Posted on Aug 9, 2016
Why is there still email, email, Benghazi as a retort against Hillary Clinton? Has the GOP lost its center or revealed their true colors?
13.5K
235
102
5
5
0
Politics
Republicans
Libertarian
Democracy
Democrats
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
25
25
0
Ever notice how when Liberals want justice, they'll stop at nothing? But when it's one of their own who commits the crime and then does not get punished and the Conservatives demand justice, you tell us to grow up and get over it? Hello pot, meet kettle.
(25)
(0)
SSgt Dale W.
MSG (Join to see) - You said "... But calling someone a criminal who was cleared and not charged is a slippery slope"
I beg differ on your assertion of "cleared". Here are relevant sections from the statement issued by FBI Director Comey regarding the investigation of HRC's emails conducted by the FBI (Numerical annotations are mine):
(1) "The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system." - Referred by the Intel Comm. IG, not the Republican Congressional Committee(s).
(2) "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." - Please note in the following Item a) does not require gross negligence. 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information: (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—...(sections removed for brevity)
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(3) "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
(4) "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)." - Any reasonable person..., he says.
(5) "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." - See my reference to 18 USC in (2) above.
(6) "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." - No "reasonable prosecutor". Absolutely, not if they value their career and future prospects. The fix was in.
(7) "All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here." - His wording has been so precise...in my (4) above he uses the word "careless" and here he uses the words "intentional and willful". If I click the send button on an email, I'm not being careless, I'm being intentional and willful. Careless is butt dialing someone when your phone is in your pocket.
(8) "I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear." - Please note in the first sentence he states there will be intense debate on the recommendation. Second sentence states the investigation was done competently, etc. and that no outside influence was brought to bear. I have no doubts about the competency of the investigation. However, the recommendation to prosecute is not part of the investigative process.
Most will probably skim over this due to length. I firmly believe HRC has committed violations of the law in this regard. Failure to prosecute a crime does not mean a crime has not been committed, nor that the accused has been cleared.
I beg differ on your assertion of "cleared". Here are relevant sections from the statement issued by FBI Director Comey regarding the investigation of HRC's emails conducted by the FBI (Numerical annotations are mine):
(1) "The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system." - Referred by the Intel Comm. IG, not the Republican Congressional Committee(s).
(2) "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." - Please note in the following Item a) does not require gross negligence. 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information: (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—...(sections removed for brevity)
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(3) "From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
(4) "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)." - Any reasonable person..., he says.
(5) "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." - See my reference to 18 USC in (2) above.
(6) "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." - No "reasonable prosecutor". Absolutely, not if they value their career and future prospects. The fix was in.
(7) "All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here." - His wording has been so precise...in my (4) above he uses the word "careless" and here he uses the words "intentional and willful". If I click the send button on an email, I'm not being careless, I'm being intentional and willful. Careless is butt dialing someone when your phone is in your pocket.
(8) "I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear." - Please note in the first sentence he states there will be intense debate on the recommendation. Second sentence states the investigation was done competently, etc. and that no outside influence was brought to bear. I have no doubts about the competency of the investigation. However, the recommendation to prosecute is not part of the investigative process.
Most will probably skim over this due to length. I firmly believe HRC has committed violations of the law in this regard. Failure to prosecute a crime does not mean a crime has not been committed, nor that the accused has been cleared.
(5)
(0)
SPC Rory J. Mattheisen
Y'all are on a witch hunt. Justice would be the GOP coming out of pocket to repay taxpayer's for their wages and wasted expenditures during the course of the last four years.
(0)
(0)
24
24
0
I don't know. Perhaps because she violated the law? Because any military member who did what she did would be in jail? Because she cost American lives with her incompetence and ineptitude? Because she's a lying, low-down criminal with no regard for the men and women who keep this country free? I'm no Trump fan. But if you let your dislike of Trump drive you to vote for Hillary than you are a mindless fool.
(24)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
No, I'm accusing the administration and his lackeys of political theater designed to protect their own. Anyone else would have been thrown under the bus and denying that fact isn't going to make it go away. Politicians no matter how popular are not above the law.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
If you truly believe she's innocent, indict and let it go to trial. She'll be exonerated right?
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails 7/7/16
Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails. Hillary Clinton Email Investigation FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on the FBI’s inv...
Was the server in a secure location as prescribed by the law? No, it damned sure wasn't.
Did she transmit secure documents through unsecure media? Yes, she damned sure did!
Was she willfully or intentionally negligent? Yes, she damned sure was!
Was secure email stored in an unseure location? Yes, it damned sure was!
Why don't you LISTEN to comey's responses, she lied to the FBI, the US Congress and the citizens of the Unites States.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ
Did she transmit secure documents through unsecure media? Yes, she damned sure did!
Was she willfully or intentionally negligent? Yes, she damned sure was!
Was secure email stored in an unseure location? Yes, it damned sure was!
Why don't you LISTEN to comey's responses, she lied to the FBI, the US Congress and the citizens of the Unites States.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
14
14
0
If you think the email and Benghazi scandals are meaningless or without substance, then it's not surprising that you would think the continued mentioning of them by the GOP indicates something about the GOP. But seriously, it tells us more about you than it does about the GOP.
(14)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google