• 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!

Should Hillary Clinton be Indicted For Violation of Federal Record-Keeping Law?

Should Hillary Clinton be Indicted for Violations of Federal Law?

  • YES, there are enough facts supporting and indictment.

    Votes: 37 52.9%

  • No, there is insufficient evidence to suport an indictment.

    Votes: 25 35.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Total voters
    70
Oh, looky... the debate has settled into partisan camps. Color me surprised... not!

And we wonder why our system is so screwed up.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, in this case, it intent is required. I pointed this out months ago. Gross is a highly subjective term. Since there is no evidence of any intel being lost or hacked, gross doesn't likely apply. Careless does. And as many have committed the same carelessness, at her level next to none suffering any charges, and few even getting a hand slap. So, this over the top outrage is just partisan silliness run amok.
Click to expand...

I use a simple reading of the statute. You try to minimize the actions by equivocation - who's being political here, it isn't me.
 
In other news, Hillary machine-guns down a kindergarten class, then kills 500 puppies. Asked about the incident, AG Lynch said, "Nothing to see here, folks"

:coffeepap
 
Actually...it is great to see how conservative America is handling the news.

Anything for a laugh.
 
From the hearing today on Hillary and her lying.

In some alternate universe, this might actually prove worthwhile. During their opening exchange in today’s House Oversight hearing, chair Jason Chaffetz asked FBI Director James Comey whether his investigation looked into whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath when she testified to Congress that she had neither received or transmitted classified information through her private e-mail system. Shaft seemed stunned when Comey said they hadn’t — and that they would have needed a referral from Congress to investigate it.

“You’ll get one,” Chaffetz promised:
Click to expand...

Chaffetz to Comey: Investigate Hillary for lying under oath « Hot Air
 
Frank Apisa said:
Actually...it is great to see how conservative America is handling the news.

Anything for a laugh.
Click to expand...

Its even better to see how progressive liberals and the MSM are scrambling trying to cover up for the Queen of Corruption.
 
WCH said:
Right. If she had the balls she claims to have, she would insist on a trial to prove her innocence. ;)
Click to expand...

and of course this objective and completely politically unmotivated reasonable request comes with a postponement of the November election as well so her proven innocence can be then evaluated buy the American people :doh:roll:
 
American said:
In other news, Hillary machine-guns down a kindergarten class, then kills 500 puppies. Asked about the incident, AG Lynch said, "Nothing to see here, folks"

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

ban the machine gun would be Lynch's response
 
mike2810 said:
For me the FBI proved she lied to the American people. The FBI demonstrated her action and her staff actions was very careless with sensitive documents. Not very deserving of a candidate running for President. Yet, our current President states she is more than qualified. Not telling the truth must be a qualification one must have to be President.

What a mess. Think the American people deserve s do over and throw both Trump and Hilary out for the bid for President.

At the minimum, the case should be presented to a grand jury. Let them decide the level of the crime or its not worth pursuing.

No way can I vote for Hilary. Don't like Trump. Will have to look hard at Johnson.
Click to expand...

I damn sure cannot vote for Hillary or Trump, but no way I'm going to look at hard johnsons. ;)
 
Last edited:
antiquity said:
Its even better to see how progressive liberals and the MSM are scrambling trying to cover up for the Queen of Corruption.
Click to expand...

Nah...the reaction of conservative America is MUCH, MUCH more fun.

Laughable, in fact.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?

The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:



https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Law Involved w/links:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101

3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22

NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.
Click to expand...

You left out NISP. Mishandling the flow of classified information.
 
antiquity said:
Its even better to see how progressive liberals and the MSM are scrambling trying to cover up for the Queen of Corruption.
Click to expand...

No, those are neoliberals and people who _think_ they're progressives.

True progressives despise Hillary.


radcen said:
Oh, looky... the debate has settled into partisan camps. Color me surprised... not!

And we wonder why our system is so screwed up.
Click to expand...

I dunno about that; to me it looks like Clinton supporters vs the world.
 
Last edited:
antiquity said:
Its even better to see how progressive liberals and the MSM are scrambling trying to cover up for the Queen of Corruption.
Click to expand...

Also hilarious is the illegitimate and fact-less minimization of what Hillary has done, the laws she violated, and the lies she told, all blithely accepted by the Clintonistas as 'well everyone does it'. :roll:
 
Surrealistik said:
No, those are neoliberals and people who _think_ they're progressives.

True progressives despise Hillary.
Click to expand...

Oh...does it never end?

Now you are telling us how "true progressives" feel about Hillary Clinton.

And of course, if you find a progressive who is anxious to vote for her...you have to deem that person to be NOT A TRUE PROGRESSIVE.

Does it actually never end!



images
 
Frank Apisa said:
Oh...does it never end?

Now you are telling us how "true progressives" feel about Hillary Clinton.

And of course, if you find a progressive who is anxious to vote for her...you have to deem that person to be NOT A TRUE PROGRESSIVE.

Does it actually never end!
Click to expand...

Being as Hillary is a neoliberal corporatist and not a true progressive, yes, I would readily consider those who eagerly support and cover for her not to be true progressives.

That having been said, you are clearly not a true progressive.

If you want to know what a _real_ progressive looks like, consider Bernie, and the majority of politicians who happen to be left/left of centre in north, west and southern Europe and the Commonwealth.
 
So, even on a "Loony Lefty" website, the gang goes 2 to 1 to send Shrillary to Sing Sing. Can you just imagine how all the people at the sorta normal web sites would respond?

Face it, she's a dirty, rotten, treasonous criminal...and everybody except a few of the psychotics around here, can see it.
 
haymarket said:
and of course this objective and completely politically unmotivated reasonable request comes with a postponement of the November election as well so her proven innocence can be then evaluated buy the American people :doh:roll:
Click to expand...

"buy the people"..... interesting
 
WCH said:
"buy the people"..... interesting
Click to expand...

typo .. my right arm is immobilized and post surgery drugs do the rest

but I suspect you got the point just the same ... and ignored it.
 
haymarket said:
typO .. my right arm is immobilized and post surgery drugs do the rest

nut I suspect you got the point just the same ... and ignored it.
Click to expand...


That sounds rough. I hope you get better soon.
 
TheGoverness said:
That sounds rough. I hope you get better soon.
Click to expand...

thank you. broke my right collar bone in 3 pieces

things are now on the mend and I if can quit peeing every 15 minutes to get rid of all the crap they gave me yesterday and having to drink a gallon liquid today - my life will get much better tomorrow.
 
Paperview said:
Yes. Public talking points. If the classification originated from the State Dept, she has the authority to remove classification.

You know that right?
Click to expand...

She can only declassify something she classified, not just anything originating in the State Department. You know that right?

Okay, oh oracle of Hillary's e-mail, I'll bite. Where were the e-mails she had the headers removed from originated? And note, she simply removed the headers from the e-mail hitting her server. Since the classified headers remained on the e-mails in everybody else's e-mail, was it really declassified? How would any of the other recipients know?

And then of course, we would have to accept that you think the FBI Director is lying because he stated that the secure e-mails on her server came from other agencies.
 
natsb said:
She can only declassify something she classified, not just anything originating in the State Department. You know that right?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure as Head of State, she has the ultimate authority to classify or declassify items originating in Stare. Or you can prove me wrong,.

Okay, oh oracle of Hillary's e-mail, I'll bite. Where were the e-mails she had the headers removed from originated? And note, she simply removed the headers from the e-mail hitting her server. Since the classified headers remained on the e-mails in everybody else's e-mail, was it really declassified? How would any of the other recipients know?

And then of course, we would have to accept that you think the FBI Director is lying because he stated that the secure e-mails on her server came from other agencies.
Click to expand...
This was discussed in the testimony today.

Did you listen to it?
 
Risky Thicket said:
I damn sure cannot vote for Hillary or Trump, but no way I'm going to look at hard johnsons. ;)
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson doesn't have an icicle's chance in hell.
 
Paperview said:
I'm pretty sure as Head of State, she has the ultimate authority to classify or declassify items originating in Stare. Or you can prove me wrong,.

This was discussed in the testimony today.

Did you listen to it?
Click to expand...

No one has ever nor will they ever call me an authority in such matters. However, as the President is not privy to all secrets held by the US government I don't know how it would be possible for the President to direct classification of any/all classified matter.
 
Risky Thicket said:
No one has ever nor will they ever call me an authority in such matters. However, as the President is not privy to all secrets held by the US government I don't know how it would be possible for the President to direct classification of any/all classified matter.
Click to expand...

??

The president has the ultimate authority on all classification information.


The SOS has the ultimate authority on all classification information in her department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom