PDA

View Full Version : The denouement begins?


G-CPTN
2nd Jul 2016, 18:05
FBI quizzes Hillary Clinton on emails (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36695722).

sitigeltfel
2nd Jul 2016, 18:43
FBI: "Was there anything illegal in what you did by using a secret, insecure email account?"

HC: "No."

FBI: "OK, you are free to go."

Dea Certe
2nd Jul 2016, 19:26
Gee, to read one guy's book, one of the Secret Service guys who decided it would be profitable to tell all, it was thought everyone hated her. The FBI is known for being particularly right wing. I am no fan of Hillary's, believe me, but if there was something illegal gong on, more than a book would be released.

charliegolf
2nd Jul 2016, 19:46
FBI: "Was there anything illegal in what you did by using a secret, insecure email account?"

Was there anything stupid about us giving you a secret email account that was not secure?

SpringHeeledJack
2nd Jul 2016, 20:55
As I understand things, she was using her private server for classified state dept business and therefore it was both insecure and illegal.

lomapaseo
2nd Jul 2016, 21:12
if there was something illegal gong on, more than a book would be released.

It was and she is

SpringHeeledJack
2nd Jul 2016, 21:13
"I did not have textual relations with that server."

love Hillary

pattern_is_full
2nd Jul 2016, 23:11
'Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day. ‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
Alice in Wonderland is supposed to be childish fiction....

Captivep
3rd Jul 2016, 13:04
Could one of our American contributors provide an answer to a couple of questions (I'm genuinely interested - I'm not trying to make any particular point!).

How could the State Department allow anyone to put stuff on an insecure server?

Assuming that it was insecure, then what specific law has been broken?

charliegolf
3rd Jul 2016, 13:14
In business it would be called an acceptable use policy. Can a government make that a law- when in the airforce, I recall a Queen's Regulation (QR 69?) that was regarded by all as meaning, 'If you annoy us but there's no evidence of a crime, we can do you anyway. For annoying us.'

Similar blanket legislation for government workers maybe?

CG

pattern_is_full
3rd Jul 2016, 18:49
The thumbnail answers would be:

The State Department is a big bureacracy. For the most part, those who knew HRC was using a personal server for all emails were her personal staff, who didn't care (or did what the Boss wanted). And those whose business it was to enforce security or transparency - those who cared - didn't know. Or at least were not really clear on what was going on.

The problem is that there are broad laws, and then specific rules and regulations and policies within and between Departments (i.e. "Ministries") to implement those laws.

So there is no Law that states explicitly that "The Secretary of State may not have a personal email server and use it exclusively" - the laws are broader and more general (at best, "Do not provide classified information to the enemy," "Do not leave classified material exposed to unauthorized access," or "All government communications shall be preserved as a historical record.")

Is breaking a rule that implements a law - breaking the law itself? Quite possibly, but you do get down in the weeds about how clear and precise the rule is. Or when it went into effect, and so on.

obgraham
3rd Jul 2016, 21:14
It all goes back to a philosophy once espoused by Richard Nixon: "When the President does something, it cannot by its nature be considered illegal". Does anyone really tell the Queen not to do something she wishes to?

Clinton was the Secretary of State. The head. Everyone else at State essentially works at her behest. Nobody is going to actually stop her from communicating via an insecure method, although a number of folks did in fact point out to her that it was not proper.

radeng
3rd Jul 2016, 21:22
Why should she be guilty of breaching security? It's not that long ago that the US wanted to extradite someone from the UK for hacking into a 'secure' (??) DoD computer, for which the user name was 'guest' and the password was 'password'.

I never heard that anyone in the US got jailed for that absurdity.....

I do wonder to what extent the IRS have been looking into Trump, though....

Lonewolf_50
3rd Jul 2016, 21:29
Why should she be guilty of breaching security? It's not that long ago that the US wanted to extradite someone from the UK for hacking into a 'secure' (??) DoD computer, for which the user name was 'guest' and the password was 'password'.

I never heard that anyone in the US got jailed for that absurdity.....

I do wonder to what extent the IRS have been looking into Trump, though....
radeng, that isn't an excuse for anyone to commit a crime.

radeng
3rd Jul 2016, 22:02
>radeng, that isn't an excuse for anyone to commit a crime.<

True, but once you deliberately omit prosecuting A for a crime, the prosecution of B for the same crime is on a fundamentally dodgy moral, if not strictly legal, ground.

A bit akin to the IRS going after the Tea Party when there is a democratic president.......

West Coast
3rd Jul 2016, 23:06
The FBI is known for being particularly right wing

Really? Care to put some meat on those bones beyond your opinion? Some examples perhaps?

SASless
4th Jul 2016, 02:18
Someone asked what Federal Laws might have been broken by Hillary.....Here is a list with some explanation for why that might be.


Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)

A different perspective from a Life Long Democrat who served in the USDOJ for over Twenty Seven Years as Head of the Section having oversight of the Records and Release of Information which is central to Hillary's Case.

http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clintons-emails-now-might-finally-take-her-down/



Also, she has been required by a Federal Judge to sign a Document that her submissions to his Court were truthful and complete. She was also informed of her Miranda Rights before the FBI interrogation at the FBI HQ. She was also told her responses had to be truthful or she would be in violation of the Federal False Statement Law (18 USC 1001)

Then there is the pesky thing about RICO Laws (Racketeering and Corrupt Practices) and plain old fashioned Conspiracy.

It all depends upon what the scope of the Interrogation was at the FBI Headquarters as we do not know the full extent of the FBI inquiry.....did it include the Clinton Foundation and the allegations of "Pay to Play" by the Clintons during the time period she was SecState and Hubby was running around picking up Millions in income from Nations and People with business on-going with the State Department.

Until the extent of the evidence and testimony is made public....we really do not know just what the Clinton's are facing in the FBI Inquiry.

What we do know is the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party are busier than Cats covering Crap taking every effort to save Clinton from Indictment and Prison.

Think back to Watergate....and consider how that did not rise nearly to the extent eight years of Obama/Clinton/Holder/Lynch et al, has been.

IBMJunkman
4th Jul 2016, 15:28
The problem is if this was a 3rd or 4th level person not in the Clinton circle they would be in jail already. The current power structure and her party will not let anything happen to their candidate. They had the first 'black' president and now they want the first female president.

ORAC
4th Jul 2016, 15:42
New York Post: Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules (http://www.worldpress.org/link.cfm?http://nypost.com/)

Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week (http://nypost.com/2016/06/30/huma-abedin-raised-concerns-about-clintons-private-server/) that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.

Huma Abedin was deposed in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit into Clinton’s emails — but her admission could be relevant to another lawsuit seeking Clinton’s schedules.

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that . . . that certainly happened on . . . on more than one occasion,” Abedin told lawyers representing Judicial Watch, the conservative organization behind the emails lawsuit. Abedin made the surprising admission in response to a question about document destruction at the Department of State. A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

Abedin was not pressed for more details.

Clinton has admitted to destroying “private personal emails” as secretary of state. But Abedin’s admission that she used so-called “burn bags” — a container that material is placed in before it is destroyed — for some of her schedules is the first time anyone close to her has disclosed destroying public records. The exact circumstances surrounding those destroyed records will likely come under intense scrutiny, critics said.

A former State Department official told The Post it was unprecedented for a diplomat to destroy a schedule like this. “I spent eight years at the State Department and watched as four US ambassadors and two secretaries of state shared their daily schedules with a variety of State Department employees and US officials,” said Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations. “I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag — because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law.”

Others said Clinton’s careful approach to her schedule further highlights her recklessness in using a personal server for all her email communications.

“The [president’s] schedule was not classified but it was deemed ‘highly sensitive.’ Instructions were given at the White House and on the road that schedules would be disposed of through the use of ‘burn bags’ and/or shredding,” said Brad Blakeman, a scheduler for President George W. Bush. “This shows, in my opinion, a skewed sense of security. The Clinton people would dispose of the secretary’s schedule in the same manner as if it were classified yet those same safeguards were not in place with regard to email communications.”

Ambassador John Bolton, a Clinton critic, said the matter shows Clinton’s “recklessness” regarding her emails. But he noted it’s unlikely Clinton could have completely destroyed her schedules. “They can’t eliminate it even if they wanted to,” Bolton said.

The Associated Press has been seeking Clinton’s schedule through Freedom of Information Act requests asking for Clinton’s public and private calendars and schedules from Jan. 21, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013. The wire service sued the State Department for those schedules in 2015.

SASless
4th Jul 2016, 15:51
Hillary wishes this Email had been burned, deleted, and wiped from her Server I bet!

Remember her multiple statements about "I never sent or received Classified Material....".


Email shows Hillary Clinton telling aide to take 'secure' information | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html)

er340790
4th Jul 2016, 16:52
Is it true that President Clinton v2.0 already has a Campaign Staff of 700??? :eek:

pattern_is_full
4th Jul 2016, 18:46
Thereabouts - divide into 330 million people, and it is about 1 per 480,000.

About equal to a Canadian party having 72 operatives nationwide, managing a campaign.

twb3
4th Jul 2016, 18:55
Could one of our American contributors provide an answer to a couple of questions (I'm genuinely interested - I'm not trying to make any particular point!).

How could the State Department allow anyone to put stuff on an insecure server?

Assuming that it was insecure, then what specific law has been broken?

The State Department operates as directed by the Secretary of State. Whoever set up the server and placed information were probably not the first employees in history who may have chosen their continued employment over carrying out orders to do illegal things.

18 U.S. Code Section 798, for one.

TWB

SASless
5th Jul 2016, 00:24
That also might explain the 125 times the guy took the Fifth....."I refuse to answer that question as it might tend to incriminate me.".:roll eyes:

If he did nothing criminal....why would he refuse to answer any questions?

How much you want to bet he will be taken care of by the Clinton Foundation and Democrat Party for doing such a gallant act?

Of course he may have had other reasons....like not wanting to do a Vince Foster Passion Play Redux.

vapilot2004
5th Jul 2016, 05:28
This entire Clinton email server affair is nothing more than the bogus results of a witch hunt by a group of right-wing sanctimonious bastards by the name of Citizens United - the same group that pushed for and won the right of corporate 'big money' to have unlimited 'free' speech in political campaigns - as if we need more intercourse between money and politicians here in the land of the cousins.

West Coast
5th Jul 2016, 06:47
This entire Clinton email server affair is nothing more than the bogus results of a witch hunt

And the scathing report from the State department under a Democratic secretary and a democratic president that pounded her? Was that the Koch brothers and the vast right wing conspiracy at work?

No, it was the State dept IG.

Not quite so fast VAPA, maybe the victim game plays well at cocktail parties in the beltway where you've already elected her.

Do you care to refute the report as politically biased? Incorrect? Time to walk back your statement I'd say.

Read up, then tell us if this just a bogus witch hunt.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

vapilot2004
5th Jul 2016, 07:47
The email hunt was prompted by the low-minded Citizens United in an FOIA Westie and the Dept of State IG report you mention and I already reviewed a while back shows most of the squawks on Clinton's record keeping and email practices during her term were not too far out of line with more than a few former Secretaries of State.

Clinton's not one of my favorite political people either, but she's one hell of a sight better than the bozo the Republicans managed to presumptively nominate.

And the scathing report from the State department under a Democratic secretary and a democratic president that pounded her?

Interesting perspective coming from a conservative. By the way, for some reason those last five words put a terrible image in my mind. Thanks a lot WC. :p

ORAC
5th Jul 2016, 09:34
Indeed, how dare they try and get at the facts...

Captivep
5th Jul 2016, 10:23
TWB 3 - thank you.

I certainly take your point on the first thing; I'm sure it wouldn't be the first or last time somebody powerful "persuades" a junior to bend the rules.

On the second point, though, I'm not so sure (and I have no political opinion either way on this). As I understand it, the law you've mentioned provides:

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes,,,"

It's a fine legal point, but it seems to mean that there is (on this section anyway) no specific crime of failing to secure information; furthermore, for a crime to have been committed, the information must have got into the possession of an unauthorized person.

vapilot2004
5th Jul 2016, 11:16
Indeed, how dare they try and get at the facts...


Nothing wrong with facts, ORAC, they've got them by the boat load right now - mainly because she is who she is. Make no bones about it, they are on a witch hunt.

That's the obscene part of the equation - these people (Citizens United) have an ugly agenda in mind (their motives are public information) and they, not unlike the conservative media here in the states, don't mind twisting the facts to conform to their ideas.

That is not to say the practice does not exist in the so-called 'liberal' media, but the level of tainted discourse differs profoundly, particularly in areas of legitimate public interest like energy, taxes, universal health care, and climate change. Fine you might say, let them duke it out. The trouble with that is too many voting Americans are not up to the challenge of sussing out the truth from these fountains of misinformation.

It is a pox upon our house - a sickness that has potential to eat away the core of the US democracy.

West Coast
5th Jul 2016, 11:55
The email hunt was prompted by the low-minded Citizens United

I note the subtle but important change in your presentation, it's no longer a witch hunt. Whomever initiated the email investigation, it raised legitimate concerns that needed to see the light of day.

vapilot2004
5th Jul 2016, 11:59
You mean concerns that could only come from sinister minds best suited to the dark of night?

This just in - that bastion of open political discourse :rolleyes:, the NRA, just put out their first Citizens United-enabled ad in support of Republican candidate Donald J. Trump. Guess what - it's not about guns, at least guns in America, it's about former Sec Clinton and Benghazi.

Meanwhile about half of our Congress cannot even manage to decide if terrorists should have access to assault weapons. Tell me things are not twisted!

West Coast
5th Jul 2016, 12:56
Lots of confusion in DC, the guy at the head of it all can't even identify radical Islamic terrorism when he sees it.

vapilot2004
5th Jul 2016, 13:09
Good one WC. :ok:

Perhaps he has a passing interest in keeping things smart and Secular - as opposed to the shrillest voices belonging to his critics.

West Coast
5th Jul 2016, 13:39
He probably does, for a number of reasons, issue is the narrative he offers doesn't represent the truth.

A jihadi shoots up a club, so much easier to blame the NRA than acknowledge it's terrorism. Maybe the NRA is so defensive because the President doesn't pass up an opportunity try and pin the blame on them. Extremism breeds extremism in politics as well.

vapilot2004
5th Jul 2016, 14:52
For the first 7 years in office, President Obama showed incredible restraint in not pursuing any sort of narrative regarding an over-armed America. Outside of the brief, but unfortunately not too few moments when terroristic acts like mass shootings occurred, comments from him were few and far between. It was a mistake, but there are a few theories as to why.

Mateen a jihadi? In his wildest daydreams perhaps. The facts of reality seem to indicate he was yet another troubled American with easy access to assault weapons. So maybe the NRA has realized the shoot 'em up chickens they armed have come home to roost - but not before killing some innocent Americans along the way - ie, they need a distraction from the obvious problem at hand - there are too many high-powered, high magazine capacity killing machines in the hands of anyone that has a few dollars to buy, thanks mostly to the NRA and their kow-towed supporters.

treadigraph
5th Jul 2016, 16:43
FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton over emails... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36711711)

pattern_is_full
5th Jul 2016, 17:05
As usual, if one assumes that "conservative" and "not in touch with observable reality" are synonyms, one will come out far ahead in the casino of life.

Direct quote from the FBI director (a Republican):

No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation because we did our investigation the right way.

Two's in
5th Jul 2016, 17:18
Hilarious, absolutely farking hilarious...

West Coast
5th Jul 2016, 17:37
I find nothing hilarious about the email scheme TI. She may not be criminally liable, but it shows a pattern of carelessness (FBI's words, not mine) and an attitude that she's above the regulations that govern. One set of rules for Hillary, another for the rest of us.

West Coast
5th Jul 2016, 17:43
Vapa

Those investigating the shooting are characterizing it as terrorism. You continue to frame it simply as a hate crime. No matter how many times you say it, the facts as determined by the investigators don't support your (and Obama's ) narrative.

The Sultan
5th Jul 2016, 17:48
You can go back to your tin foil hats and try to rationalize supporting Adolf Drumpf, nothing here.

The Sultan

West Coast
5th Jul 2016, 17:50
Are you in the column that what she did was ok?

SASless
5th Jul 2016, 17:54
The FBI Director Blinked!

I watched him lay out a perfect case for a a Felony charge....having explained to us that "Intent" is not required.

He plainly punted the Ball back into the Political Arena for God knows what reasons other than President Obama was involved in some of the Email Chains thus the President knew...or should have known of her use of a non-government Email for government business.


https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system


That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

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.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

SASless
5th Jul 2016, 18:10
"Intent".....perhaps the FBI should have seen this short video.


Hillary Clinton Was 'Extremely Careless' About Emails, FBI Says Video - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hillary-clinton-extremely-careless-emails-fbi-40350316)

The pertinent Federal Law is 18 USC 793.


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.



Legal Definition of Gross Negligence:

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.

vapilot2004
5th Jul 2016, 22:34
Now that Director Comey's legal case for Clinton has been clearly stated, I imagine some gear shifting over to a whinge (or three) on National Security and State Secrets is in order.

lomapaseo
6th Jul 2016, 01:02
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

Should we now assume that she was merely unconsciable ?

SASless
6th Jul 2016, 01:21
Two sets of Laws in the USA now....one for the Elite's and one for the rest of us.

The FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t @DavidSirota):

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.

According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.

Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case





Hills would have been safe if she were to win the Election as there is no Security Clearance required by the POTUS.

finfly1
6th Jul 2016, 02:40
In other news, a blindfold and one scale fell from a nearby statue.


:mad:


SSDD

OldCessna
6th Jul 2016, 04:06
I suppose Hillary and her lackeys will still retain their security clearances.

Boggles the mind.

Anyone else would not be running for the White House but the Big House!

Every single untruth from her has been debunked by Comey's statement! (Whatever thats worth)

ORAC
6th Jul 2016, 06:59
Hero Marine Nailed for Secret Email: What Did He Do That Hillary Didn?t? - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html)

Geordie_Expat
6th Jul 2016, 14:30
It would appear from a distance and not knowing all the ins and outs of your judicial and investigative system that she is not crooked, just dumb. Have I got this right ? What is it with politicians everywhere :confused:

SASless
6th Jul 2016, 14:41
Geordie,

She is crooked as a Dog's Hind Leg....just not charged with a Crime.....yet!

Look into her background starting with her being fired from the Watergate Investigation right on up till Yesterday's announcement.

She was not declared "innocent" of misconduct yesterday....quite the opposite.

But what happened yesterday was well known in advance....the Obama DOJ just is not going to prosecute a Democrat for anything.

Look at Lois Lerner and the Head of the Internal Revenue Service and their misconduct....no prosecution for anyone at the IRS.

Sadly, the United States today has a very corrupt government that refuses to abide by the Law allowing the politically connected and wealthy elite immunity for prosecution for crimes.

Hopefully, this Election might see a change in that....and perhaps the DOJ will return to being apolitical and fairly prosecute Crimes without regard to money and politics.

Dreaming I know...but One should remain hopeful.


https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

Andy_S
6th Jul 2016, 14:50
It would appear from a distance and not knowing all the ins and outs of your judicial and investigative system that she is not crooked, just dumb.

Or that she believes that she doesn't have to operate by the same rules as everyone else. Which doesn't bear well for her forthcoming presidency.

Geordie_Expat
6th Jul 2016, 18:25
Sorry, poor attempt at sarcasm. But I do wonder if they (and I include most politicians) ever think about any consequences of their actions ? Or as it has been said on here, they really don't give a toss.

vapilot2004
7th Jul 2016, 09:33
Or that she believes that she doesn't have to operate by the same rules as everyone else. Which doesn't bear well for her forthcoming presidency.

On the contrary, that has been the mark of more than a few former presidents of the US.

Captivep
7th Jul 2016, 10:18
According to Snopes.com (and others) she wasn't fired from the Watergate investigation:

Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation : snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp)

Andy_S
7th Jul 2016, 11:12
On the contrary, that has been the mark of more than a few former presidents of the US.

Which just reinforces my point.

vapilot2004
7th Jul 2016, 11:37
:D

Well you know, New World Order and all...

West Coast
7th Jul 2016, 13:07
Yes, Snopes, that bastion of truth.

Toadstool
7th Jul 2016, 17:50
It doesn't matter how much one bleats about it. She's been cleared by the FBI regarding her server, and she's been cleared by the committee over her role in Benghazi.

Looking forward to the race to the Presidency to see which of the two outstanding candidates wins. :ok:

lomapaseo
7th Jul 2016, 18:19
It doesn't matter how much one bleats about it. She's been cleared by the FBI regarding her server, and she's been cleared by the committee over her role in Benghazi.

All true :ok:

but the idea is to keep the concept of a lying cheating, crooked Hilly in front of the public during her run for the presidency. It ain't what the FBI director says, its all about the speeches in replies made by his inquisitors.

The only ones the public will remember are the speculators for that is what makes daily news bytes.

The one thing we can be sure of in all this is that when all is said and done in the election, we will be one sad lot for the next 4 years.

West Coast
7th Jul 2016, 18:26
She may have been cleared of criminal charges alright. She has however shown disregard and carelessness with her emails that raise questions of judgment. That is a legitimate topic of discussion moving forward.

SASless
7th Jul 2016, 19:46
Slow down Lads....the Horse is still in the paddock!

The Chairman of the House Reform Committee was told by the DirFBI the FBI had not investigated or looked into Hillary's Sworn Testimony before Congress during the Benghazi Committee Hearings.

As you will recall....at least those of you who will try....the current Email Investigation evidence directly contradicted every one of her statements in the Benghazi Committee Hearing re her Emails, Servers, and the like.

DirFBI said if his Agency received a Referral from the House Reform Committee that his Agency would investigate their Complaint re Hillary committing Perjury by lying under Oath during the Benghazi Hearing.

The Chairman assured the DirFBI that he could count on receiving said Referral before the end of the Day.

The information derived from the Email Investigation (limited as it was) will be used along with submissions and statements made by Hillary to the Benghazi Committee. Additionally, her public ascertains about pertinent issues of the Benghazi Hearing Testimony will also be involved when shown to be relevant to the Complaint of Perjury.

This ain't over yet.


NOTE: Westie....she was not cleared of criminal charges, she was not found Not Guilty, she was shown to be a Liar, used extreme carelessness, and described as being less than astute while showing casual disregard of State Department Regulations/Policies and Federal Law.

lomapaseo
7th Jul 2016, 21:22
My we are cutting fine shards of sweat off this issue.

Who said she lied? The FBI or the Committee?

It makes a difference to who pushes forwarded what punishment.

Did she really lie or just put forward conflicting personal opinions at different times?

All I can see so far is gross mis handling of what later is found to be classified information.

SASless
8th Jul 2016, 00:02
Perjury is a Felony crime.

One cannot lie to Congress having been sworn.....or to a Federal Judge in a proceeding having been sworn.

Another Clinton is going to learn that lesson it appears.

Slick Willy learned that the hard way.

parabellum
8th Jul 2016, 00:03
All I can see so far is gross mis handling of what later is found to be classified information.


That alone should disbar her from holding any government office, including Clerical Officer Grade 3. (I think the information was always classified, 'later is found' was just the confirmation, even the lowly category of 'restricted' is marked top and bottom of every sheet).

pattern_is_full
8th Jul 2016, 00:12
Ahh, SASless - the Hiroo Onoda of American conspiracy theorists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda

She may have been cleared of criminal charges alright. She has however shown disregard and carelessness with her emails that raise questions of judgment. That is a legitimate topic of discussion moving forward.

Agree - and I'm an HRC backer (given the alternative). I'd love to see Megyn Kelly picked as one of the debate moderators, and go after them both...

vapilot2004
8th Jul 2016, 00:39
We will be hearing about emails for the next few months (years?) no matter what the FBI or the US Department of Justice says about her being innocent of criminal charges.

Every time these same self-righteous hypocrites go after the Clintons, they spend millions in taxpayers money and way too much time on useless investigations and hearings. Over the years there have been at least a half-dozen grand attempts at proving some 'evil-doings' of the Clintons, and the best they've been able to come up with so far was a Presidential blow job.

The same sorry Republican lawmakers and Clinton/Obama haters (in government and right-wing media) will continue to beat this dead horse, like the simple-minded, partisan, rabble-rousing jackasses they are.

PrivtPilotRadarTech
8th Jul 2016, 02:19
Ahh, SASless - the Hiroo Onoda of American conspiracy theorists

That's not bad, Pattern Is Full. I've been thinking of him more like someone with one of those plastic horns they blow at soccer games. He only knows one note, but he plays it REAL LOUD, over and over and over and over....

SASless
8th Jul 2016, 02:29
Seeing "Both"held to a common standard would be fine but we know that is just never going to happen.

SASless
8th Jul 2016, 02:44
Reckon you might be tone deaf?

parabellum
8th Jul 2016, 02:58
The same sorry Republican lawmakers and Clinton/Obama haters will continue to beat this dead horse, like the simple-minded, partisan, rabble-rousing jackasses they are.


No Vapilot, it is not a dead horse, (and what you called us above is rather rude you know), the front runners in protesting may well be solid Republicans, they have the attention of the media, after all, but what the noisy masses want is the same rules for all, justice, in other words.

vapilot2004
8th Jul 2016, 03:26
I am certainly not referring to anyone on this thread Parabellum, nor any member of PPRune. If that is how you read my post, and feel others would see it the same way, kindly let me know. I edited it just now for you.

I am referring to the dim-witted, one-track minded GOP members of the media and our government that have sworn themselves to taking down the Clintons (and Obama) at any and all cost.

what the noisy masses want is the same rules for all, justice, in other words.

I agree. Justice however, is not a witch hunt.

We went to war over some lies, costing the US alone nearly $2 Trillion dollars and nearly 5,000 coalition soldier's lives, hundreds of thousands service members injured... Then there is the world's economy tanked thanks to some unregulated gamblers on Wall Street - costing the US economy alone some $22 Trillion according to a recent non-partisan GAO report.

Those are the sort of things I understand the masses want action from our Justice system, not this farcical uproar over a few emails that were shared with people who had clearance to read them.

West Coast
8th Jul 2016, 03:33
Every time these same self-righteous hypocrites go after the Clintons,

Really? Given your entrenched point of view that this is a partisan witch hunt and that there's a Republican behind every tree, you might be surprised to know the state department investigation that was suspended (during the FBI investigation) has been re-opened. This is far from leaving the headlines, in this case due to an investigation started by the state department itself.

Clintons, and the best they've been able to come up with so far was a Presidential blow job.

You say blowjob, I say lying under oath. You can minimize it as you wish, either way it got him impeached.

The same sorry Republican lawmakers and Clinton/Obama haters will continue to beat this dead horse, like the simple-minded, partisan, rabble-rousing jackasses they are.

That's the kind of language that gets one binned, I would know. Suggest you mind your tone.
Even here in our little discussion group there are lefties who are concerned about her actions wrt emails.

vapilot2004
8th Jul 2016, 03:45
the state department investigation that was suspended (during the FBI investigation) has been re-opened.

By design, Westie, by design. It was suspended per protocol back in April, once the FBI's investigation was initiated. the investigation will now proceed with the FBI and Justice Department's jobs concluded.

You say blowjob, I say lying under oath. You can minimize it as you wish, either way it got him impeached.

He's not the first President to lie while in office and likely won't be the last. His lie cost us nothing and it was before Congress, the biggest bunch of dirty lying hypocrites in the union. Dubya's lies, on the other hand...

That's the kind of language that gets one binned, I would know. Suggest you mind your tone.

As I said, it was not directed to anyone here. My sincere apologies if your sensitivities were put off balance by my use of the word "jackasses" in reference to the constant battle of feckless wonderment belonging to anti-Obama/anti-Clinton crusaders in our government and right-wing media. I added the following parenthetical "(in government and right-wing media)" to make that clear.

As an aside, do you consider yourself an Obama/Clinton "Hater" and are you a member of the government or media? She's not my favourite person in government either, but she's one heckuva (< PG language just for you!) sight better than the bozo the Republicans managed to pick.

CaptOveur
8th Jul 2016, 03:45
Just ask yourself which is more plausible:

a) "I'm an old fogey, I don't know from technology, I just wanna be able to use my BlackBerry..."

b) "Let's make damn sure we can thwart any attempts at discovery, FOIA or otherwise!"

There's a BIG difference between using a Gmail or Yahoo account and standing up a server IN YOUR BASEMENT!

Sincerely,

(registered unaffiliated)

SASless
8th Jul 2016, 03:51
The old fashioned "Smell" test!:ok:

OldCessna
8th Jul 2016, 04:12
Comey (FBI Dir) when asked about if there was an ongoing FBI investigation regarding "The Clinton Foundation" he declined to answer that question.

In FBI legal speak or words that means YES!

There is so much crap out there relating to Hillary anyone competing against her should have more than enough ammo to detract the savvy voter!

West Coast
8th Jul 2016, 04:12
By design, Westie, by design. It was suspended per protocol back in April, once the FBI's investigation was initiated.

Certainly, I just don't want you overlooking bogeymen as you lament the issue not disappearing. It's not going to, and isn't a function of Republican politics in this case. The legal aspect aside, make your peace with the emails being in the news, it's a legitimate topic as voters assess her credibility.

He's not the first President to lie while in office and likely won't be the last. His lie cost us nothing. Dubya's lies, on the other hand...

Then you agree it's not about a hummer, a blue dress and a stain? It's about lying, in Bill's case, under oath.

My sincere apologies if your sensitivities were put off balance

I spent far too long in the Marine Corps to be offended by that. What experience has shown me is what I consider tepid language and innuendo will run you afoul of the man. I spent a couple of years wandering the desert so to speak and accept its a touchy- feely cyber world now.

As an aside, do you consider yourself an Obama/Clinton "Hater" and are you a member of the government or media? She's not my favourite person in government either, but she's one heckuva (< PG language just for you!) sight better than the bozo the Republicans managed to pick.

No, no and no.

I'm voting Libertarian as I can't in good conscience vote for either. Given your less than glowing endorsement of Hillary, you might consider doing the same.

A hypothetical, if civil war breaks out in Cleveland and someone such as John Kasich gets the nod, will you still vote for Hillary?

vapilot2004
8th Jul 2016, 04:25
Kasich is not a bad guy. I would've voted for the ho-hum, but thankfully moderate Romney, had it been someone other than Obama in office at the time, because I believed the sitting president had the nation's and world's best interests in mind, post economic meltdown and Bush's Mess O' Potamia in Iraq. I will get back to you in a bit, if you're interested in my (non-ranting) presidential election leanings. Thanks for asking.

...and I thank you again West Coast for the information on profanity here. I thought it was only bad if directed at another member in malice, which in my case, certainly was not my intention at all.

Marine? My father was career USN, and my brother is currently a TSG in the USAF. Thank you for your service and sacrifice. It is not just a statement - it is heartfelt, WC.

So far, the emails have received most of their air time on right-wing media waves and electrons in the ether. State investigating itself on information security issues is a laugh actually - they have a long history of being lax in that area and both Republican and Democratic appointed Secretaries have done at least a few of the things Clinton is being pilloried for.

I admit she's a slippery one, no doubt about that, but I feel Clinton is far more qualified than the bigoted loudmouth Trump.

West Coast
8th Jul 2016, 05:11
...and I thank you again West Coast for the information on profanity here. I thought it was only bad if directed at another member in malice, which in my case, certainly was not my intention at all.

Understood, no worries.

It is not just a statement - it is heartfelt, WC.

Sincerely, I say thank you.

So far, the emails have received most of their air time on right-wing media waves

I don't know about that. News is a consumer product and people select the product based on the packaging. Given that, I avoid Fox, Drudge, etc intentionally. The left of center media (as in the networks) seem to have target fixation on the email issue as well.

pattern_is_full
8th Jul 2016, 08:07
Given the events in Dallas (with its own thread) it is probably a good idea to quit tying up the FBI with political theater and witch-hunts.

Comey has serious work to do.

SASless
8th Jul 2016, 13:23
"The other thread" is gone.....I deleted it as it had turned into a frivolous attempt by the usual suspects to offer up fictional accounts of being stopped for traffic violations in the United States.

That Police Officers were shot dead in a planned attack by two Snipers as they protected and assisted Protesters during an Anti-Police Demonstration was lost on the usual suspects who saw an opportunity to offer up the usual drivel about driving while British in America.

What is telling is not one of them were cited by an Officer for a violation or got abused in any way...yet they told accounts about fearing for their lives during those encounters.

Yes the FBI has more important things to do...like investigating the New Black Panther Party, Corrupt Public Officials, Persons committing Perjury while testifying to Congress, Compromise of Classified Information, and plain old Murder of Police Officers.

It is a shame there are other crimes they do not investigate but the White House Occupant will not allow that.

West Coast
8th Jul 2016, 13:47
Given the events in Dallas (with its own thread) it is probably a good idea to quit tying up the FBI with political theater and witch-hunts.

In good conscience you can tie the two together? Either you don't understand the breadth, capacity and specialization of the FBI or in good political theatre, you're not letting a crisis go to waste.

SASless
8th Jul 2016, 14:01
While a Federal Agent we often asked this Question.

"What are the three most over rated things in the USA?

Home Cooking, Home Sex, and the FBI!

vapilot2004
8th Jul 2016, 14:54
"The other thread" is gone.....I deleted it as it had turned into a frivolous attempt by the usual suspects to offer up fictional accounts of being stopped for traffic violations in the United States.



Calling EU and UK PPRUNE members liars and deleting the thread you started on the Dallas assault-weapons massacre was in my view, a cowardly act, SAS. I'm bettin' the thread didn't quite go the way you may have intended.

That was a very productive and information-filled thread and included Sane reasons on why Congress and the American people need to bring it up a few notches on the bravery side and support common-sense legislation on guns too. Well done. You've deleted an open and fact-filled discussion from many points of view. The NRA should give you a medal.

lomapaseo
8th Jul 2016, 21:45
... Calling EU and UK PPRUNE members liars and deleting the thread you started on the Dallas assault-weapons massacre was in my view, a cowardly act, SAS..... I'm bettin' the thread didn't quite go the way you may have intended. You've deleted an open and fact-filled discussion from many points of view.


I think you meant to post this in the Friday Joke thread

SASless
8th Jul 2016, 22:22
PPrune Rules....the OP is free to delete the original post anytime they wish and for any reason they wish.

West Coast
8th Jul 2016, 22:49
Home Sex

Are you considering the two VOR/TACAN rule to define home sex?

More than two VOR's from home and you're single.

SASless
9th Jul 2016, 03:36
National Guard Rule was out of sight of the Missus and always carry a Mason Jar of Jet Fuel in your Kit Bag for use as "After Shave".

mickjoebill
9th Jul 2016, 03:37
PPrune Rules....the OP is free to delete the original post anytime they wish and for any reason they wish.

Quite, but are we free to start a new thread on the same subject!
Not often a newspaper has the headline "Civil War" !

There will be repeated and persistent reporting of multiple "snipers" "triangulation" and "snipers". Such verbiage plays into the headline of "Civil War", which is good for newspapers and with due respect, for Police Unions.

There is no evidence that he wasn't alone. He moved quickly so "triangulation" and "sniper" do not apply, at least not after the first shot.

So is it just another nutter commiting a mass shooting, two other mass shootings occurred on the same day, or is it a watershed moment?

Worth a new thread?
Mickjoebill

West Coast
9th Jul 2016, 03:55
Up to you, know however it will wander far afield from the specific topics you mention before the first page is filled.

SASless
9th Jul 2016, 04:41
There are important issues that could be discussed using the Dallas Attack on the Police as a symptom and go from there.

As usual, it appears there is "more" to the story about the Minnesota shooting than was being reported by the Media. A small thing that the Man killed was possibly an Armed Robbery Suspect.

We also had more Officers shot today in ambush type attacks.

Sadly, within the first page the Gun Banners will be off at a dead run and the important issues will be snowed under in no time at all.

Anyone can start a Thread....and can delete it as well as the Mod's can when it becomes the thing to do.

I suppose that could make JB more a self moderated Forum than it has been in the past. I would not imagine the Mods would be fussed if that were to happen as it would lighten their load and conform with the idea of thinking before posting.

Some who attend these pages enjoy a good debate and it can be both entertaining and educational when that happens.

I suppose I am a bit sensitive having had a Police Riding Partner shot by an assailant while employed as a City Uniform Police Officer. He was hit five times but survived thanks to a lot of luck and plain old good fortune.

The Perpetrator ran out of Luck that night.

The Dallas thing is probably going to be a Watershed moment.....as it was Police Officers protecting Anti-Police Protestors. The Cops ran towards the Gunfire while protecting the People at risk of being shot either on purpose or by a stray round.

The National Debate is not about Guns....but about the perception in the Black Community that they are being mistreated by the Police.

All of the factors that work to cause this perception is what needs discussing and until the "truth" as it is....and not what the Media and Race Baiters tell the Black Community it to be, is laid bare....the situation will only get worse.

That is what needs talking about in the USA today and hopefully that debate will take place in a sober, deliberate manner.