Every few weeks, like a dripping faucet, a new group of Hillary's e mails are released, setting off a fresh wave of speculation about how long it will be until Hillary ends up in prison. To all the Hillary haters out there, all I can say is "don't hold your breath" The subtle truth behind all of this is e mail silliness is this: Hillary did not break the law! Like her or hate her, Hillary is a pretty smart lady and (with the possible exception of sh76) knows the law better than anyone here. This e mail story has been going on a long time now, and if Hillary had broken the law, it would have become clear awhile back. Personally all I think Hillary is guilty of is poor judgement in using her personal e mail in this way. So....you can rant and rave all you want about Hillary, but the truth is, Hillary has done nothing illegal. Sorry Hillary haters....😏
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/us/justice-dept-says-hillary-clinton-had-authority-to-delete-certain-emails.html?_r=0
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-greta-van-susteren-sees-no-legal-liability-in-hillary-emails/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
I could be mistaken but I think it almost impossible that Hillary didn't break the law, and I am not a Hillary-hater. Its true I don;t think highly of either her or her husband but I think she is more qualified to be president than most of the others.
The 3 posts sources you reference all ignore the law I'm sure she's broken, which makes it illegal to have classified information on an unsecured (non-governmental) computer. She was Secretary of State and (to my knowledge) ALL of her email correspondence was on a private host. If that's true, unless she never got classified information via email, she broke the law.
What really disturbs me on this point is that I would certainly think that she received very competent legal advice NOT to arrange her email this way, and she did it anyway, Call it arrogance (I think she's arrogant) and its not a disqualification. Politicians probably need some arrogance. Call it 'really inept judgment' and you might have something with which to disqualify her
Originally posted by bill718Then Hillary has no reason to fear if/when she receives her indictment from the FBI.
Every few weeks, like a dripping faucet, a new group of Hillary's e mails are released, setting off a fresh wave of speculation about how long it will be until Hillary ends up in prison. To all the Hillary haters out there, all I can say is "don't hold your breath" The subtle truth behind all of this is e mail silliness is this: Hillary did not break the law ...[text shortened]... p://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/
Originally posted by stevemccIs the relevant law that classified information may not be held on an insecure machine or does it actually specify that it must be a government owned machine, or certified by the government in some way? Because it is possible (I've no idea of the facts) that her private machine is suitably secure and has been checked by the NSA (or whoever checks these things).
I could be mistaken but I think it almost impossible that Hillary didn't break the law, and I am not a Hillary-hater. Its true I don;t think highly of either her or her husband but I think she is more qualified to be president than most of the others.
The 3 posts sources you reference all ignore the law I'm sure she's broken, which makes it illegal to have ...[text shortened]... gance. Call it 'really inept judgment' and you might have something with which to disqualify her
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe facts, as I know them, are that the FBI doesn't waste its time running down rabbit holes. If they are investigating her emails this long and thoroughly, then there is at least the appearance of wrongdoing. We'll see if any of it comes to fruition.
Is the relevant law that classified information may not be held on an insecure machine or does it actually specify that it must be a government owned machine, or certified by the government in some way? Because it is possible (I've no idea of the facts) that her private machine is suitably secure and has been checked by the NSA (or whoever checks these things).
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMy understanding (I might be wrong) is that classified information must be on a government computer, in a secure space under government security. That was how I understood it in 1969 when I had a security clearance. Things might have changed.
Is the relevant law that classified information may not be held on an insecure machine or does it actually specify that it must be a government owned machine, or certified by the government in some way? Because it is possible (I've no idea of the facts) that her private machine is suitably secure and has been checked by the NSA (or whoever checks these things).
Originally posted by SoothfastThe job of the FBI is to present the evidence to the Justice dept. aka Loretta Lynch NOT bring an indictment.
Then Hillary has no reason to fear if/when she receives her indictment from the FBI.
The Justice dept decides what to do from there.
BTW I understand the FBI is devoting 150 agents to this case alone.
Originally posted by utherpendragonTrue, but the thing is the FBI may recommend that an indictment be issued.
The job of the FBI is to present the evidence to the Justice dept. aka Loretta Lynch NOT bring an indictment.
The Justice dept decides what to do from there.
BTW I understand the FBI is devoting 150 agents to this case alone.
Originally posted by stevemccIn 1969 there was no possibility of having classified data on a computer at home. The nature of technology in those days meant that the effect of the legislation was to ensure that only government computers, rather than those of say McDonnell Douglas, could hold classified information and they would have found it easy to restrict access to the machine. The rise of the home computer and later the P.C. and laptops means that there is scope to have data at home. Further Boeing make military aircraft, given modern manufacturing techniques they must have classified information on their machines to do that, so I think that the rules must have changed since then.
My understanding (I might be wrong) is that classified information must be on a government computer, in a secure space under government security. That was how I understood it in 1969 when I had a security clearance. Things might have changed.
Originally posted by normbenignThey may not be investigating her in order to prosecute, but rather to see if there is any possibility that classified information has ended up stored on an insecure email server somewhere. Are you sure that the FBI's investigation is being done for the reason you think it is?
The facts, as I know them, are that the FBI doesn't waste its time running down rabbit holes. If they are investigating her emails this long and thoroughly, then there is at least the appearance of wrongdoing. We'll see if any of it comes to fruition.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe FBI's mandate is to investigate domestic crime. As we well know it goes astray at times.
They may not be investigating her in order to prosecute, but rather to see if there is any possibility that classified information has ended up stored on an insecure email server somewhere. Are you sure that the FBI's investigation is being done for the reason you think it is?
The post that was quoted here has been removedIn your headlong pursuit to insult me Duchess, you forget the fact that Hillary can be dishonest, and still be not guilty of breaking the law in this case. All politicians lie, and Hillary is no exception, but that does not make her guilty of breaking the law regarding this email situation.
Originally posted by normbenignNorm- The facts (as you know them) are very incomplete. It would be unwise to declare someone guilty without knowing all the facts, as well as the details of the law.
The facts, as I know them, are that the FBI doesn't waste its time running down rabbit holes. If they are investigating her emails this long and thoroughly, then there is at least the appearance of wrongdoing. We'll see if any of it comes to fruition.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtLook up Larry Hastings. He is an ex-Clinton insider. He says they are just going to knock Hillary out of the race with this. There will be no conviction but there will be indictment. Hillary has the power to destroy Washington DC as we know it and will never be held accountable. Joe Biden a sleeper candidate will be the one to watch. If he gets in, Obama will be appointed to the supreme court. Hillary has asked Obama to call the dogs off. I don't know if Larry made his remarks before Sanders was called into the white house to meet with Obama and Joe Biden may not be the key here, but interesting stuff.
They may not be investigating her in order to prosecute, but rather to see if there is any possibility that classified information has ended up stored on an insecure email server somewhere. Are you sure that the FBI's investigation is being done for the reason you think it is?