Do You Think Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted? (1 Viewer)

[spreagle]

I am so looking forward to these next 8 years.

I know what secret information is, I'm not your typical liberal who thinks secret information is something like Kentucky Fried Chickens secret recipe, I've been personally responsible for keeping US government secret information secret and yes Hillary should be indicted, roundhouse slam dunk style indicted.  If I mishandled the secret information I was responsible for, I would fully expect to land behind bars for 20 years or more and yes I would consider such a sentence fair.  

 

[squistion]

Two pages in 3 hours. Moths to a flame.

It is like Mr. Ham run amok.

 

[Buzzbait]

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.

1) The fact that we are talking about confidential government information absolutely comes into play. It might be a witch hunt in that those that oppose her might have a hidden agenda (not good) but it doesn't discount that there is merit to an investigation. 65 of the emails were deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret." So while some might be some of the "Yes, I read that memo" variety there were clearly some that were sensitive. I'd say that warrants looking into the depth and intent.

2) Why does it take so much time to determine if we're talking about nuclear codes or something frivolous? One, the time frame you provide of two years is misleading. The server wasn't turned over for investigation until August 2015. Anything before that is simply Clinton saying "Nothing to see here...move on."  Two, during the investigation it was determined that some info had been deleted and some had been wiped. Deleted data is pretty easy to recover. Wiped data not so much (esp if done write with several low level passes).

 

[pantagrapher]

Y'all just keep your eyes closed with your fingers in your ears while repeating the mantra "Nobody cares about the emails. Nobody cares about the emails" while all the yeses pour in. Eventually you'll open your eyes to the reign of Trump I, but at least you scored some fictitious internet points you can brag about to all four of your followers on Twitter.

Speaking of fictitious internet points, poll results on a message board mean nothing to me.

 

[DMXATF23]

Y'all just keep your eyes closed with your fingers in your ears while repeating the mantra "Nobody cares about the emails. Nobody cares about the emails" while all the yeses pour in. Eventually you'll open your eyes to the reign of Trump I, but at least you scored some fictitious internet points you can brag about to all four of your followers on Twitter.

This is a non-issue to an undecided voter.

 

[Funkley]

1) The fact that we are talking about confidential government information absolutely comes into play. It might be a witch hunt in that those that oppose her might have a hidden agenda (not good) but it doesn't discount that there is merit to an investigation. 65 of the emails were deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret." So while some might be some of the "Yes, I read that memo" variety there were clearly some that were sensitive. I'd say that warrants looking into the depth and intent.

2) Why does it take so much time to determine if we're talking about nuclear codes or something frivolous? One, the time frame you provide of two years is misleading. The server wasn't turned over for investigation until August 2015. Anything before that is simply Clinton saying "Nothing to see here...move on."  Two, during the investigation it was determined that some info had been deleted and some had been wiped. Deleted data is pretty easy to recover. Wiped data not so much (esp if done write with several low level passes).

And over the course of that time, more lap tops have been stolen and smart phones lost containing information just as sensitive. Make her pay a fine, put a note in her permanent file, make her write "I won't use my private server anymore" 100 times on the blackboard. But let's please stop with the nonsense.

 

[spreagle]

This is a non-issue to an undecided voter.

The typical dumb city voter who doesn't have a clue what secret and top secret information is?   Yup.  

 

[skol asylum]

FBI recommends....yes

Justice Department actually does....no

Yep. But that alone should force her to step down from the nomination. But she won't. It's her turn damnit.

 

[sbonomo]

In regards to will she yes is too strong of a word. I went yes/no. And I don't know if she should be but she probably should be. We don't know all the facts yet.

Can you people really not make a decision?  Based on the facts we have today what do you think?

 

[sbonomo]

As far as Washington ethics and compliance scandals go this has to be one of the most miserable attempts ever. Emails? Really?? Has to be the political equivalent of passing a note in class and then your high school trying to expel you for it.

Whatvworld do you live in?  80% of my job is done via email?  Are you a plumber or a welder?  Trying to think of a job where email is not essential....

 

[sbonomo]

was the information classified when it was put on the server or after the fact?  

Does it matter?

 

[Funkley]

Whatvworld do you live in?  80% of my job is done via email?  Are you a plumber or a welder?  Trying to think of a job where email is not essential....

This is kinda the point......we all live in a data sensitive glass house. Including most of the people trying to punish her. I can only imagine how many people in Washington have been cleaning their @#$% up the last 2 years since this broke.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Shout out to @Buzzbait.  Five hours after the thread was started he's still the only poster here to even attempt to argue that Clinton might have violated an actual federal law.

Well, that and Baloney Sandwich's weird and totally unsupported claim of a RICO violation, I guess.

 

[Buzzbait]

And over the course of that time, more lap tops have been stolen and smart phones lost containing information just as sensitive. Make her pay a fine, put a note in her permanent file, make her write "I won't use my private server anymore" 100 times on the blackboard. But let's please stop with the nonsense.

You know this how? Again, 65 of the emails were deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret." Why should the investigation be cut short until all the deleted/wiped info is recovered and analyzed?

Look, when they know all the data that was on this server, if it's deemed to be inconsequential, then you slap her wrist and move on. Until that time however you can't make any informed decisions. The idea to just cut bait now and let it go is just as preposterous to me as those that want to hang her now without knowing all the facts.

 

[sbonomo]

This is kinda the point......we all live in a data sensitive glass house. Including most of the people trying to punish her. I can only imagine how many people in Washington have been cleaning their @#$% up the last 2 years since this broke.




 




 

How many Secretaries of State?  You know one of those important positions?

 

[tipsy mcstagger]

Which do you consider worse....Hillary using personal email or Trump University scamming old people?

 

[Funkley]

lofl.......I bet Sasquatch and the Dixie Chicks have "Top Secret" files.

 

[jon_mx]

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).

The removal of information would include seeing that information on a secure network and repeating it on a non-secure network.  That appears to have happened on several cases, but not sure if Hillary initiated that or if someone like Blumenfeld was the guilty party. 

 

[Buzzbait]

Shout out to @Buzzbait.  Five hours after the thread was started he's still the only poster here to even attempt to argue that Clinton might have violated an actual federal law.

Well, that and Baloney Sandwich's weird and totally unsupported claim of a RICO violation, I guess.

I can only take so much credit as I got a late start on the thread. 

At this point I've said everything that I can be said (which admittedly doesn't amount to much) so I'll bow out. I don't know if she did anything criminal that warrants an indictment but that's kinda my point as I don't think the Feds know either. This isn't over until the server analysis is completed (they recover all the data they can) so that an informed decision can be made.

 

[jon_mx]

Which do you consider worse....Hillary using personal email or Trump University scamming old people?

I consider both unworthy of office and could not cast a positive vote for either.  

 

[jon_mx]

I can only take so much credit as I got a late start on the thread. 

At this point I've said everything that I can be said (which admittedly doesn't amount to much) so I'll bow out. I don't know if she did anything criminal that warrants an indictment but that's kinda my point as I don't think the Feds know either. This isn't over until the server analysis is completed (they recover all the data they can) so that an informed decision can be made.

The poll asked for a yes or no response.  I have taken issue with your analysis before.  For instance, I disagree with your view of what constitutes removal and I disagree with your contention that previous SoS did anything even close to what Hillary did.  I do see it to be gross negligence. 

There is also a ton of stuff from the investigation which we do not have insight into. 

 

[jon_mx]

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.

Calling an FBI investigation a political witch hunt is a very weak argument.  This isn't some congressional investigation or even a political appointee.  

 

[jon_mx]

And over the course of that time, more lap tops have been stolen and smart phones lost containing information just as sensitive. Make her pay a fine, put a note in her permanent file, make her write "I won't use my private server anymore" 100 times on the blackboard. But let's please stop with the nonsense.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  There are not laptops and smart phones floating around with classified information on them.  Any movement of classified data outside of secured areas requires extensive training and very few people are authorized, especially when you get to secret or TS.  And these people do not lose these devices.  Your government issue smart phone does not have classified information on it.  

 

[Buzzbait]

The poll asked for a yes or no response.  I have taken issue with your analysis before.  For instance, I disagree with your view of what constitutes removal and I disagree with your contention that previous SoS did anything even close to what Hillary did.  I do see it to be gross negligence. 

There is also a ton of stuff from the investigation which we do not have insight into. 

Did you quote the correct person? 

I'm having two conversations in this thread (or was...I done).

One was my very uninformed opinion that I think Clinton has shown gross negligence and as such should be indicted (but don't think she will). I actually commented in response to Tobias that putting data on a private server should be akin to "removal" of data from a secure server.

The second conversation was in response to those that think the investigation should be halted. I say see it thorough. They aren't done analyzing the server.

So, if you take issue with my analysis have at it but I'm really not seeing/understanding on what point you disagree. If anything it sounds like we both agree to negligence and that we don't have full insight.

 

[jon_mx]

Did you quote the correct person? 

I'm having two conversations in this thread (or was...I done).

One was my very uninformed opinion that I think Clinton has shown gross negligence and as such should be indicted (but don't think she will). I actually commented in response to Tobias that putting data on a private server should be akin to "removal" of data from a secure server.

The second conversation was in response to those that think the investigation should be halted. I say see it thorough. They aren't done analyzing the server.

