What's new
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!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
He's been awesome. This is the toughest spot anyone's been in since John Mitchell, seriously, whole election riding on him, going to bed at night must be tough.
Click to expand...
And, like. I have no basis to agree or disagree with his decision not to prosecute.  Just not my lane.  But, his entire explanation seems totally plausible, and I understand it.  Moreover, to some there is a gap between the evidence and the result, and it's great that he acknowledged that, embraced it, and welcomes the "conversation" to bridge that gap.  He strikes me as someone who can sleep well at night because he proceeded with the utmost integrity and his interpretation of the law.  Reasonable folks can disagree on the interpretation, but he seems entirely comfortable with how the evidence fits with the recommendations.

 
cobalt_27 said:
And, like. I have no basis to agree or disagree with his decision not to prosecute.  Just not my lane.  But, his entire explanation seems totally plausible, and I understand it.  Moreover, to some there is a gap between the evidence and the result, and it's great that he acknowledged that, embraced it, and welcomes the "conversation" to bridge that gap.  He strikes me as someone who can sleep well at night because he proceeded with the utmost integrity and his interpretation of the law.  Reasonable folks can disagree on the interpretation, but he seems entirely comfortable with how the evidence fits with the recommendations.
Click to expand...
True, I agree, I just meant he has the weight of the world on him right now.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Comey says no cases ever brought for gross negligence. Well thereyago, guilty but no pros.
Click to expand...
For there to be list of precedents, wouldn't there have to be a first?  It this isn't the first, and it isn't gross negligence, then what is?  Would gross negligence have to lead to someone's death for it to be gross negligence?

 
Jayrok said:
For there to be list of precedents, wouldn't there have to be a first?  It this isn't the first, and it isn't gross negligence, then what is?  Would gross negligence have to lead to someone's death for it to be gross negligence?
Click to expand...
That's a good question and a valid concern.  Someone mentioned that earlier in this hearing, and I agree with it.  

 
jamny said:
So the FBI didn't look at any other testimony that Hillary made under oath?
Click to expand...
it looks like that is going to be a follow up investigation...will be difficult for her to wiggle out of that one. She'll claim she was misunderstood, of course.

 
cobalt_27 said:
And, like. I have no basis to agree or disagree with his decision not to prosecute.  
Click to expand...
He made it clear that it's not his decision not to prosecute.

"In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect.... As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. " - James Comey 7/5/2016

 
 


Heidi Przybyla Verified account ‏@HeidiPrzybyla


More Comey on intent burden: Must prove ‘clearly knew’ breaking the law. ‘Would have, should have, must have‘… ‘does not get you there.’
Click to expand...
- Basically, the government does not prosecute 793f as written, and I guess the reason is that this is a law that would be enforced against themselves, but also because almost no one could ever be this negligent, it would really take an extreme, unusual set of circumstances and I bet this has only happened a handful of times in the history of the statue.
 
So all those who have been paying attention to email content etc...I have a question.  Was there email proof that Hillary was asking her staff to send her information after removing classification markings or some such?

 
jamny said:
I don't think Comey is looking good here at all. I think there was a lot of leniency on his part.
Click to expand...
There is something in this for everybody pro and con Hillary.

Comey is a stand-up guy. He really should not be in this position. I see this now and I think they should have gone grand jury. It's crazy thy didn't in retrospect.

 
Jayrok said:
For there to be list of precedents, wouldn't there have to be a first?  It this isn't the first, and it isn't gross negligence, then what is?  Would gross negligence have to lead to someone's death for it to be gross negligence?
Click to expand...
Nobody can say for sure what gross negligence is but what it is almost certainly not is something that similar people in a similar position have also done.  If other Secretaries of State conducted department business via private email it might not even rise to the level of negligence, let alone gross negligence. That her predecessors did so less frequently, or not on their own personal servers, may (should?) matter to your opinion of her, but it doesn't matter when it comes to application of the law.  After all the potential crime requiring gross negligence would be "permitting removal" of information by having it sent to a private server, and for those purposes it doesn't matter whose server it is or how often you did it.

You all are waaaay too deep on this.  Take a deep breath.  This is a mistake in judgment, and it's fair to hold a mistake in judgment against her, but it's not close to being a crime.  Never has been, never will be.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
 


- Basically, the government does not prosecute 793f as written, and I guess the reason is that this is a law that would be enforced against themselves, but also because almost no one could ever be this negligent, it would really take an extreme, unusual set of circumstances and I bet this has only happened a handful of times in the history of the statue.
Click to expand...
The intent burden is irrelevant under the 783f statute.  I suppose they'll amend the code to include intent must be evident, after this is over.  

 
Jayrok said:
The intent burden is irrelevant under the 783f statute.  I suppose they'll amend the code to include intent must be evident, after this is over.  
Click to expand...
Congress has their own problems on this - if it's GOP doing it then they would have to say that intent is not necessary for that provision, however they would be opening themselves up to big time risk because they handle a lot of that stuff.

 
All the facts he states implicate Hillary and her aides knowingly breaking the law, but all of his opinions brush aside prosecution.  Although he eloquently combines the two positions in his comments it's hard to reconcile.

It's clear that if she was almost anyone else she would have been, at the very least, fired.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Nobody can say for sure what gross negligence is but what it is almost certainly not is something that similar people in a similar position have also done.  If other Secretaries of State conducted department business via private email it might not even rise to the level of negligence, let alone gross negligence. That her predecessors did so less frequently, or not on their own personal servers, may (should?) matter to your opinion of her, but it doesn't matter when it comes to application of the law.  After all the potential crime requiring gross negligence would be "permitting removal" of information by having it sent to a private server, and for those purposes it doesn't matter whose server it is or how often you did it.

You all are waaaay too deep on this.  Take a deep breath.  This is a mistake in judgment, and it's fair to hold a mistake in judgment against her, but it's not close to being a crime.  Never has been, never will be.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's grounds for being fired. But whether or not it's a crime isn't even necessary to show she shouldn't be promoted. 

 
jamny said:
I don't think Comey is looking good here at all. I think there was a lot of leniency on his part.
Click to expand...
You mean his (FBIs) previous decisions. I think you would have said that yesterday. 

Not his testimony.  His is a straight baller on the stand.  He is an easy hire if you are looking for someone to handle critical work.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Nobody can say for sure what gross negligence is but what it is almost certainly not is something that similar people in a similar position have also done.  If other Secretaries of State conducted department business via private email it might not even rise to the level of negligence, let alone gross negligence. That her predecessors did so less frequently, or not on their own personal servers, may (should?) matter to your opinion of her, but it doesn't matter when it comes to application of the law.  After all the potential crime requiring gross negligence would be "permitting removal" of information by having it sent to a private server, and for those purposes it doesn't matter whose server it is or how often you did it.

You all are waaaay too deep on this.  Take a deep breath.  This is a mistake in judgment, and it's fair to hold a mistake in judgment against her, but it's not close to being a crime.  Never has been, never will be.
Click to expand...
This reminds me a little of the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' thing during the impeachment.

Misdemeanor: is this misbehavior unbefitting a president, or more a part of "high crimes" such as treason?

I don't want to argue it out but it's wild how the Clintons just land in these unique, bizarre legal loopholes with vague language.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
I agree. It's grounds for being fired. But whether or not it's a crime isn't even necessary to show she shouldn't be promoted. 
Click to expand...
And that's what I'm saying all along.  If John Kerry is in this situation, he should be fired as SoS.  She should/would be fired as SoS.  Not prosecuted as a criminal.  Ineligible to be commander-in-chief.  

 
timschochet said:
I'm sorry but no matter how much you or anyone else repeats this nonsense it's still nonsense. 

8 years as the most involved First Lady in history. 8 years as a highly influential United States Senator. 4 years as the most visible Secretary of State in modern American history. 20 years as the most admired American woman in the world, second only to Obama as the most admired American in the world. Forged relationships with every major world leader, along with all high ranking politicians on both sides of the aisle. 

One of the most qualified ever. Not even up for debate. 
Click to expand...
It is up for debate and you need to stop this line and so does the DNC and Obama.  It's remarkably outrageous to call her the most qualified person to ever run for the office.  And it borders on actual medical insanity to say it, the political rhetoric of the landscape aside.

She isn't unqualified.  No one should argue that.  But going all the way to the other end of the spectrum is just flat out wrong and there is no subjective or objective logic that gets it to be correct.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This reminds me a little of the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' thing during the impeachment.

Misdemeanor: is this misbehavior unbefitting a president, or more a part of "high crimes" such as treason?

I don't want to argue it out but it's wild how the Clintons just land in these unique, bizarre legal loopholes with vague language.
Click to expand...
There's only vagueness in the statute if people are desperately trying to make it apply to actions to which it clearly wasn't intended to apply. Square peg, round hole.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
257K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top