05 Feb 16
Originally posted by bill718You will notice that I have nowhere accused Hillary Clinton of this crime. She has a host of other criminal accusations behind her unanswered, but what riles me is that she was so brazen in doing this, whether intentional or not. The government provides a computer for the SoS to send and receive emails. For what reason did she think she had to do things differently?
Norm- 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.
That we tend to defend politicians of the party we favor, is why our whole government is so irredeemably corrupt. They know they can virtually get away with anything, because the split is so even that evidence would have to place a bloody knife in her hand before her side would turn against her.
06 Feb 16
The post that was quoted here has been removedDuchess - If you'd bothered to read my first post, you would have discovered that the US Justice dept. made this determination....not me. Last I checked the US Justice dept. is a "proper authority" I know I'm always going to be a villain to you, but I was not the deciding factor here.
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-/
06 Feb 16
Originally posted by bill718To be honest, looking at this from outside, its surreal. She deleted about half her 61,000 emails, the rest to be kept as records, and may have used an insecure machine to read some of them - I still can't tell if this is a real accusation or not.
Duchess - If you'd bothered to read my first post, you would have discovered that the US Justice dept. made this determination....not me. Last I checked the US Justice dept. is a "proper authority" I know I'm always going to be a villain to you, but I was not the deciding factor here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/us/justice-dept-says-hillary-clinton ...[text shortened]... p://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/
The last time there was a misbehaviour scandal in the UK it was over Members of Parliament claiming expenses that they were not due. This is fraud, an actual criminal offence. Whereas Clinton doesn't appear to be accused of anything very much. It looks more like an attempt to connect her name with the words "broke the law" than anything else.
Further most of the accusations seem to be coming from the Republican right. Now if Clinton is knocked out by this then Sanders will definitely be the Democratic Presidential candidate. His program will be to the left of Clinton's. So, in doing this they are making a Sanders Presidency more likely. I cannot believe the Republicans think that a Sanders presidency is preferable to a Clinton one. The expression that comes to mind is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
06 Feb 16
2 edits
Originally posted by bill718Bill, the law is the law, when it comes to top secret and confidential information you can't just say "Ooops, silly me I'm just a doddery old granny not familiar with new fangled devices."
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-/
If her bodgey home server was hacked, the feds need to know what info she had stashed there, so they know what the other guy knows, but hello, it got deleted? Don't forget that the info deleted belonged to the government and that there are penalties for destroying government property, on top of being a bit 'lacking in judgment' (To which I repeat; Is no excuse when it come to mishandling, and exposing to risk, this information)
06 Feb 16
2 edits
Originally posted by bill718Double
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-/
06 Feb 16
Hillary Clinton should feel much better now that Bill718 has assured her that she need
have no worries about any further troubles with the law (sarcasm intended). - Duchess
Duchess - Sarcasm aside. I'm very sorry you feel the need to portray me as a villain. I was only trying to point out that the United States Justice Dept. (who has a better understanding of the law than either of us) has made this determination. It's clear you've let your emotions rule your responses. Judging from the many people here who feel the same way, I would suggest that a bit of evaluation of your responses may be in order.
06 Feb 16
Originally posted by bill718To be fair, the Justice Department's determination in September was only regarding Clinton's authority to delete certain e-mails; it did not constitute a carte blanche clearing of her of any possible charges regarding her use of a separate server to receive and store e-mails.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/us/justice-dept-says-hillary-clinton-had-authority-to-delete-certain-emails.html?_r=0
Hillary Clinton should feel much better now that Bill718 has assured her that she need
have no worries about any further troubles with the law (sarcasm intended). - Duchess
Duchess - Sarcasm aside. I'm very sorry you feel the need to portray me as a villain. I was only trying to point out that the United States Justice Dept. (who has a better understand ...[text shortened]... o feel the same way, I would suggest that a bit of evaluation of your responses may be in order.
06 Feb 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe hatred of Hillary by the Republican Right is pretty visceral and has been for a while. She's been accused of all kinds of things by them including murder. So political calculations only take you so far. In any event, many of them seem to think that Bernie will be an easy mark in a general election because he is a "socialist" and since everyone knows that electing a "socialist" President of the US would mean a Stalinist dictatorship the patriotic, God-fearing American People will reject Bernie overwhelmingly. And if they don't, well we have our rifles and handguns to defend us against a Communist Federal Government.
To be honest, looking at this from outside, its surreal. She deleted about half her 61,000 emails, the rest to be kept as records, and may have used an insecure machine to read some of them - I still can't tell if this is a real accusation or not.
The last time there was a misbehaviour scandal in the UK it was over Members of Parliament claiming expe ...[text shortened]... a Clinton one. The expression that comes to mind is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
07 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderWhoever wins the candidacy this seems to provide a powerful argument for voting Democrat, as a significant section of the Republicans are not rational.
The hatred of Hillary by the Republican Right is pretty visceral and has been for a while. She's been accused of all kinds of things by them including murder. So political calculations only take you so far. In any event, many of them seem to think that Bernie will be an easy mark in a general election because he is a "socialist" and since everyone knows ...[text shortened]... don't, well we have our rifles and handguns to defend us against a Communist Federal Government.