So, if you take issue with my analysis have at it but I'm really not seeing/understanding on what point you disagree. If anything it sounds like we both agree to negligence and that we don't have full insight.

It was meant for TF whom you were quoting

 

[skol asylum]

The bottom line is whether she did something illegal is irrelevant. Her actions were stupidly incompetent and paranoid. The act itself looks shady, like she was trying to hide things. These are not geat traits for a potential CIC. She is extremely lucky her rival is such a dangerous moron.

 

[Funkley]

You have no idea what you are talking about.  There are not laptops and smart phones floating around with classified information on them.  Any movement of classified data outside of secured areas requires extensive training and very few people are authorized, especially when you get to secret or TS.  And these people do not lose these devices.  Your government issue smart phone does not have classified information on it.  

Took me about 30 seconds to find dozens of articles on this very subject but ok. 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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...

d) wait until she's nominated, Sanders gives the speech everyone knows he'll give, tempers cool, the Republican head of the FBI says "meh, bad judgment isn't a crime" (very sternly to be sure), the reality of "President Trump" sinks in, the polls stretch back out to 5-6 points and she wins 325-195 in the electoral college.

 

[jon_mx]

Took me about 30 seconds to find dozens of articles on this very subject but ok. 

Good.  Post one.  I bet it does not say what you think it does.  Not that secure information hasn't been stolen, but these devices are not floating around.  It generally takes an inside job of someone with the proper clearance to breech the physical security.  

 

[jon_mx]

Took me about 30 seconds to find dozens of articles on this very subject but ok. 

The articles I see talk about government laptops.  These do not contain information which is considered classified (confidential/secret/TS), but personal information.  That is a completely different topic and not applicable to this discussion.  Classified information is protected to a much greater degree and is not floating around on laptops and certainly not smart phones. 

 

[randall146]

You also need to look at the backlash of not indicting her - probably a good 5 to 10 points...

Wait, you're arguing that she'll drop 5-10 points if she doesnt get indicted?

Like current Hillary voters and undecideds will turn to Trump because she isn't accused of a crime? 

 

[FUBAR]

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.

That's part of the problem here, we don't know what was in the emails because they've been classified. 

was the information classified when it was put on the server or after the fact?  

Does it matter?

Sort of.  There's stuff that gets classified, even appropriately, that most people even in the business wouldn't necessarily assume should be classified.  There's also the question of how much in the email was TS.  If someone sends a 1,000 page document that has not been properly classified, which turns out to have TS information on page 443, that should be treated differently than someone who sends a TS labeled document knowingly.  Calling 22 emails "Top Secret" doesn't provide sufficient detail to pass judgment on appropriate adjudication.

 

[Funkley]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/fbi.laptops/index.html?eref=rss_us

 

[NutterButter]

was the information classified when it was put on the server or after the fact?  

Does it matter?

I'd like to think so if what people are proposing she be indicted for is improper handling of classified information.  

 

[sbonomo]

The bottom line is whether she did something illegal is irrelevant. Her actions were stupidly incompetent and paranoid. The act itself looks shady, like she was trying to hide things. These are not geat traits for a potential CIC. She is extremely lucky her rival is such a dangerous moron.

This is perfectly said. 

 

[sbonomo]

I can't make a decision because we don't have all the information upon which a decision should be and is be being based. Believe me, as a Bernie supporter there's nothing I'd like more than to see her to go down in flames over this stuff, but as much as I dislike her I want it to be for legitimate reasons, and the IG report simply doesn't rise to that standard imo. Plenty in there to not vote for her over, not trust her for, etc (and I won't and don't), but that's clearly different than being indictable and why I answered yes/no to the first question. And saying she simply may not be indicted isn't equivalent to saying she will or should win the election so unbunch your britches a bit.

To me the crux of the issue is what's in those 30,000 deleted emails and whether or not the FBI was able to retrieve them along with if her server was hacked or not. I'm pretty confident that therein lies some indictable material so I answered yes to the second question, but do I know for sure? Of course not, and neither do you.

I think we don't know because the FBI doesn't want Hillary and her team of stonewallers to know which, in my opinion, bodes well for the chances of indictment, but who knows, really. I also think that if the FBI recommends indictment that the DOJ will move forward, perhaps after the convention to replace Hillary with Biden and avoid Bernie, or perhaps asap after Hillary is deposed. Either way, if Obama ignores the FBI there is no way in hell Hillary or any Democrat wins in November. That's too weighty a secret to expect several dozen people in Washington D.C. to keep and there's no way Obama risks his legacy and the possibility of a Trump presidency on the lips of human beings, no matter who they are. And if a secret like that got out, we'll then that's Watergate-level stuff.

Obama may be a lot of things to a lot of people but he certainly isn't stupid. To risk everything he has worked for to do a risky-at-best favor for his "friend" Hillary strikes me as asinine. If there's enough grey area that a slap on the wrist would be feasible politically, then sure, I think he'll swallow deeply and slap away. But I don't think in the end it's going to be all that grey, I'm just not positive yet.

This makes perfect sense   The op ask for an opinion, not for an absolute bomb proof verdict of innocence or guilt.   

 

[sbonomo]

Yeah, if only Hill had 1) retained all the emails, and 2) turned them over when required to. Heck, we're just finding out from the IG report of at least four new emails that had never been released before. Her stonewalling and deleting is what's making it all take so long.

And we also don't know yes if the server was ever successfully accessed by hackers (which would appear to open up Hillary to additional indictable charges)

Can she just pardon herself if she is elected?  Seems fair right

 

[chet]

HRC is an uber #### who thinks the laws don't apply to her.  Sadly, she's also probably the person who would harm the country the least from the current crop of candidates.

I'd love to see her behind bars if she were replaced by a good presidential candidate.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Two pages in 3 hours. Moths to a flame.

Says the moth as it's circling the flame with the other moths.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I am so looking forward to these next 8 years.

Who knew you were a Trump supporter?  I'll be damned.

 

[jon_mx]

And over the course of that time, more lap tops have been stolen and smart phones lost containing information just as sensitive. Make her pay a fine, put a note in her permanent file, make her write "I won't use my private server anymore" 100 times on the blackboard. But let's please stop with the nonsense.

The article you posted above was over 10 years old.  Security measures and means of tracking has greatly improved over the early 2000's.   There was no mention of smart phones.  The actual IG report says there were 10 missing laptops over a 4 year period which contained sensitive or classified information.  The report did not know if any of the laptops contained classified information or just sensitive information, but the CNN article kept interchanging the words as if they meant the same thing.  There was no indication that they contained information up to the TOP SECRET level which Hilllary's emails is said to contain.  It is most likely the laptops contained sensitive information.  Today it is rather rare for a laptop to contain classified information and those that do are in highly secured areas and closely tracked and then encrypted on top of that.  The points you made were not established in the article you posted.  Security of classified information is not as lax as you seem to believe.  It is a very serious matter in which great measures are taken. Certainly more measures than what Hillary did with her bathroom server.  Without a doubt, the average employee would be in jail in similar circumstances.

 

[Rove!]

Wait, you're arguing that she'll drop 5-10 points if she doesnt get indicted?

Like current Hillary voters and undecideds will turn to Trump because she isn't accused of a crime? 

It will be viewed as special treatment.  Many will not see is an an exoneration, but more like the party circling the wagons...that kind of thing will create a backlash

 

[spreagle]

I'm going on a big crime spree if Hillary isn't indicted and I won't get caught because I'm way smarter than Hillary.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The bottom line is whether she did something illegal is irrelevant. Her actions were stupidly incompetent and paranoid. The act itself looks shady, like she was trying to hide things. These are not geat traits for a potential CIC. She is extremely lucky her rival is such a dangerous moron.

This is perfectly said. 

Perhaps well-stated, but its hard to argue "whether she did something illegal is irrelevant" when the thread title is asking whether or not she will be indicted. For the question as asked, whether or not she did something illegal is quite relevant.

 

[skol asylum]

Perhaps well-stated, but its hard to argue "whether she did something illegal is irrelevant" when the thread title is asking whether or not she will be indicted. For the question as asked, whether or not she did something illegal is quite relevant.

Either way she is unfit for the office.

 

[Funkley]

The article you posted above was over 10 years old.  Security measures and means of tracking has greatly improved over the early 2000's.   There was no mention of smart phones.  The actual IG report says there were 10 missing laptops over a 4 year period which contained sensitive or classified information.  The report did not know if any of the laptops contained classified information or just sensitive information, but the CNN article kept interchanging the words as if they meant the same thing.  There was no indication that they contained information up to the TOP SECRET level which Hilllary's emails is said to contain.  It is most likely the laptops contained sensitive information.  Today it is rather rare for a laptop to contain classified information and those that do are in highly secured areas and closely tracked and then encrypted on top of that.  The points you made were not established in the article you posted.  Security of classified information is not as lax as you seem to believe.  It is a very serious matter in which great measures are taken. Certainly more measures than what Hillary did with her bathroom server.  Without a doubt, the average employee would be in jail in similar circumstances.

Check this one out. Seems like it opens the door to potential problems. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/mobile/government-android-phones/

 

[jon_mx]

Check this one out. Seems like it opens the door to potential problems. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/mobile/government-android-phones/

I am sure it could.  But I think our friends at NSA are smarter than all of us at coming up with foolproof means to protect the data.  At least I hope.  

 

[Christo]

Voted Yes/No and Yes/No.  Good pole.