• 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!

FBI Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal [W:234, 1861]

Re: clinton walks

She's toast, boys, just another sack of bones ready to be pitched into the Dumpster. Except for a couple dozen really peculiar people who don't have any place else to make friends but here, the rest of the world is headed toward Trump. Nobody, not even the most rabid, but sane, democrat, wants a piece of smelly garbage that would sell her country down the river. Nobody even wants to hear her voice. She's just another shrill, sick street walker who probably has some fairly regularly encountered social disease.

But, golly gee whiz, that's just my opinion, and what do I know?
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Boo Radley said:
No, not pure. But not Satan either. She didn't meet the high standard that had to reached to be charged. That's all.
Click to expand...

Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material

On the same day that Comey made that claim the DOJ completed the sentencing phase of a case brought against a navy engineer for negligence in protecting classified information.

Comey's whole excuse for not suggesting DOJ action was being proven false as he said it.

But to make matters even worse, the first part of his speech invalidated his rationale in the second part of the speech.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jimbo said:
I think there's an out on that. What Billy can't handle, Chelsea can. She can argue that she is not involved in the politics.

Scary, I know.

Vote Trump.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's likely, but really, I think a blind trust to shed a bright light on it would be better.

If Bill is first man, then I don't think he'll be able to continue with the Clinton Foundation as he has, he'll be in the White House again.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jmotivator said:
Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material

On the same day that Comey made that claim the DOJ completed the sentencing phase of a case brought against a navy engineer for negligence in protecting classified information.

Comey's whole excuse for not suggesting DOJ action was being proven false as he said it.

But to make matters even worse, the first part of his speech invalidated his rationale in the second part of the speech.
Click to expand...

You're really, really late to the party.

This has been discussed ad nauseum, and it not the same.

Ask ajn678 who got his ass handed to him.


lol
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Paperview said:
You are not paying attention.

I said she would have used the .gov in lieu of her own server had she not decided to do so -- and the same thing would have happened.

The email content in and out would not have changed - just the email address.


Do you get in now?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of secured government email servers. Using her .gov account would have ensured that the classified data remained off of public networks and away from potential external hackers.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Paperview said:
You're really, really late to the party.

This has been discussed ad nauseum, and it not the same.

Ask ajn678 who got his ass handed to him.


lol
Click to expand...

I generally have you on ignore for a reason, so excuse me if I don't take your accounts of any such exchange as rational or objective.

I mean, you don't even seem to understand the difference between a home brew and a .gov mail server, sooooo....
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Paperview said:
Excepting for the part about State.gov servers known to be hacked by the Russians and Chinese.

That was my point.

I agree she was wrong to use her private server. That's not in question.
Click to expand...

OK. What I get when I pop into the middle of a conversation.
(But I still stand on my statement from a technical stand point).

Cheers!
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Beaudreaux said:
WRONG.

You do not have to have intent to be grossly negligent. You need to look up the legal definitions. The difference is HARM, not intent. Extreme carelessness is the failure to perform a duty upon which is required of the actor, and it becomes gross negligence when that extremely careless act (the failure to perform the duty) causes HARM or there is a causal relationship between the failure to act on the duty and the harm. That's the difference.

Hillary Clinton, by the actions she took as described by the Director of the FBI, caused HARM. Therefore, what she did meets the definition of Gross Negligence.
Click to expand...

no, i will continue to insist that the difference between the two terms is "intent"

Carelessness refers to the lack of awareness during a behavior that results in the unintentional production of alternate consequences. The consequences of carelessness are often undesirable and tend to be mistakes
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]wiki

carelessness/extreme carelessness is not found to be intentional
gross negligence is an intentional disregard
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Anthony60 said:
Well, Hillary said she NEVER sent any classified emails. Comey said they found classified emails sent by her. So, you either believe she's lying, or he is. Which one do you believe?
Click to expand...

did Comey say hillary transmitted emails with the classification identifier affixed?
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

TurtleDude said:
Ah poor Hillary fans-you are now pretending she didn't know the stuff was classified

LOL
Click to expand...

hillary has insisted she did not transmit emails with a classification identifier affixed
like the FBI, i accept her presentation until the FBI shows us otherwise
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

justabubba said:
did Comey say hillary transmitted emails with the classification identifier affixed?
Click to expand...

Let's stop the BS and cut to the chase she lied, many times, over and over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jimbo said:
Why don't you look them up? Comey stated the FBI found 110 emails that were classified at the time of sending or receiving said emails among those examined. This after Hillary has stated no, zero, nada, classified emails were ever sent over the non secure server. I believe the statements have been linked in this thread.
Click to expand...

missed that revelation. will continue to look for ... assuming such Comey statement exists
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jmotivator said:
I'm not sure you understand the purpose of secured government email servers. Using her .gov account would have ensured that the classified data remained off of public networks and away from potential external hackers.
Click to expand...

Colin Powell has some words for you.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Paperview said:
Excepting for the part about State.gov servers known to be hacked by the Russians and Chinese.

That was my point.

I agree she was wrong to use her private server. That's not in question.
Click to expand...

You really really really don't understand what you are talking about.

Standard, non classified State.Gov email servers sit on the government NIPRnet which has access to the internet and makes it a target for hackers. That is why you are not supposed to, under federal law, put any classified data much less transmit any such data on a NIPRnet .gov account.

There is another network called SIPRnet, that is the secured government network, and is used for transmitting classified communication between cleared individuals. SIPR does not route to the internet as is therefor closed off from external hackers who have no way of accessing it. SIPR hacks would have to be internal, like Snowden.

So no, Russian and Chinese hackers have not compromised the classified .gov mail servers.

The only way Russians and Chinese get data meant for SIPR is when they have someone on the inside or when dumbasses put in on servers in their basement.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Paperview said:
Colin Powell has some words for you.
Click to expand...

Collin Powell likely has no clue how the nuts and bolts of SIPR and NIPR function. I do.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jmotivator said:
They were illegal. You are legally bound to not store classified material off of a secured government server. We in the field are required to take training on this annually.

Comey's own argument made that point and then his decision, poorly justified, ran against the law.
Click to expand...

no. having a private server is not illegal
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jmotivator said:
YOu really really really don't understand what you are talking about.

Standard, non classified State.Gov email servers sit on the government NIPRnet which has access to the internet and makes it a target for hacker, you are not supposed to, under federal law, put any classified data much less transmit any such data on a NIPRnet .gov account.

Tnere is another network called SIPRnet, that is the secured government network, and is used for transmitting classified communication between cleared individuals. SIPR does not route to the internet as is therefor closed off from external hackers who have no way of accessing it. SIPR hacks would have to be internal, like Snowden.

So no, Russian and Chinese hackers have not compromised the classified .gov mail servers.

The only way Russians and Chinese get data meant for SIPR is when they have someone on the inside or when dumbasses put in on servers in their basement.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I understand it.

Quite well.

No one said the hackers compromised the classified network.

You're oblivious to the fact that sometimes, inadvertent and occasionally sensitive material makes it on unclassified .gov accounts. In most all corners of govt that deals with this stuff.

Derp.

Just emailing a publicly available NYT article about the drone program in a gov account is considered by some in the IC as Top Secret.

The whole world knows about it -- but it's classified in any .gov email accounts.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jmotivator said:
Collin Powell likely has no clue how the nuts and bolts of SIPR and NIPR function. I do.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

He did.

But sadz for you, in his unsecure AOL account he used for all his official business exclusively (off the secured system), some classified emails slipped through.

That was just in an FBI cursory check.

We'll never know how much was there --- cause he *poofed* the entirely of his SOS emails, and no one seems to care much about his transgressions.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Moot said:
That is a good find.




Chaffetz is the one that started this entire political witchhunt. In his zeal to nail Hillary....he put up a map showing the "TOP SECRET, HIGHLY CLASSIFIED" location of the CIA compound in Benghazi on Cspan.

After Chaffetz exposed CIA involvement and put all the CIA operatives lives in danger....the US had to end it's mission and pull everyone out of Benghazi. Which means Amb. Chris Stevens died for nothing.

So why that fool isn't being charged with treason for outing an entire CIA operation is beyond me.
Click to expand...
my speculation:
like hillary, he gets a free pass due to the absence of intent
extreme carelessness rather than an instance of gross negligence

but is he entitled to retain his security clearance. based on Comey's comments, i think not
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

apdst said:
They were illegal when Clinton transmitted and stored top secret material on them.
Click to expand...

share your cite that tells us use/ownership/possession of private servers is illegal
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

ajn678 said:
Intent is not what is required to bring indictment.
Click to expand...

Comey disagrees with you
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

justabubba said:
Comey disagrees with you
Click to expand...

You obviously are clueless when it comes to the law. Comey in fact said that possible violations occurred, meaning it is possible she broke the law. But stated no prior indictment has happened due to careless behavior. If he thought she didn't break the law, he would have stated that no violations occurred.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

BWG said:
Without even thinking about it...


Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid/Healthcare
Voting rights
Fixing America’s infrastructure
Supreme court Justices
Click to expand...

let's get back to this prediction in four years
i believe you are being MUCH too optimistic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom