• 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!

Trump encourages Russia to hack Clinton's email

Maybe she didn't want to disrespect a former president. I really dunno why she met with him because I don't know what they talked about. All I can say is that it looked bad....and Bill is an idiot.

Seems a really bad trade off for Lynch, not respect a former president vs. losing credibility and the appearance of integrity, and add on top of that the appearance that the fix for Hillary was in and that she's a part of it. Yeah, she lost credibility as well as appearance of integrity, and gained the appearance of political elite corruption. All in all, a very bad deal for her.

I don't think she lost credibility...because I think she would've recused herself from making the decision to indict.. if it came to that. But lucky for her it didn't...because Comey couldn't recommend an indictment because the law requires mens rea to prove guilt and he didn't find that in Clinton's case.

There's no evidence that Comey talked to Lynch or Bill during the investigation...so neither the investigation or his recommendation were compromised, imo.

I'm sure that Comey and Lynch met during the months of the investigation, their roles are far to intertwined, interconnected, and process dependent on each other to not have met. What they talked about during their highly likely meeting is anyone's guess. Don't these meetings have agendas? FOIA those and find out?
 
The director of the FBI and the Attorney General don't communicate? Their jobs require them to communicate. For God's sake, at least try to make sense.

Aaah. Darn. Beat me to it. :mrgreen:
 
Assumptions on your part:
--Hillary complied in full-- we know she did not as her server had to be seized and examined.
--Hillary did not delete any official e-mails-- we know she did delete such e-mails by Comey's own press conference
--Hillary had no intent to evade oversight-- we know she did as she attempted to delete e-mails on the server

For your side to have any hope of being true, we have to ignore all the findings by Comey and focus on the nature of intent and ignore the implied intent from her actions with the server and the deletions and the subsequent findings by the FBI. In other words, be completely ignorant of the actual facts.

Sorry life is to short to go through it being deliberately ignorant. Intent can be proven by the attempts to hide evidence, now I'll ask simply, did Hillary make any attempts to hide evidence? The decision not to prosecute was a political one, not a fact finding one. People have been prosecuted for less, both in scope and degree of handling of similar documents.

"--Hillary had no intent to evade oversight-- we know she did as she attempted to delete e-mails on the server"
I think it fair to add the extended period of delaying, stonewalling, and the hide the weenie game that was played with these emails and the server. Recall that it took a federal judge to render rulings which made their production compulsory, and if not obeyed the inevitable contempt of court charge, which was the next step, and goes to show exactly how long and deliberate the delaying, stonewalling, and the hide the weenie was, all to thwart proper congressional oversight and legitimate FOIA requests. That's pretty corrupt, if you ask me.

What on Earth was Hillary and her legal eagles hiding? I'll bet to this day we've not found it yet.
 
The meeting was probably to confirm that Comey was going to let Clinton walk.

Yeah, could be. But this meeting compromised Lynch's public image of integrity and her credibility. It also created, or rather started to create the appearance of the fix being in, the appearance of politically elite corruption.

She lost taking this meeting.
The nation and the people lost yet more trust government.

Neither is a good thing, especially at this point in time, with trust in presidential candidates and trust in government at all time low points.
 
Yeah, could be. But this meeting compromised Lynch's public image of integrity and her credibility. It also created, or rather started to create the appearance of the fix being in, the appearance of politically elite corruption.

She lost taking this meeting.
The nation and the people lost yet more trust government.

Neither is a good thing, especially at this point in time, with trust in presidential candidates and trust in government at all time low points.

Unfortunately I think it is more partisan than anything. It reinforces what the right thinks about Democrats but their mindless drones are still going to vote for Clinton.
 
Last edited:
The FBI found no credible evidence that she was trying to hide anything.

I understand what you're trying to say...but I think that more to do with the entire State Department and how they handle FOIA requests. If you want to learn more...here's a link...

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/isp-i-15-15.pdf





I think she thought it would be more "convenient"...not more trouble. She also thought her emails were captured on the government server. Did you read the reply letter to the State Department by Cheryl Mills?



"...When she became secretary of state, the controlling interpretation of the 1950 Federal Records Act was that officials using personal email accounts must ensure that official correspondence are turned over to the government. Ten months after she took office, a new regulation allowed the use of private emails only if federal records were "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system".

