• 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!

Did Trump go too far threatening to jail Clinton?

CriticalThought said:
The law that Hillary did not break. He threatened to put her in jail simply because he and his followers wish the "rule of law" was enforced in a way to smite those they do not like. That is the fact.
Click to expand...


Hillary broke the law, bro.


Illegal retention of classified information on an unauthorized unclassified system.
 
CriticalThought said:
The law that Hillary did not break. He threatened to put her in jail simply because he and his followers wish the "rule of law" was enforced in a way to smite those they do not like. That is the fact.
Click to expand...

Stating facts that are not isn't critical thought.
 
No doubt, if she were anyone but Hillary, she would be in jail already.
 
CriticalThought said:
If you think she was incompetent then don't vote for her but let us not pretend what she did was criminal.
Click to expand...

Are we at least going to pretend it was a mistake? I've had the training. Ones conscience would be screaming at the thought of using your own personal home server as an email server for government business.

What was the reason for the private email server anyway? That would have been a great debate question for Hillary.

And lastly, how were the emails secured? Where they all encrypted? If not, then it would not matter if her own server were hacked. They could have been lifted from any number of sources once they left her server. I hope they turn up.
It would be interesting to see a security review of her setup.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes. That is how it works. The police determine who to bring charges against based on their investigation. What Clinton did was not illegal. Should it be? Probably, but it isn't at the moment.
Click to expand...



incorrect. that is what the DA's, and prosecutors for the state does.


What clinton did was absolutely illegal.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fiel...removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
https://www.navytimes.com/story/mil...for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/



Why his her "poor judgment" not criminal while this guys is?



I thought it was great. her rapist husband meets on a plane to make sure she's not charged. She feigned incompetence over the matter and broke US law...... He said what many of us wanted to hear about this.
Click to expand...

Not all classified information is created equal

Feds reject Clinton comparison in classified sub photos case - POLITICO

Clinton has said she believed her email account contained no classified information, although authorities later determined that it did. None of the messages were properly marked as classified, although three contained stray paragraph markings that signaled the presence of classified information.

Read more: Feds reject Clinton comparison in classified sub photos case - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
Cable said:
Are we at least going to pretend it was a mistake? I've had the training. Ones conscience would be screaming at the thought of using your own personal home server as an email server for government business.

What was the reason for the private email server anyway? That would have been a great debate question for Hillary.

And lastly, how were the emails secured? Where they all encrypted? If not, then it would not matter if her own server were hacked. They could have been lifted from any number of sources once they left her server. I hope they turn up.
It would be interesting to see a security review of her setup.
Click to expand...




Not only did she break 18 U.S. Code § 1924 , she also broke The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, in which she destroyed government related e-mails.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
incorrect. that is what the DA's, and prosecutors for the state does.


What clinton did was absolutely illegal.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fiel...removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
Click to expand...

The key point, as the FBI correctly asserted, is intent. There was no evidence that Clinton had any intent to retain confidential materials on her private server.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Not only did she break 18 U.S. Code § 1924 , she also broke The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, in which she destroyed government related e-mails.
Click to expand...

Can you provide evidence that she fully intended to have confidential material on her private server? If not, then you are wrong. She broke no law.
 
CriticalThought said:
Not all classified information is created equal

Feds reject Clinton comparison in classified sub photos case - POLITICO
Click to expand...




This is not the same case. please read my link.


and yes, all classified information of a particular classification is treated EXACTLY the same. I have seen things such as an advertisement for breakfast burritos accidently marked classified. it was treated as classified and had to run the full process to become unclassified.


when she directed her aid to send a classified fax by "removing headers and send nonsecure", she was directing her aid to remove the "Classified" header and footer from the message and send it via e-mail or regular fax... this shows "knowingly".
 
CriticalThought said:
The key point, as the FBI correctly asserted, is intent. There was no evidence that Clinton had any intent to retain confidential materials on her private server.
Click to expand...

Intent might show whether there was a malicious motive. It does not mean she is not guilty of breaking the law. "I didn't know" is not a plea that exonerates a lawbreaker.
It is also a very poor plea for the Secretary of State regarding protecting state secrets. If she didn't know that conducting government business on her personal email server was a serious security breach then she is far too ignorant (to be kind) to handle any affairs of the state. Unfit would be a very fair assessment.
 
CriticalThought said:
Can you provide evidence that she fully intended to have confidential material on her private server? If not, then you are wrong. She broke no law.
Click to expand...

Screen-grab-Clinton-emails-1024x1024.png





for your education:


Marking Classified Documents

"Any classified document, either in hard copy or automated, must contain a header and footer with the classification, any control markings, and declassification date or designation."


infact see the top of the picture? see how that says "unclassified"..... that is an example of the header she told her aide to remove, however her's would say "classified (S) Secret"

Evidence... Provided. Proof... given.
 
CriticalThought said:
Seems pretty clear cut.
Click to expand...

One line does not tell the whole story. Even Comey admitted that his prosecuting attorney friends asked him why he didn't recommend charges be brought against Hillary based on the evidence that he gave. Which clearly shows that she should have been charged with crimes and brought to court to determine her guilt. The fact that she wasn't shows that the system was rigged.
 
Sweden said:
Is that how it works in the US? Does the FBI decide on who is innocent and who is guilty? Could save a lot of money abolishing DAs, Courts and Juries and all that.
Click to expand...

No. The FBI apparently routinely recommends for or against prosecution based on the evidence it has gathered but at the end of the day it's the prosecutor's call to bring charges or not. This is pretty much how it works at all levels if you substitute police making an arrest for the FBI's recommendation. Guilt is determined by the jury but they don't get the case unless there is an arrest and a decision by the prosecutor to bring charges.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This is not the same case. please read my link.


and yes, all classified information of a particular classification is treated EXACTLY the same. I have seen things such as an advertisement for breakfast burritos accidently marked classified. it was treated as classified and had to run the full process to become unclassified.


when she directed her aid to send a classified fax by "removing headers and send nonsecure", she was directing her aid to remove the "Classified" header and footer from the message and send it via e-mail or regular fax... this shows "knowingly".
Click to expand...

That seems to be your assumption. No federal prosecutor, based on the facts of this case, sees sufficient evidence of intent.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One line does not tell the whole story. Even Comey admitted that his prosecuting attorney friends asked him why he didn't recommend charges be brought against Hillary based on the evidence that he gave. Which clearly shows that she should have been charged with crimes and brought to court to determine her guilt. The fact that she wasn't shows that the system was rigged.
Click to expand...

Or it shows that people follow the "rule of law" that you claim to care about and when there is no clear evidence of intent, they do not procede on witch hunts.
 
CriticalThought said:
Notice the key word "brought" not "pressed".
Click to expand...

In this context pressed and bring mean the same thing.

Police make arrests. That's it. In this case the FBI's recommendation is to all intents and purposes the same as an arrest/not arrest decision. Even if arrested prosecutors can decide for a myriad of reasons to not bring charges.
 
CriticalThought said:
That seems to be your assumption. No federal prosecutor, based on the facts of this case, sees sufficient evidence of intent.
Click to expand...


Post #41 shows a clear violation of the law.



The federal prosecutor would have been the AG... loretta lynch, who had a private meeting with rapist bill prior to deciding "no charges".....
 
Seeing Hillary Clinton go to jail is not on my "Top 100 Things I Really Want or Care About" list.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One line does not tell the whole story. Even Comey admitted that his prosecuting attorney friends asked him why he didn't recommend charges be brought against Hillary based on the evidence that he gave. Which clearly shows that she should have been charged with crimes and brought to court to determine her guilt. The fact that she wasn't shows that the system was rigged.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I don't recall a presidential nominee ever being arrested before and have to wonder at what kind of havoc that would play in terms of thwarting the will of the people.
 
CriticalThought said:
I wonder how that will play out tomorrow. It seemed unprecedented for an American presidential candidate to threaten to imprison their political opponent. That was the only part of the debate I could not get my head around. I know Trump has appeal with authoritarian minded people but that was blatantly anti democratic. Say what you will about Clinton's absolutely poor judgement in how she managed her email and her complete lack of transparency for deleting them, but the FBI has made it clear she did nothing illegal. Here we have someone threatening to use his power, if elected, to go after a political rival. That is chilling.
Click to expand...

No. He didn't. If there were justice...she would be in jail. But she is a pay to play corrupt politician no different than the likes of the ones way back in Roman times. She cheats the system. She skirts the law. She is a scumbag and she does deserve jail time. That isn't "authoritarianism." That is recognizing that she is corrupt as hell and that if our system was ACTUALLY fair...she would have gone to jail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom