• 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

Josie said:
It is protected -- hers wasn't. At all.
Click to expand...

That's not true.

"In fact, the State Department has been the target of several successful hacker attacks over the past decade. The most recent one in November of 2014 forced the agency to temporarily shut down its email system as a response to concerns that unclassified communications had been breached by Russian hackers."

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/
 
Re: clinton walks

Absentglare said:
That's not true.

"In fact, the State Department has been the target of several successful hacker attacks over the past decade. The most recent one in November of 2014 forced the agency to temporarily shut down its email system as a response to concerns that unclassified communications had been breached by Russian hackers."

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it --- if that happened to Clinton's server, no one would've protected it by shutting it down because they wouldn't have known.
 
Re: clinton walks

Tanngrisnir said:
Maybe in Crazy Fun Happy Upside Down Land, but not in reality.
Click to expand...

Well, I would agree the State Department under Clinton certainly had an element of Crazy Fun Happy Upside Down Land to it, but the State Department just announced they are reinstating their investigation of the matter, now that the FBI investigation is over.

Perhaps they are trying to shake off that period of time, and regain some credibility. It would certainly be interesting if they pulled the security clearance of Hillary Clinton.

APNewsBreak: State Department reopens Clinton emails probe
 
Re: clinton walks

Absentglare said:
All we know is that she was mistaken. She might have believed what she said.
Click to expand...

She wasn't mistaken. She's not stupid.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

ObamacareFail said:
Yep....remember the libruls having a cow for eight years over Cheney's past connections to Halliburton? And he had divested himself from Halliburton as soon as he became the VP candidate.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Hill and Bill will uphold the same level of morals and ethics and do the same with the Clinton Foundation.
I doubt it.
 
Re: clinton walks

Josie said:
You don't seem to get it --- if that happened to Clinton's server, no one would've protected it by shutting it down because they wouldn't have known.
Click to expand...
You're the one that doesn't get it. Clinton's tech advisor was monitoring her server and shut it down when someone tried to hack it....


On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”
Click to expand...

Do you get it now, Josie?
 
Re: clinton walks

imyoda said:
If you listen carefully to what Clinton is accused of lying about were carefully parsed words which, in a court of law or a critical mind would/could not be called a lie............it is for sure cleverly dishonest but it is no crime to make well-crafted less than truthful statement to reporters or the public............

However to lie to a federal agent is a crime......to lie under oath is a crime...........

But Comey said there was no evidence of that.............

Maybe not in court.......but she is sure to pay a heavy price in the court of public opinion for the rest of her life
Click to expand...

How about the lie about turning over all work related emails.

The FBI found many more work related emails on her server she tried to destroy.

How are you going to spin that one?
 
Re: clinton walks

apdst said:
Comey said she broke the law.

She also lied to Congress.
Click to expand...


BUTT! The question is can Hillary’s lies top Trumps YUGE lies.:thumbs:
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

justabubba said:
from my take on Comey's testimony, her technological ignorance is exactly what kept her from being indicted

her carelessness was not by design but by defect
Click to expand...

Her attorney's destroyed evidence. She hired them and should be held responsible for what they did.

Comey said he didn't think Hillary knew what they did.

Had that been anybody else, they would have gotten the person on that alone.
 
Re: clinton walks

Absentglare said:
That scenario would occur whether she used a personal server or not. The unclassified @state.gov network is also easily hacked.
Click to expand...

Really, you are going to go with that?

An unprotected server in a basement is just as vulnerable as a government system that has dedicated IT personal to protect it?

Are you going to stick to this idea of yours?
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Mason66 said:
Her attorney's destroyed evidence. She hired them and should be held responsible for what they did.

Comey said he didn't think Hillary knew what they did.

Had that been anybody else, they would have gotten the person on that alone.
Click to expand...

Plus, those attorneys who she hired to sort through her emails did not have security clearances for the classified stuff on her server.

Anyway you look at it, she was responsible for the whole shebang.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Paperview said:
He didn't what?
Click to expand...

He didn't understand SIPR and NIPR and the security levels inherent in each system. If he said that his classified email system was compromised then he doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
Re: clinton walks

Mycroft said:
Some of it is in this article: Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses - POLITICO
Click to expand...

Politico needs to update thier story more.
On the "marked" documents: There were only THREE documents *marked* classified, (C) - lowest level
and even those were not properly marked,
Important testimony:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

[11:55:00] CARTWRIGHT: All right. I thank you for your testimony, Director. I yield back.
==============
On the multiple devices.. Yes, she had multiple devices. (phones) -- But she used them one at a time. People get new phones.

===============
On knowing whether her lawyers "read every one of her emails." You can't say it's a lie if her lawyers told her that had or if she believed they had. They looked for headers and keywords.
===============
On the work related emails not returned. Pretty sure he said it wasn't intentional.
 
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...

Comey isn't tasked with making that decision, the Federal prosecutor are.

But no, Comey disagrees with Comey in the very same speech:

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."


"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."


"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

So he stated clearly and honestly that the law covers mishandling either intentionally or gross negligence, he then spells out the gross negligence in great detail, and resfuses to recommend prosecution because he couldn't prove ... intent?

His rationale is utterly broken.

And from the hearings today we learn that Hillary Clinton's interview this weekend wasn't even conducted under oath, or recorded or documented in any way.

This is a fix from start to finish and Comey's utter bugling of a justification speech that contradicts his own conclusions makes it worse.

Legal definition of "Gross Negligence":

Gross Negligence
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention

So "extreme inattention" is gross negligence, and Comey found Clinton and her staff to be "extremely careless". That is enough to recommend indictment regardless of finding of intent.
 
Last edited:
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

jmotivator said:
He didn't understand SIPR and NIPR and the security levels inherent in each system. If he said that his classified email system was compromised then he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Click to expand...


Pay attention.

We are talking about two different systems. He had a SCIF for classified not only at the office, but at his house (just like Condi, just like Clinton).

The fact you think the SOS's don't understand the SCIF system is crazy.

As has been said repeatedly, sometimes classified information makes it onto non-classified .gov accounts, inadvertently or through upgrading later at FOIA requests. & State Dept .gov accounts were hacked. (as well as ****ton of other .gov accounts.

Remember how this started:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jmotivator
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.



"Originally Posted by Paperview

Colin Powell has some words for you. (ETA: It would not have mattered if Powell used a .gov account or his AOL, he still had classified on his non-classified email account.)



quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jmotivator
Collin Powell likely has no clue how the nuts and bolts of SIPR and NIPR function. I do.


Me: 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:

justabubba said:
please let gowdy show his ass again

please
Click to expand...

You got what you wanted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChgcYHISvTM

And it was epic! He absolutely showed that intent could be inferred from her continuing actions to circumvent FOIA and her disception. Why lie if you believed you followed the law? The case for intent can and should be made.
 
Re: clinton walks

Paperview said:
Politico needs to update thier story more.
On the "marked" documents: There were only THREE documents *marked* classified, (C) - lowest level
and even those were not properly marked,
Important testimony:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

[11:55:00] CARTWRIGHT: All right. I thank you for your testimony, Director. I yield back.
==============
On the multiple devices.. Yes, she had multiple devices. (phones) -- But she used them one at a time. People get new phones.

===============
On knowing whether her lawyers "read every one of her emails." You can't say it's a lie if her lawyers told her that had or if she believed they had. They looked for headers and keywords.
===============
On the work related emails not returned. Pretty sure he said it wasn't intentional.
Click to expand...


hillary-e-mail2.webp

Hilary instructed stripping of classification headers and sending the email non-secure.

The reason she instructed her staff to do this is because Government email servers have a heuristic scan that runs on all outgoing mail looking for those classification headers and flagging them for no-send, and alerting the Security staff of a potential breech attempt. Had they left the header on then the State Dept. Security staff would have paid a visit to whoever sent the email... and to the recipient.

This email alone puts an end to any argument that Hillary didn't understand the classification headers. She understood it well enough to know how to circumvent the heuristic scans.

And even if the excuse is that she was too stupid to know her job then she is too dumb to be President.
 
Re: clinton walks

Paperview said:
~snipped the irrelevant crap~
Click to expand...

Why did you bother asking for information if you were just going to ignore it and respond to me with something else?

Nah...don't bother answering that rhetorical question. I don't want to hear any more of your irrelevant BS.
 
Re: clinton walks

apdst said:
Comey said she broke the law.

She also lied to Congress.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Same dishonest bull**** as yesterday, eh?

Sorry, you'll have to live in Crazy Fun Happy Upside Down Land all by yourself. Not interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom