• 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!

What law do you think HIllary Clinton broke?

Having classified info on a personal server is exactly the same thing as leaving a classified manual laying on your desk unsecured. Intent don't matter, it is there. I have seen it cost young Marines stripes.
I wrote this last night on FB:

Since the FBI determined not to indict Hillary Clinton today. I think what a lot of my Republicans friends are forgetting is that in most cases it is extremely hard to prove negligence and it is even harder to prove bad intentions.

Also lying isn't a crime, just ask Trump he does it all the time!! Short of being able to read Hillary Clinton's mind, this would never have gone to trial!

That being said, I respect the FBI's decision on this matter so that the case can be properly closed, but there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton lied to us about her mishandling of technology and for me personally as an IT Professional, that is very risky behavior I never want to see in a President! This is the main reason I will not be voting for her.

Simply put it is not a crime to lie and it is incredibly hard to prove lying and what one's intentions were in a court of law.
 
What is it with you making incessant and rather stupid comments at this place?



What is it with you running your mouth before you turn your brain on?

:lol:

Come back when you have less time to spend with us.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time,GOP.
 
What is it with you running your mouth before you turn your brain on?

:lol:

Come back when you have less time to spend with us.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch,running out of time,GOP.

I could write a bot program and have it post for you.
All it would have to do 75% of the time is post "wait and see."
 
Having classified info on a personal server is exactly the same thing as leaving a classified manual laying on your desk unsecured. Intent don't matter, it is there. I have seen it cost young Marines stripes.

Yes but Clinton is not in the military and if Marines get demoted because of that, the American public shouldn't award her with the Presidency. However, the other choice is Donald Trump and that is not an easy choice for many people to make. It's a terrible thing, but the Clinton's play the long game really, really well. I give them a lot of credit for being the positions they have been in over the years. They are like Chess grandmasters.
 
Except that the information on her server was not classified

Are you saying that the FBI Director was lying? Because he said they were in his press conference to the entire world. Why not admit that the Clinton camp claim was and still is a false fabrication to obscure the truth?

/smh
 
Are you saying that the FBI Director was lying? Because he said they were in his press conference to the entire world. Why not admit that the Clinton camp claim was and still is a false fabrication to obscure the truth?

/smh

Some of the info was classified *after* it was on her server.
 
I can accept the conclusion Hillary was grossly careless in using a private server for her work.

What I cannot accept is her lying about not sending or receiving classified material on that server. Her honesty and trustworthiness took a very big hit with this one. But hey, like any politician, she will state what she thinks people want to hear.:mrgreen:

These lies?

 
Some of the info was classified *after* it was on her server.

Some was, much was classified at the time. Which means your claim "Except that the information on her server was not classified" is WRONG. Will you admit that?
 
Some of the info was classified *after* it was on her server.

It sure was. About 2,000 emails were classified *after* (as you put it) which is called "up-classified." However, if you would read the FBI announcement, you would see the following facts:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 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. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
(underlining, coloring, and italicizing done by me)

Those last ones, the ones I colored the text blue, are the ones you may be referring to. However, you should understand that the blanket statement by Hillary Clinton is a lie. I would not want to repeat any more if I was repeating before finding out that I had been lied to by Mrs. Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Some was, much was classified at the time. Which means your claim "Except that the information on her server was not classified" is WRONG. Will you admit that?

It sure was. About 2,000 emails were classified *after* (as you put it) which is called "up-classified." However, if you would read the FBI announcement, you would see the following facts:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 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. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
(underlining, coloring, and italicizing done by me)

Those last ones, the ones I colored the text blue, are the ones you may be referring to. However, you should understand that the blanket statement by Hillary Clinton is a lie. I would not want to repeat any more if I was repeating before finding out that I had been lied to by Mrs. Clinton.

OK, I was wrong about that.

Still don't see any crime there.
 
OK, I was wrong about that.
Understandable, given all the inaccurate information flying around.

Still don't see any crime there.
I respect that. I feel differently, especially since the law only requires gross negligence and not intent, but I still respect your right to believe differently.
 
Understandable, given all the inaccurate information flying around.

I respect that. I feel differently, especially since the law only requires gross negligence and not intent, but I still respect your right to believe differently.

Yes but you are forgetting that it is extremely hard to prove there was gross negligence. Clinton's message got messed up so she lied to the public on multiple occasions but for all intents and purposes she did cooperate fully with the FBI. She did not have any ill intentions towards the US that 100s of agents could find. This is a great piece that lays out why she didn't break any laws, if you want to read it.

Here's Why Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Didn't Rise To Level Of 'Gross Negligence'
 
There are (at least) two problems with that plan:

1) The POTUS wanted to campaign (and fund raise) for HRC - far better (politically essential?) not to have her under indictment.

2) Once a grand jury, jury or judge is allowed to decide her fate then reversing a "bad" decision would have required a formal pardon. Obama found it best to "suggest" that his appointees not pursue the technical violation of a federal "rule" or "policy" (never call those things laws) - after all, nobody (except those under control of his appointees) can (or need to) prove anything at all.

Yet how many other people have lost their jobs and their security clearances for similar violations.
They technically have a lawsuit now under equal protection.
 
Yet how many other people have lost their jobs and their security clearances for similar violations.
They technically have a lawsuit now under equal protection.

I keep hearing about the many cases, of this but who exactly are you talking about? And please don't mention David Petraeus. It's a totally different case!
 
Yes but you are forgetting that it is extremely hard to prove there was gross negligence. Clinton's message got messed up so she lied to the public on multiple occasions but for all intents and purposes she did cooperate fully with the FBI. She did not have any ill intentions towards the US that 100s of agents could find. This is a great piece that lays out why she didn't break any laws, if you want to read it.

Here's Why Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Didn't Rise To Level Of 'Gross Negligence'

Actually, given her history and experience as a private sector attorney, as a Congressional Committee staff attorney, as a First Lady, as a US Senator, and as a Secretary of State, all but the first of which required her to attend a briefing regarding the handling of classified information, required her to sign a document attesting to the fact that she knew the standards. and that she subsequently actually handle classified material. To prove negligence, there are four factors - 1) that there is a Duty. 2) that a person Failed to Perform that Duty, 3) that there was a Harm, and that 4) there is a causal relationship between the Failure to perform the Duty and the Harm. No where is there a requirement, much less a mention, of intent. In fact, the terminology of gross negligence is there to allow for prosecution when intent is obviously absent.

The Duty was that she follow the law and protect classified information. The failure is obvious by the FBI report. The harm is that classified information was sent and received in the open. And, the causal relationship is obvious.

However, to prove intent, even though it isn't required in this instance, during the Grand Jury hearing and during any subsequent trial, a prosecutor would go over all the facts that I showed in the first paragraph regarding Sec. Clinton's historical education and exposure to classified information and the handling requirements of that information, and then go through all the lies that Sec. Clinton told in public, through the media, and under oath to Congress, which paired with the previous facts would show that under the reasonable person standard that intent to not comply with the statute is there.

Look, I will be actually sick if Trump is elected, and I will not do anything to support that outcome. I do not feel that the country could endure four years of a Trump Presidency. I also do not feel that we as country can survive if the law is not applied equally to us all. Hillary Clinton broke the law.

The choices are, Hillary was too stupid and incompetent to know what she was doing was both illegal and dangerous and harmful to the country, OR... she broke the law and knew what she was doing from the beginning and acted with malicious intent. I'm not arguing the latter, and only discussed intent above because you and others keep using that as the excuse to allow her breaking of the law to be treated as acceptable. All I'm saying is that the first applies, and is the very definition of gross negligence, and that her actions were and are illegal.
 
Actually, given her history and experience as a private sector attorney, as a Congressional Committee staff attorney, as a First Lady, as a US Senator, and as a Secretary of State, all but the first of which required her to attend a briefing regarding the handling of classified information, required her to sign a document attesting to the fact that she knew the standards. and that she subsequently actually handle classified material. To prove negligence, there are four factors - 1) that there is a Duty. 2) that a person Failed to Perform that Duty, 3) that there was a Harm, and that 4) there is a causal relationship between the Failure to perform the Duty and the Harm. No where is there a requirement, much less a mention, of intent. In fact, the terminology of gross negligence is there to allow for prosecution when intent is obviously absent.

The Duty was that she follow the law and protect classified information. The failure is obvious by the FBI report. The harm is that classified information was sent and received in the open. And, the causal relationship is obvious.

However, to prove intent, even though it isn't required in this instance, during the Grand Jury hearing and during any subsequent trial, a prosecutor would go over all the facts that I showed in the first paragraph regarding Sec. Clinton's historical education and exposure to classified information and the handling requirements of that information, and then go through all the lies that Sec. Clinton told in public, through the media, and under oath to Congress, which paired with the previous facts would show that under the reasonable person standard that intent to not comply with the statute is there.

Look, I will be actually sick if Trump is elected, and I will not do anything to support that outcome. I do not feel that the country could endure four years of a Trump Presidency. I also do not feel that we as country can survive if the law is not applied equally to us all. Hillary Clinton broke the law.

The choices are, Hillary was too stupid and incompetent to know what she was doing was both illegal and dangerous and harmful to the country, OR... she broke the law and knew what she was doing from the beginning and acted with malicious intent. I'm not arguing the latter, and only discussed intent above because you and others keep using that as the excuse to allow her breaking of the law to be treated as acceptable. All I'm saying is that the first applies, and is the very definition of gross negligence, and that her actions were and are illegal.

The FBI Director has come to a very different conclusion and he had access to way more information than you do. The question that you raised is not at all a subject of law breaking but it is rather a political one.

As, once again no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring something like this to trial. That's why there hasn't been one already. And now from the top law enforcement officials in the country there likely won't be one. So while you think she may have broken the law and have already convicted her in your mind. The Reality is not so


#Nevertrump; #NeverHillary; Everyone Sucks 2016; FU 2016 - sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The FBI Director has come to a very different conclusion and he had access to way more information than you do. The question that you raised is not at all a subject of law breaking but it is rather a political one.

As, once again no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring something like this to trial. That's why there hasn't been one already. And now from the top law enforcement officials in the country there likely won't be one. So while you think she may have broken the law and have already convicted her in your mind. The Reality is not so


#Nevertrump; #NeverHillary; Everyone Sucks 2016; FU 2016 - sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet, the FBI rewrote the law. But they can't get her for lying under oath like they did Billy boy....they didn't put her under oath. Clever, these top cops.
 
Actually, given her history and experience as a private sector attorney, as a Congressional Committee staff attorney, as a First Lady, as a US Senator, and as a Secretary of State, all but the first of which required her to attend a briefing regarding the handling of classified information, required her to sign a document attesting to the fact that she knew the standards. and that she subsequently actually handle classified material. To prove negligence, there are four factors - 1) that there is a Duty. 2) that a person Failed to Perform that Duty, 3) that there was a Harm, and that 4) there is a causal relationship between the Failure to perform the Duty and the Harm. No where is there a requirement, much less a mention, of intent. In fact, the terminology of gross negligence is there to allow for prosecution when intent is obviously absent.

The Duty was that she follow the law and protect classified information. The failure is obvious by the FBI report. The harm is that classified information was sent and received in the open. And, the causal relationship is obvious.

However, to prove intent, even though it isn't required in this instance, during the Grand Jury hearing and during any subsequent trial, a prosecutor would go over all the facts that I showed in the first paragraph regarding Sec. Clinton's historical education and exposure to classified information and the handling requirements of that information, and then go through all the lies that Sec. Clinton told in public, through the media, and under oath to Congress, which paired with the previous facts would show that under the reasonable person standard that intent to not comply with the statute is there.

Look, I will be actually sick if Trump is elected, and I will not do anything to support that outcome. I do not feel that the country could endure four years of a Trump Presidency. I also do not feel that we as country can survive if the law is not applied equally to us all. Hillary Clinton broke the law.

The choices are, Hillary was too stupid and incompetent to know what she was doing was both illegal and dangerous and harmful to the country, OR... she broke the law and knew what she was doing from the beginning and acted with malicious intent. I'm not arguing the latter, and only discussed intent above because you and others keep using that as the excuse to allow her breaking of the law to be treated as acceptable. All I'm saying is that the first applies, and is the very definition of gross negligence, and that her actions were and are illegal.

Your claim of harm does not seem to fit the legal definition of the term.
 
Your claim of harm does not seem to fit the legal definition of the term.

It's understandable to feel that way, but harm doesn't have to be physical, or direct. It can be indirect, or it can be harm to the safety of the nation, harm to the safety of our government employees doing their jobs around the world, harm to the intelligence capabilities of our nation, or harm done to the national security of our nation, which are examples of what harm was caused by Secretary Clinton via her actions and her associates. There are other examples of harm done here as well, I'm just giving you a few from the top of my head.
 
It's understandable to feel that way, but harm doesn't have to be physical, or direct. It can be indirect, or it can be harm to the safety of the nation, harm to the safety of our government employees doing their jobs around the world, harm to the intelligence capabilities of our nation, or harm done to the national security of our nation, which are examples of what harm was caused by Secretary Clinton via her actions and her associates. There are other examples of harm done here as well, I'm just giving you a few from the top of my head.

I did not say it has to be direct but my understanding is that it does have to be physical and there has been no harm to any of the things you mentioned, as far as I can tell.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence
Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages; and proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.

Also, where did you get this idea that a criminal prosecution would not require proving intent; only negligence? AFAIK, criminal negligence is limited to manslaughter, vehicular homicide and similar crimes
 
I did not say it has to be direct but my understanding is that it does have to be physical and there has been no harm to any of the things you mentioned, as far as I can tell.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence


Also, where did you get this idea that a criminal prosecution would not require proving intent; only negligence? AFAIK, criminal negligence is limited to manslaughter, vehicular homicide and similar crimes

I'll have to find the post in which I listed the law. I never discussed criminal negligence, rather gross negligence.
 
I had this ah-ha moment while posting on another thread. I wonder what law people thought HC had broken for which she could be prosecuted. Surely no one thinks she was guilty of treason. Is it actually against the law to use a private server? Would it have ever come up before? SHOULD there be an actual law in place NOW?

When? When she was working on the Watergate investigation and was fired? Or perhaps over the "missing" Rose Law Firm billing records? Or Whitewater? Or the amazing stock market speculations? How about accepting donations from the family of Marc Rich while President Clinton was giving, or selling, Marc Rich a presidential pardon? Or how about the four rabbis who were pardoned and in return their communities voted en masse for Hillary Clinton? Travelgate? Trying to use the FBI on a personal persecution?

If you're asking about ethical breeches involving any Clinton you need to be much more specific.
 
Back
Top Bottom