FBI director recommends Hillary Clinton not be indicted in email investigation

[bhsmte]

I don't agree. I don't think anyone should get special treatment because they work for the government. She - like many before her - won't get a slap on the wrist. She won't get anything.

This is why many don't trust the government, and it really doesn't matter what side of the aisle their on.

She has always exuded an arrogance about her that she can't be bothered with such trivial things as rules and or tough questions.

She is who she is. I don't like her or the other candidate. Oh well, maybe next time.

 

[PapaZoom]

Bush and Cheney sent all their Executive branch email through a server at the RNC headquarters -- No charges.
Powell used his own email server which sat on his desk and was administered by nobody -- no charges.
Patreus traded classified information for sexual favors -- probation.

And Hillary is so much worse because...? Right -- Clinton.

You have your facts wrong. It's not the same thing and if you took the time to research it, you'd have known that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You have your facts wrong. It's not the same thing and if you took the time to research it, you'd have known that.

If that's so, correct it. I'll wait.

 

[PapaZoom]

If that's so, correct it. I'll wait.

You must be referring to Colin Powell who did use a personal server for some of his email correspondence. Note: some. And the rules were different then.

Bush never used emails. Most were wary of using email. What sets Hillary apart is that she used a private unclassified server and sent thousands of emails back and forth. No one has done anything close to the magnitude of this. Powell admitted to his error and stopped. Hillary lied and lied and lied and refused to use the State Dept server.

But please show where others have done exactly what Hillary has done.

 

[Arcangl86]

It's time for the states' Attorneys General to begin prosecuting
Clinton if the feds are too corrupt to do it.

For what exactly? What state law has she broken?

 

[bhsmte]

You must be referring to Colin Powell who did use a personal server for some of his email correspondence. Note: some. And the rules were different then.

Bush never used emails. Most were wary of using email. What sets Hillary apart is that she used a private unclassified server and sent thousands of emails back and forth. No one has done anything close to the magnitude of this. Powell admitted to his error and stopped. Hillary lied and lied and lied and refused to use the State Dept server.

But please show where others have done exactly what Hillary has done.

In a nutshell:

The rules changed when Hilary got in office. She was warned of the risks of doing what she was doing and she ignored those warnings.

Clinton lied to the public about not sending or receiving emails that were classified and did so for months and months. I'll bet, when the FBI interviewed her, she all of a sudden remembered sending and receiving classified emails, because lying to the FBI, would not have been a good idea.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You must be referring to Colin Powell who did use a personal server for some of his email correspondence. Note: some. And the rules were different then.

So "some" instead of 'all" changes everything.

Bush never used emails. Most were wary of using email.

Well, that's just a plain, old-fashioned, flat-out lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

What sets Hillary apart is that she used a private unclassified server and sent thousands of emails back and forth. No one has done anything close to the magnitude of this. Powell admitted to his error and stopped. Hillary lied and lied and lied and refused to use the State Dept server.

But please show where others have done exactly what Hillary has done.

If you're referring to lying, see above.

 

[PapaZoom]

In a nutshell:

The rules changed when Hilary got in office. She was warned of the risks of doing what she was doing and she ignored those warnings.

Clinton lied to the public about not sending or receiving emails that were classified and did so for months and months. I'll bet, when the FBI interviewed her, she all of a sudden remembered sending and receiving classified emails, because lying to the FBI, would not have been a good idea.

Exactly. I can't find the article I read a while back that spoke of how the rules are different today. But the claim that "Powell and Rice" did it too just doesn't wash.

 

[PapaZoom]

So "some" instead of 'all" changes everything.

Well, that's just a plain, old-fashioned, flat-out lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy


If you're referring to lying, see above.

You just don't have all your facts correct. The same rules weren't in place when Powell was sending and receiving his emails.

This is a false argument. No other Secretary of State, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, used private email exclusively to conduct all government business and neither set up a private server inside their homes. Further, there is no proof either Powell or Rice shared classified, top secret information on a private email account.

Now in an exclusive interview with Fox News, former State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard is debunking the Clinton campaign narrative, exposing Clinton's lies about security protocol and argues he would have also investigated her use of a private server.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...se-private-email-like-powell-or-rice-n2171349

and this

The IG report makes clear there is no comparison between Clinton’s and Powell’s email practices. Powell did use personal email for some official business, but not nearly to the extent Clinton did nor did he (Powell) use a private server. Although a handful of Powell’s emails were found to be classified at a low level, according to a May 27, 2016 New York Timesarticle, 2,028 of the Clinton’s work-related emails were classified “confidential” and 65 were classified “secret.” 22 other Clinton emails were classified “top secret” or higher and are so sensitive that they will not be released even in redacted form.

Hello? Still there?

The new IG report says the State Department’s rules on the use of unclassified email for official business significantly evolved between 2001 and 2009 and provides charts showing how these rules changed over time. The report also noted that State Department employees first acquired desktop access to the Internet under Powell.

According to the IG report, Powell “installed a laptop computer on a private line” in his State Department office for unclassified email access and he used this laptop to send email via his personal email account to his “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.” This was permissible in 2001, but would never be allowed today

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....well-excuse-wont-save-her-from-email-scandal/

Another good link to read and learn: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/234999-powell-i-retained-none-of-my-state-emails

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...a-lot-different-than-clintons/article/2582449

And, Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had an official State Department email address, and used it when she occasionally sent emails, according to a Rice aide.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/10/condoleezza-rice-used-a-state-department-email-address/

And try as I might I can find nothing on Cheney using a private email server like you have suggested.

 

[PapaZoom]

Bush and Cheney sent all their Executive branch email through a server at the RNC headquarters -- No charges.
Powell used his own email server which sat on his desk and was administered by nobody -- no charges.
Patreus traded classified information for sexual favors -- probation.

And Hillary is so much worse because...? Right -- Clinton.

BTW, this: -->Bush and Cheney sent all their Executive branch email through a server at the RNC headquarters

is totally untrue. There were two servers. One official for White House use and one for RNC business. Look it up.

 

[tulc]

How would the republicans indict her?

How does anyone get indicted? Someone gets a pet prosecutor to call a grand jury/accuse her of a felony, they present whatever evidence that's needed to get the person indicted, and then a pet judge signs off on it. That there's never been any sort of charges brought tells me they have nothing that she can be charged with, so instead they "indict" her on fox news and "try" her by screaming about how guilty she is...apparently what she's mostly guilty of is not actually committing an illegal act.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[redleghunter]

Bush and Cheney sent all their Executive branch email through a server at the RNC headquarters -- No charges.
Powell used his own email server which sat on his desk and was administered by nobody -- no charges.
Patreus traded classified information for sexual favors -- probation.

And Hillary is so much worse because...? Right -- Clinton.

All of the above minus P4 did not transmit classified material via unsecure means, did not claim their correspondence is immune from FOIA requests. There's the difference.

Add to that Barak Obama campaigned on a promise to be a transparent administration. So much for that promise.

If you have proof Powell, Cheney and Bush transmitted classified information on an unsecured network show us the evidence. If the above deemed their emails inaccessible to FOIA show the evidence.

The only denial of submitting information for Bush and Cheney was executive privilege. Which Obama has used on occasion as well and is legal to do so. The Sec State has no such privilege unless related to communications directly to the President.

 

[redleghunter]

You don't expect Hillary supporters to actually understand what you posted here, do you?

Most were probably Bernie supporters decrying her corruption just a few weeks ago. Now defending her. Some probably hoped she would be indicted so the Bern could keep on Bernin.

I have to give the liberals credit....they lock step when left with no options.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, if it's any consolation, even the POTUS has some serious limits on their security clearance.

Yes the need to know. Related to plausible deniability. Understand your concern. A lot of sensitive technology ended up in China during Bill Clinton's admin and a lot of the same technology ended up in the hands of "allies" during the Bush admin.

 

[redleghunter]

No, if she can't get security clearance for cause, she should not be able
to take the oath of office, much less become President. She should not
be able to hold any elected or appointed office again.

Well that would be the "administrative" punishment alluded to. A slap on the wrist would be relief for cause and her security clearance revoked. If she were a regular Joe, that means she would be able to appeal the action. I have yet to see anyone win an appeal for such gross negligence. Let alone reapply and be reinstated.

So that won't happen as she is applying to be POTUS and cannot be denied a clearance given a denial would be considered political in nature.

It must be nice to be above the law.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't agree. I don't think anyone should get special treatment because they work for the government. She - like many before her - won't get a slap on the wrist. She won't get anything.

This is why many don't trust the government, and it really doesn't matter what side of the aisle their on.

Sad state isn't it. Here's the kicker...these corrupt politicians keep getting elected by the people. Beggars to their own demise.

 

[redleghunter]

She has always exuded an arrogance about her that she can't be bothered with such trivial things as rules and or tough questions.

She is who she is. I don't like her or the other candidate. Oh well, maybe next time.

"A" Ross Perot type could pull some electoral votes if they ran this cycle. However even the third party candidates are jokes.

 

[pat34lee]

And Hillary is so much worse because...? Right -- Clinton.

Because her actions were illegal. Prove any of Bush's or
any of the others were, that were not prosecuted.

 

[redleghunter]

Lastly, saying she doesn't qualify for TS clearance is laughable and ridiculous given the positions she has held.

In a position as Sec State where she demonstrated incompetence managing Top Secret data.

Sure, compound error why not?

 

[dgiharris]

In a position as Sec State where she demonstrated incompetence managing Top Secret data.

Sure, compound error why not?

Hmm mm good point.

Okay, how about this line of attack.
The criteria to be president as defined by the Constitution entails getting votes. Your credit history, high school gpa, physical fitness level and ability to "normally" qualify for a security clearance are irrelevant as far as the actual Constitutional requirements are concerned.

The people voting will know all that stuff and if they choose you despite that baggage than that choice overrides other qualifiers that would be in effect for typical jobs.