Mrs Clinton maintains that this requirement was satisfied because most of her emails from her personal account went to, or were forwarded to, people with government accounts, so they were automatically archived. Any other emails were turned over to State Department officials when they issued a request to her - and several of her predecessors - in October 2014.

She said it is the responsibility of the government employee "to determine what's personal and what's work-related" and that she's gone "above and beyond" what she was asked to do.

In November 2014 President Barack Obama signed the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments, which requires government officials to forward any official correspondence to the government within 20 days. Even under this new law, however, the penalties are only administrative, not criminal. ..."

Hillary Clinton's 'emailgate' diced and sliced - BBC News

The act of deleting emails on a server on which State department emails are also kept is in itself a guilty act. When under a subpoena and investigation you don't get to decide what is pertinent evidence. Investigators decide that. Further, if emails were deleted, we have no way to know if emails were sent to private email recipients, because both sides would be private and not archived.

Your deflection and denials are wearing thin. Hillary Clinton does not get decide what emails are pertinent or not. The law does. Now you can keep insisting she complied, most people don't think she did. You can keep insisting she had no intent, most people considering deleting electronic evidence as intent to hide evidence or intent of a bad act. We have Comey's interview that states she did have classified emails that the FBI found. Your arguments are not based in the facts but in the reporting and press releases of Clinton. If you can't find the bias there, maybe you should try harder.

Bottom line, you are amongst the paltry number of die hard Democrats that buys Clinton's explanations for her reckless behavior. I don't.
 
The SCOTUS ruled that mens rea was required to prove guilt in a criminal trial. Without that...you ain't' got a case.

Gross negligence requires harm or injury to a person, property or the state. No one was hurt or injured by Clinton's emails or private server.


"...In other words, gross negligence is a total disregard for the obligation to exercise due care and that leads to personal injury or property damage...."

Claims of Gross Negligence - Injury Law - AllLaw.com

Which flies in the face of Democrats screaming treason over Trump asking the Russians to release the emails. So which is it? They damage national security or they don't?
 
That she was extremely careless and negligent. 2 of the categories of mens rea.

I don't think he used the word negligent because Clinton could have been charge with gross negligence. So Comey played word games and called it extreme carelessness instead. One phrase would have led to charges the other to letting her off the hook, but in reality there is zero difference in meaning between the two phrases.
 
I don't think he used the word negligent because Clinton could have been charge with gross negligence. So Comey played word games and called it extreme carelessness instead. One phrase would have led to charges the other to letting her off the hook, but in reality there is zero difference in meaning between the two phrases.

His exact words were "....extremely careless, negligent." Mens rea includes carelessness and negligence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Miss post, damn tapatalk has no delete.
 
This all reminds me of BLM, based on a lie. The fact is what Trump said is not treasonous, or even out of line, when Hillarys server was not secured. Does it matter where the information comes from if it is the truth?
 
Seems a really bad trade off for Lynch, not respect a former president vs. losing credibility and the appearance of integrity, and add on top of that the appearance that the fix for Hillary was in and that she's a part of it. Yeah, she lost credibility as well as appearance of integrity, and gained the appearance of political elite corruption. All in all, a very bad deal for her.



I'm sure that Comey and Lynch met during the months of the investigation, their roles are far to intertwined, interconnected, and process dependent on each other to not have met. What they talked about during their highly likely meeting is anyone's guess. Don't these meetings have agendas? FOIA those and find out?

There's usually a lot of press when there's a meeting of high officials. Since you're so sure they met to discuss the case....where's the observable evidence? Most of your argument seems to be built on speculation and hearsay...so if you are so sure that Lynch and Comey frequently met then why hasn't it been reported in the press or any observable evidence to back up your claim?
 
There's usually a lot of press when there's a meeting of high officials. Since you're so sure they met to discuss the case....where's the observable evidence? Most of your argument seems to be built on speculation and hearsay...so if you are so sure that Lynch and Comey frequently met then why hasn't it been reported in the press or any observable evidence to back up your claim?

Asked and answered.

I'm sure that Comey and Lynch met during the months of the investigation, their roles are far to intertwined, interconnected, and process dependent on each other to not have met. What they talked about during their highly likely meeting is anyone's guess. Don't these meetings have agendas? FOIA those and find out?

The director of the FBI and the Attorney General don't communicate? Their jobs require them to communicate. For God's sake, at least try to make sense.

Suffice it to say that it is unreasonable to assume that Comey and Lynch didn't meet.

Whether or not Hillary's case was discussed is indeed conjecture, but not an unreasonable assumption given that how large and important a case Hillary's was, and also that the DOJ and FBI are both law enforcement branches of the same administration.
 
Asked and answered.





Suffice it to say that it is unreasonable to assume that Comey and Lynch didn't meet.

Whether or not Hillary's case was discussed is indeed conjecture, but not an unreasonable assumption given that how large and important a case Hillary's was, and also that the DOJ and FBI are both law enforcement branches of the same administration.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

It was Bill who privately met with Lynch at the airport, not the other way around. I said at the time - and I still feel the same - that it was unfair of Bill to put her in that position, because perception is important when the public is involved, not that it matters much in any event, BTW.

Comey did the right thing...he presented his agency's decision, and explained to the public on national TV the reasons why, and left it up to the listening audience to decide whether or not the correct decision was made! Well done, and it did allow her to confirm that she would abide by the FBI's recommendation. Case closed as far as those involved, including the administration, is concerned. What's next? :shock:
 
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

It was Bill who privately met with Lynch at the airport, not the other way around. I said at the time - and I still feel the same - that it was unfair of Bill to put her in that position, because perception is important when the public is involved, not that it matters much in any event, BTW.

Lynch has been around the political block for long enough to know how bad this would be, how bad it would look, and what the public would few all this. Should would have been better off to deny Bill the meeting, or hell, just have given him a phone number, for christ's sake! There was no need for an in-person meeting.

Comey did the right thing...he presented his agency's decision, and explained to the public on national TV the reasons why, and left it up to the listening audience to decide whether or not the correct decision was made! Well done, and it did allow her to confirm that she would abide by the FBI's recommendation. Case closed as far as those involved, including the administration, is concerned. What's next? :shock:

"What's next?"

The nation will continue to descend into ever more, ever deeper, ever worse of the political elite's corruption, dragging the entire nation down with it. Hillary has clearly demonstrated that she, being one of the political elite, isn't held responsible for her actions or decisions, and any criminal repercussions are forgotten, minimized, excused, and out right covered up.

She is 'Too Big To Jail'.

This is also clearly shown in Comey's inventing a requirement in the law of Hillary's 'intent', when previously there was no such requirement, at least this is the excuse being used by the elites at this time to to get Hillary off. Next time the need arises, thery'll be another excuse. Lather, rinse, repeat, as needed.

Just consider this particular list of facts:
  • Clinton signed 'Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement' on her second day at the State Department
  • It says she was personally responsible for determining if sensitive documents in her possession were classified at the highest level
  • Spelled out criminal laws under which she could be prosecuted
  • Hillary has said on the campaign trail that top-secret classified info found on her private email server wasn't classified originally and it wasn't her job to know better

Clearly, Comey's 'intent' excuse is exactly that, an excuse, the fix was in. The political elites are protecting their own, regardless of the cost to the nation and the electorate.

The upset Bernie supporters are just the start, there's an equally, or even more so, upset part of the right end of the political spectrum.

One doesn't go through a briefing about SCINDA, sign an SCINDA without realizing what it means, and then go and conduct government business on your own, insecure privately run email server and still claim there is no intent involved. That's just ridiculous.

The US certainly isn't the nation that it used to be. Doubtful that it will be the nation that it once was, ever again. It'll forever be a nation without equal justice for all. The first of the nation's foundational principals to fall. There will be more. Seems likely that the 2ndd amendment may be next, but there may be others that beat it to demise.

And to imagine that some continue to think that Hillary is the right candidate to elect as POTUS, and that the political elites aren't corrupt, and it will not harm the nation if the political elite continue their corrupt ways unabated.
<*sigh*>
 
Lynch has been around the political block for long enough to know how bad this would be, how bad it would look, and what the public would few all this.

>

Oh, I think she underestimated the predictable freak out by the irrational Hillary haters.

Of course, the little tempest in a teapot blew over, except for the obsessives.
 
Back
Top Bottom