Hillary and the classified emails

[HuskerShark]

Excellent post

[knapplc]

It's wrong, though.

 

I don't quite get why one gets more attention than the other either but they also are not even remotely the same thing. One is just plain criminal low-down behavior but the other involves national security issues. I would hope we expect and demand near perfection in that area when it comes to our SoS and transmission of possibly highly confidential information.

What classified information did she email from the private email account?

 

The correct answer, of course, is "none". In May of 2015 the State Department began releasing several thousand pages of Clinton's emails, many of them partly redacted. The releases continued until the last of the roughly 30,000 messages were made public in February of 2016. In other words, all the email (with the exception of 22 emails that contained “top secret” material - and that were classified as such AFTER they had been sent) from the server have been turned over.

Actually, intent is almost ALWAYS a required element of any crime. You get some cases, like manslaughter, where the concept can be murky, but only on the surface. In manslaughter, for example, you may not have intended to kill the person - but you intended to strike him. It's difficult, actually, to name more than a handful of crimes where intent is not a necessary element.

And the investigation isn't finding intent:

Clinton email evidence so far doesn't suggest intent to break law, officials say

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

 

[cm husker]

How can anyone possibly consider voting for her?

 

Simple. The alternative is unacceptably worse.

[Danny Bateman]

F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email

 

Poor judgment, yada yada. This will continue to be a political football right up 'til the election. Some pretty strong statements against her and the State Department from Comey in there. But this is exactly the result they wanted.

Stay tuned for the impending Trump conspiracy theories.

[BigRedBuster]

[knapplc]

Looks like the FBI's investigation is winding down. No prosecution.


FBI Director doesn't recommend charges against Hillary Clinton

Comey said of the 30,000 emails that Clinton's team turned over to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to have contained classified information "at the time they were sent or received," Comey said. Eight of those chains contained information considered "top secret," the highest level of classification.

That's in addition to 2,000 emails that were "upclassified," or determined to have classified information only in hindsight.

Comey also said the FBI found "thousands" of emails that were work-related but deleted and not given to the State Department, either by regular purging by Clinton or officials during her tenure or mistaken deletion by her lawyers removing personal emails before turning over work-related emails to the State Department.

Three of those were classified at the time, he said.

However, Comey said there was not evidence of any kind of coverup in regards to those emails.

"We believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence that there was no intentional misconduct in relation to that sorting effort," Comey said.

 

 

 

Seems pretty clear that she sent classified emails.

[BigRedBuster]

People who are clamoring for her to be prosecuted and sent to prison are going to be (rightfully) very disappointed. No matter what people think, she isn't going to prison.

 

However, people on the other side who think this is no big deal and it's just something blown out of proportion are in la la land also.

 

This is a case of extremely poor judgement. And....for me looking to hire someone at the highest level of our government, I would prefer someone who doesn't have a history of extremely poor judgement.

[knapplc]

It would be "poor judgment" if she didn't know better. I'm certain she knew exactly what she was doing the whole time.

[huskerfan2000]

everyone should be disappointed by her lack of not being prosecuted!

[TGHusker]

So Knapp what would you call it? This is corruption at the highest level. Knowingly doing it speaks of her being 'above the law' and her entitlement. Sounds Nixon like - what would she be like as President?? We can guess based on her past actions. I'm scared to find out How do the repubs nominate someone like Trump when the Dems went all in for this bag of corruption & gleefully look the other way. It only shows how far the both parties have fallen.

[huKSer]

If Clinton wins, the day after the election the Republicans in Congress will set up a special prosecutor to shadow Clinton's every move for four years, with an option to extend for another four years.

 

Sounds sleazy, but in this case I think it might be wise. She is a reincarnation of Nixon.

 

Trump is no better choice for different reasons.

 

Conspiracy theory is that Bill left a "deposit" of some kind with the FBI director.

[TGHusker]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

 

A good review.

 

2 quotes:

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

[huskerfan2000]

How can anyone possibly consider voting for her?

 

Simple. The alternative is unacceptably worse.

 

In reality, you have no idea if he would be worse, that is all strictly opinion. We do know what Clinton is all about and that is very scary! Much worse than Trump.

 

I actually think Trump is nothing but a plant to push voters to her. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to behave like he is while running for President. Ok, that is more tongue-in-cheek, but it wouldn't surprise it in the least.. that is the kind of people the Clinton's are.

 

No, the reason people will vote for her is because they are democrats that bleeds dem policies, regardless of who they put into office.

[knapplc]

[BigRedBuster]