are charged and are forced from their positions and their security clearances are yanked.
Which is what should have happened to Clinton.

They are doing it to a navel officer and they did it to a marine who sent 1 email not 2000+.

So at minimum her security clearances should be revoked.
That would pretty much disqualify her from president.

That is bear minimum. At worst and what should have been done since the infraction was so bad is her arrested and thrown in jail.

Actually most have not been. Those who have either lied to the investigators, had information proven to have linked, or demonstrated intent to break the law. There is a precedence. Sorry.

 

[ludin]

Actually most have not been. Those who have either lied to the investigators, had information proven to have linked, or demonstrated intent to break the law. There is a precedence. Sorry.

Actually most have been.
Yes there is a precedent
For prosecuting people who have mishandled
Classified data glad you agree.

 

[ludin]

Again, gross negligence actually has a definition she didn't meet. Precedence rules. It's the way it works. Sorry.

Sending 110+ classified and above top secret emails is gross negligence more so after she was told what she was doing was illegal.
Sorry.

 

[Boo Radley]

Actually most have been.
Yes there is a precedent
For prosecuting people who have mishandled
Classified data glad you agree.

No they haven't. This has been mentioned in article after article that most have not.

 

[Boo Radley]

Sending 110+ classified and above top secret emails is gross negligence more so after she was told what she was doing was illegal.
Sorry.

Not, careless. And there is no evidence anyone else got any of them.