The Clinton Thread II

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Hey Matt, I'm trying to understand this stuff better. What is the difference between this Navy reservist, Bryan Nishimura (who was sentenced), and Clinton? The situations seem kind of similar.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

Well, right off the bat without reading it I can tell you that enlisted people are different than the politicans who have them go fight and die in their wars so there's that.

 

[chaseter]

Service men and women are treated like dirt here while politicians are treated like rock stars. That's a key difference. Should be you have to serve to be able to run for President. A person that can send people to their death should have had first hand experience dealing with what they are sending others into.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Service men and women are treated like dirt here while politicians are treated like rock stars. That's a key difference. Should be you have to serve to be able to run for President. A person that can send people to their death should have had first hand experience dealing with what they are sending others into.

I agree, military members are also held accountable under the UCMJ which is much more strict than most federal and state laws. We should have some type of binding document that politicians are held accountable under as well. Rule #1 of that being no lying.

 

[Matt]

Hey Matt, I'm trying to understand this stuff better. What is the difference between this Navy reservist, Bryan Nishimura (who was sentenced), and Clinton? The situations seem kind of similar.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

Hard to say. I don't know that case and the article doesn't give much by way of details. What was he charged with? What court was he charged in (civilian or military)? Need to know this before I can comment.

I agree, military members are also held accountable under the UCMJ which is much more strict than most federal and state laws. We should have some type of binding document that politicians are held accountable under as well. Rule #1 of that being no lying.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. Sometimes the government needs to lie. National security matter and what not. And none of that speaks to "what is a lie"? Did Bill Clinton lie when he said he did not have relations with Monica? Well, as far as we know, he only had oral sex, which is not relations, so he did not lie. But he also did the functional equivalent. Policing any kind of speech, especially for honesty, is so damn difficult.

 

[GreenKToo]

Guilty in the eyes of the law or not, it WAS extremely stupid for her to do, inept, with an i'm above the law attitude. We ''little people'' would be in jail for far less and everyone knows it.
If people honestly don't care about that then there isn't much hope for us.

It makes no difference to me if you like Clinton or Trump, wrong is wrong.

 

[TheVileOne]

That "interesting read" misconstrues gross negligence. It is a political puff piece designed to paint Clinton in a damning light. McCarthy should know better. Gross negligence is a term of art. It is something that is shocking to the conscience. Having emails forwarded to a private server is not shocking to the conscience. Gross negligence would be, as I said in my other post, Clinton doing lines of blow with Putin and then telling Putin state secrets. Gross negligence is something that no reasonable person, under any circumstance, would do unless they just have a complete disregard for life, safety, etc.

Can you say for 100 percent certainty she completely acted without any gross negligence?

 

[Charlatan]

Wow Hill just went right to the heart of evil and stabbed it.
The gloves are off Donny.

[YT]RjwOjgusZEs[/YT]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Can you say for 100 percent certainty she completely acted without any gross negligence?

Doesn't matter what Matt thinks, or you or I for that matter, it's what the prosecutors could prove. They had nothing to prove gross negligence. Not sure what's hard to understand there. The whole, "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing and all that.

 

[Schlosser85]

Can you say for 100 percent certainty she completely acted without any gross negligence?

The burden of proof is on the investigators.

 

[craigdbfan]

She's crooked as hell folks. It's clear as day.

 

[Sawyer]

https://***********/EricBoehlert/status/750726021758873601?lang=en

Eric Boehlert
‏@EricBoehlert
a buddy on FB addresses Clinton Derangement Syndrome

 

[Kelly]

Hmmmm....I'm not really into..."hey they did it too" kind of arguments. They are very weak in my opinion.

She screwed up....ROYALLY....no other way to look at it, it was stupid, and it will be costly. How costly? we won't know immediately.

 

[Bruce Banner]

While I don't agree with some of the stuff James Comey has done, His word is easier to swallow than Hillary. She can't seem to tell the truth considering what he revealed.

Twenty Years ago FBI Director Comey investigated and said her and Bill and concluded they had "a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct". He said they had a pattern of concealment.

The guy didn't play party politics when he testified against Bush/Cheney's staff in 2007. Obama nominated him for being the director bc of his integrity.

Considering what he said yesterday, which shows Hillary lied and seem to be incompetent (as well as the state department for the matter).

Considering Comey's previous history against the Clintons. If he had an axe to grind or was as interested in a witch hunt like the rest of the GOP. I think he would have given the recommendation for indictment. Sadly, no matter what yesterday the FBI's credibility took a hit from this. GOP is already dragging him in tomorrow to question his choices.

Edit: link with those quotes.
http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hmmmm....I'm not really into..."hey they did it too" kind of arguments. They are very weak in my opinion.

She screwed up....ROYALLY....no other way to look at it, it was stupid, and it will be costly. How costly? we won't know immediately.

Isn't the point that it isn't the same thing?

 

[Matt]

Can you say for 100 percent certainty she completely acted without any gross negligence?

Firstly, you are asking the question wrong. Its not a question a question of "can you say she acted without?" Its a question of can the state prove she acted WITH? Beyond that, its not a FACTUAL question. It is a LEGAL question. And resultantly, the DOJ cannot even make a prima facie case for one very simple reason that you will see if you scroll down.

Hmmmm....I'm not really into..."hey they did it too" kind of arguments. They are very weak in my opinion.

She screwed up....ROYALLY....no other way to look at it, it was stupid, and it will be costly. How costly? we won't know immediately.

Normally I would agree. But here, it matters in a HUGE way.

When examining gross negligence you use a reasonably prudent person standard. Now the reasonably prudent person you look at it is not the layperson. It is a reasonably prudent person WITHIN THE COMMUNITY of the person you are examining.

In Clinton's case, there would be three people to look at: Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice. These are the only three SecStates that preceded Hillary Clinton in the digital era (when such a transmission would be possible). All three have done the same exact thing as Clinton. As such, she acted in a manner that is normal within her community. By LEGAL DEFINITION professional gross negligence CANNOT exist (absolutely, 100 % CANNOT) if someone is following the standard procedure or norm within their professional community. This is because gross negligence is defined as beyond the norm, so much so that it shocks the conscience. You simply cannot, under any circumstance, support a charge in which gross negligence is an element if someone is following their professional norm.

As a result, there is no way a jury of her peers could LEGALLY reach a conclusion of guilt (as to convict you must meet all elements of an offense) much less find factual gross negligence. Therefore, it would not even be a jury question. There is no legally sufficient charge upon which to bring Hillary Clinton, precisely because her predecessors behaved in the same way.

Being as a prima facie case cannot exist...it would be unethical for any prosecutor to bring the charge. Hell, ironically enough, it would probably be illegal. A prosecutor shall not bring charges without a good faith belief that a prima facie case can be made. Legally it cannot. Therefore, doing so would be illegal.

 

[craigdbfan]

https://***********/EricBoehlert/status/750726021758873601?lang=en

Yeah and that proves what I've been saying for a while and that's the fact that the US has been under the rule of sick and corrupt globalist for well over 70 years.

Hillary is dirty just like those old dead fools.

 

[Slushy]

Insiders are saying Comey was threatened by the powers that be so Clinton would get off.

 

[samsnee]

Legitimate question: why are Republicans so eager and quick to hold hearings after hearings on things that are just fishing expeditions like Benghazi, Planned Parenthood, and now Clinton's emails but can't be bother to address gun violence? It looks less and less like a pursuit of justice and more of what is really is: a political witch hunt. Don't get me wrong, Clinton effed up royally. But if you honestly think she is the first government official who improperly used email, then you are very naive.

 

[Matt]

Insiders are saying Comey was threatened by the powers that be so Clinton would get off.

There. Is. No. Prima. Facie. Case. Bringing. Charges. Would. Be. At. Best. Unethical. At. Worst. Illegal. To. Charge. Someone. As. A. Criminal. There. Must. Be. A. Statute. Prohibiting. Their. Behavior. And. There. Must. Be. A. Prima. Facie. Case. Of. All. Elements. As. A. Matter. Of. Law. That. Was. Not. The. Case. Here. There. Was. No. Conspiracy. The. Case. Was. Legally. Insufficient. As. Clinton's. Behavior. Did. Not. Violate. Any. Statute.



I don't think I can be more clear than that.

 

[samsnee]

Insiders are saying Comey was threatened by the powers that be so Clinton would get off.

Source? Anyone can be an insider. And if it's a Republican, they clearly have a reason to want to spread false rumors. I just don't buy that the same people who threatened Comey to not indict would still be ok with him saying she was careless and reckless and giving Republicans fodder.

 

[samsnee]

Firstly, you are asking the question wrong. Its not a question a question of "can you say she acted without?" Its a question of can the state prove she acted WITH? Beyond that, its not a FACTUAL question. It is a LEGAL question. And resultantly, the DOJ cannot even make a prima facie case for one very simple reason that you will see if you scroll down.



Normally I would agree. But here, it matters in a HUGE way.

When examining gross negligence you use a reasonably prudent person standard. Now the reasonably prudent person you look at it is not the layperson. It is a reasonably prudent person WITHIN THE COMMUNITY of the person you are examining.

In Clinton's case, there would be three people to look at: Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice. These are the only three SecStates that preceded Hillary Clinton in the digital era (when such a transmission would be possible). All three have done the same exact thing as Clinton. As such, she acted in a manner that is normal within her community. By LEGAL DEFINITION professional gross negligence CANNOT exist (absolutely, 100 % CANNOT) if someone is following the standard procedure or norm within their professional community. This is because gross negligence is defined as beyond the norm, so much so that it shocks the conscience. You simply cannot, under any circumstance, support a charge in which gross negligence is an element if someone is following their professional norm.

As a result, there is no way a jury of her peers could LEGALLY reach a conclusion of guilt (as to convict you must meet all elements of an offense) much less find factual gross negligence. Therefore, it would not even be a jury question. There is no legally sufficient charge upon which to bring Hillary Clinton, precisely because her predecessors behaved in the same way.

Being as a prima facie case cannot exist...it would be unethical for any prosecutor to bring the charge. Hell, ironically enough, it would probably be illegal. A prosecutor shall not bring charges without a good faith belief that a prima facie case can be made. Legally it cannot. Therefore, doing so would be illegal.

Thanks Matt. Very enlightening. I would love it if Comey just stated this as clearly when he goes to Capitol Hill. If people are upset she broke the law, then they need to have a better understanding of what the law means here. It's not an ethical question, but a legal one. Just because you want something badly doesn't mean it's unfair it didn't go as you wanted it.

 

[Matt]

Thanks Matt. Very enlightening. I would love it if Comey just stated this as clearly when he goes to Capitol Hill. If people are upset she broke the law, then they need to have a better understanding of what the law means here. It's not an ethical question, but a legal one. Just because you want something badly doesn't mean it's unfair it didn't go as you wanted it.

Republicans are doing the same exact thing that they did with Benghazi. They are overplaying their hand. It would be so easy to attack Clinton for being careless, dismissive of protocol, arrogant, irresponsible, unethical, etc. Yet they are intent upon firing the one bullet that they don't have. Its foolish. Doing this nullifies the American people to the controversy (just as the nonstop witch hunt nullified Benghazi). The Republican Party is truly a mess.

 

[craigdbfan]

Maybe the universe is really just the imagination of an autistic boy looking into a snow globe. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody here knows.

It could be the case.

Now on to the real meat and mark my words that some super geniuses out there will be able to leak those "deleted' e-mails the FBI wasn't "able" to get back.

Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say

When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

Mr. Comey described, in fairly blistering terms, a set of email practices that left Mrs. Clinton’s systems wide open to Russian and Chinese hackers, and an array of others. She had no full-time cybersecurity professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”


In the end, the risks created by Mrs. Clinton’s insistence on keeping her communications on a private server may prove to be a larger issue than the relatively small amount of classified information investigators said they found on her system. But the central mystery — who got into the system, if anyone — may never be resolved.


New York Times

Some of this stuff was labeled literally TOP SECRET. That's the highest form of security labeling and nothing happens to her? Please. I don't care what bs modern legal law says but I sure as hell know what moral and Socratic ethics law says and that is to throw this woman in jail.

 

[Matt]

So just not gonna answer my question, are you?

 

[SV Fan]

Isn't the point that it isn't the same thing?

Well technically of all the things listed I think Bush Sr raising taxes is not in the same category. Nixon getting pardon after being impeached isn't to terrible either(he basically got to live the rest of his life as a big disgrace so that was punishment enough).

I should probably add I thought that the Iran Contra thing was overblown, I understand why it was considered wrong but if Reagan wanted to arm Iran more power to him finding a way to do it

In terms of Clinton email, what I don't get is do people honestly believe her emails would have been anymore safe on a government server? I would love for one person to tell me exactly how her using her own email server effected them personally, because I know it has 0 effect on my life