Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Do You Think Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cjw_55106
- Start date
NutterButter
Footballguy
There needs to be an "I don't know" option for #2
Tom Servo
Nittany Beavers
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Voted Yes/No and Yes/No. Good pole.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
The issue is that we already know, according to the letter of the law, she has committed a crime. But because of who she is, she gets this "gray area" of "well, how in the wrong were you?" that any standard citizen wouldn't have the benefit of.
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
Buzzbait
Footballguy
OK, this seems to obvious but I'll play. If she is indicted it will be for her use of a private server to conduct confidential government business while she was secretary of state.
Why do you ask? Do you not think the above is an indictable offense? The only question IMO is if there is enough evidence to prove the above. If there is then she absolutly should be indicted.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The thing about something being an "indictable offense" is that you have to allege a violation of an actual criminal statute, not just something that some people on a message board think that you shouldn't do. "Using a private server to conduct confidential government business," without more, is not a violation of a criminal statute.
Buzzbait
Footballguy
I'm no lawyer and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express recently so I admit my opinion on this is likely flawed. However it's my understanding that there are Federal laws that have been broken by her use of a private server.
1) Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.
2) Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act. Specifically Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA.
3) Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
Aren't any, or all, of those three indictable offenses? Doesn't it really just come down to intent and proof?
NutterButter
Footballguy
I thought the criminal part had to do something with protecting classified information which by using a personal server she wasn't doing? So one leads to the other. I'm not saying that she was or wasn't, but that was the allegation.
Warrior
Footballguy
FUBAR
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
The right is still trying to nail something on the Clintons? How many decades now? Wake me when something sticks.
BTW, I hate Hillary.
BTW, I hate Hillary.
sdp1226
Footballguy
NutterButter
Footballguy
was the information classified when it was put on the server or after the fact?
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
I doubt it but she should be.
McGarnicle
Footballguy
No/Yes
Seems obvious she broke the law and lied about it and hasn't been cooperative. She won't get indicted because of who the president is.
Seems obvious she broke the law and lied about it and hasn't been cooperative. She won't get indicted because of who the president is.
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
You think using a private, non-secure, e-mail system to move Top Secret information isn't a criminal offense?
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
Well, you don't have to prove intent, if it's a crime. Proof seems to be in hand also.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
1. I analyzed 18 USC 793(f) over in the Clinton thread- long story short, for this to apply there has to be some act of removal of information from the proper place of custody, or delivery of information in violation of trust, through gross negligence.
I don't see what the act of removal/delivery of information from a proper place of custody would be here. I don't think it makes it unlawful to store classified information on personal email unless you're the one who directed (or through gross negligence allowed) a particular piece of information to be removed from a proper place of custody and stored there. And then there's also the question of whether something can constitute "gross negligence" when one's predecessors did the same thing. To me this looks like a stretch, but I know there are a few lawyers who have cited this as a possible grounds for indictment.
BTW the provision itself seems to be targeting people who do things like walking out of the Pentagon with maps and whatnot, not violations of recordkeeping and electronic communications guidelines. You can look for yourself here and see if you think anything Clinton did can be captured by the provision.
2. Those are regulatory guidelines. To my knowledge there's no criminal penalties for alleged violations of those guidelines, and thus no possibility of indictment for their violation. But maybe someone else knows how this could constitute a criminal act?
3. I'm not aware of any criminal penalties for violations of FOIA (which I also believe applies to agencies, not individuals).
Last edited by a moderator:
MarvinTScamper
Footballguy
if they indict the aide, and not this idiot of a woman, I will be both disappointed and unsurprised.
She was the effing secretary of state, if she can't be held to following the law, then the hell with it all. She doesn't know how to find a TV channel or print something, but we want her leading the country? Not in this lifetime.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Warsteinner
Footballguy
Yes, yes, and hope she does. Bubba Clinton is evil and I hope a judge throws the book at her. While in prison hope to see a headline saying she got the female version of a C-meat sandwich, the beef-curtain hoagie.
Rove!
Footballguy
options on the table for the dems:
- don't indict and face the prospect of losing to Trump
- indict and have her delegates choose Biden or some other more moderate choice
- indict and run with Bernie
if you are mainstream Democrat, which is your preference.
a few weeks ago, suffering with Hillary was the option, because she was ahead of Trump in the polls. As she sinks further, you have to look at plans B and C. You also need to look at the backlash of not indicting her - probably a good 5 to 10 points....if Trump starts to lead her in more and more polls, they may opt to indict her.
None of the options look pretty, right now...
- don't indict and face the prospect of losing to Trump
- indict and have her delegates choose Biden or some other more moderate choice
- indict and run with Bernie
if you are mainstream Democrat, which is your preference.
a few weeks ago, suffering with Hillary was the option, because she was ahead of Trump in the polls. As she sinks further, you have to look at plans B and C. You also need to look at the backlash of not indicting her - probably a good 5 to 10 points....if Trump starts to lead her in more and more polls, they may opt to indict her.
None of the options look pretty, right now...
Parrothead
Footballguy
I don't think she should go to prison, or even be arrested for that matter- just be ineligible for gov't security clearance therefore deeming her ineligible for public office..
then she can slither her way back to the 250K speech circuit for all I care
then she can slither her way back to the 250K speech circuit for all I care
Ignoramus
Footballguy
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
FUBAR
Footballguy
for many crimes, intent is an element of the offense. It appears that gross negligence is sufficient here, but your blanket statement is incorrect.
FWIW, I've been involved in investigating and disciplining active duty Soldiers for similar offenses (not Top Secret and really not harmful to the US, but classified nonetheless) and every single one has been disciplined. None have gone to jail or received federal convictions - but that's because of the impact and scale was MUCH less significant.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Federal, no. Some states do (Arkansas being one), but I don't think that's an issue here.
Swing 51
Footballguy
FUBAR
Footballguy
I'm assuming the information is for the Federal Government which makes it Federal (subject matter). Admittedly I haven't read everything about the investigation.
bueno
In a class by himself
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Right. FOIA applies to governments, not private citizens. If there were some sort of violation here (I done think there is since as far as I know it only applies to agencies, not individuals) it would be of the federal FOIA statute because the email stuff happened when Clinton was a federal employee.
Buzzbait
Footballguy
Two comments:
1) What if it was never stored in the proper place to being with? Your comment above indicates that it's only an offense if information is taken from a "proper place" and moved elsewhere. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say the same applies if it was put in an improper place to being with. Isn't the end result the same (i.e. data where it shouldn't be and at risk)?
2) Another aspect of this IMO is if information was intentionally removed. Was it deleted or wiped (big difference) and if so why (i.e. general maintenance or with intent to hide activity).
fightingillini
Footballguy
correct answer is no/yes.
Obama will never let it happen........................
Unless Hillary starts falling well behind Trump in the polls.....then all bets are off. Obama will do whatever it takes to preserve his legacy, and that means get a Democrat elected in 2016. He obviously would rather have Sanders elected than Trump.
Obama will never let it happen........................
Unless Hillary starts falling well behind Trump in the polls.....then all bets are off. Obama will do whatever it takes to preserve his legacy, and that means get a Democrat elected in 2016. He obviously would rather have Sanders elected than Trump.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
1. Removal from proper place of custody is an element of the crime, without it there's no violation unless you're claiming that the material was lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed (in which case you don't need the removal from the proper place of custody). If this seems odd to you, that's probably because stuff like an unsecured email doesn't really appear to be the target of the statute. As I said it seems to be targeting people who physically remove (or allow the illegal removal of, or fail to report the illegal removal of) or destroy defense materials. If you read the statute you'll see what I mean.
2. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but generally speaking the question would be whether the act of wiping or deleting or whatever constitutes reckless negligence resulting in defense materials being lost,stolen, abstracted or destroyed, which it kind of seems like it could. I really don't know any details about what was wiped/deleted, and by whom, and on whose orders, so I can't help more than that. Although to me that seems like it could potentially be a better case for indictment than the removal from proper place of custody argument. Depends if she actually destroyed any stuff "relating to the national defense." I don't know if deleting copies of stuff would count though, you'd have to ask someone who's an expert in that particular statute.
bueno
In a class by himself
Funkley
Collar: Up
Disagree. Still a political witchhunt over emails. Doesn't take 2 years to determine if the emails contain the nuclear codes or "top secret" things like "Did you read that memo? Yes, I read that memo" or my personal favorite "today's meeting moved to the White House briefing room".
Unless one of those emails admits to killing Vince Foster, it's become a waste of time.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
You've answered a question with a question. Identifying the specific criminal statute at issue is the starting point in this discussion, the most important question everyone has to answer - whether a Clinton supporter, opponent or neutral. If someone is to be indicted, the first step is to identify the specific criminal statute at issue and look at the elements of proof needed to establish a violation. It seems pretty clear that the FOIA statute for example does not provide a basis for personal criminal liability.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Two pages in 3 hours. Moths to a flame.
spreagle
Footballguy
If Hillary isn't indicted then each and every voting and gun-owner eligible American citizen should receive a "get out of jail free, except for murder" signed card from Obama.
I thought this through and yes one rape without penalty should be allowed if Hillary is let off the hook because if Hillary is let off the hook, Hillary was allowed to rape America without penalty.
I thought this through and yes one rape without penalty should be allowed if Hillary is let off the hook because if Hillary is let off the hook, Hillary was allowed to rape America without penalty.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Her and the foundation are going down under RICO
