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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That's the odd part - it reads like a DOJ statement plopped down at the end of his summary.

eta - It's funny, if Comey had said here 'even though we can find no case exactly like this, the unique set of facts at issue here more than justify an indictment under sec. 793' it could have made just as much sense.
Click to expand...
In the opening tonight, Poppa Bear claimed only one person had ever been charged under that statute and it was dismissed - that was back in the 80s.  Of course, the source is Poppa Bear's staff, so take it with a grain of salt.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Well if emails are subject to FOIA request, post them all online a week or two after they are sent.   The week or two to allow for those exceptions, including "spillage" of classified information to be addressed.   I realize that the infrastructure for even archiving of all emails won't be in place until the end of the year (at least for State), but it seems to me to be a small step from archiving to making links to those archives.  And I think such a system would be much cheaper than responding to individual request and, in general lead to better government.  Of course this is neither here nor there when it comes to Hillary's actions from 2008 through 2013.
Click to expand...
The response will be a decrease in email activity - especially anything noteworthy.  This is what happened at the major banks after 2010 or so.  After the first wave of litigation and document requests for the housing crisis, work related emails basically dried up.  All important business was done face to face or over the phone.  Making the email system more or less entirely open would do the same thing in the government - in fact I'd be surprised if this wasn't already happening.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd statement by him. Statements about what a reasonable prosecutor might do should probably be left to a prosecutor, not an FBI official. Especially because prosecutorial discretion is complicated, and reasonable people will disagree on how it should be applied. Look at the controversy surrounding Obama's immigration policy. Even peaceful, hardworking, non-rapey illegal immigrants have violated the law and could legally be deported. Should we deport all of them that we can find? College kids smoke pot in their dorms. If they get caught, should we always press charges? If we don't, some will argue that prosecutors are rewriting laws rather than enforcing them as they were enacted by the legislature. If we do, some will argue that we're subverting the spirit of legal pragmatism by overreacting to ticky-tack offenses.

In this case, there's a statute that makes gross negligence a violation. According to Comey, that statute has generally been treated a bit like criminal laws against pot-smoking (in states that treat that leniently) -- charges aren't brought without the presence of other factors, and those other factors weren't present in this case.

But should a prosecutor nonetheless bring charges in a case with a profile this high? The FBI can give its reasons for recommending that no charges be brought. But to say that no reasonable prosecutor would disagree with that recommendation seems like an overstep, IMO.
Click to expand...
He's supposed to make a recommendation, so he needs to cover his ### because while the law is on the books, it's not enforced as written.  That's a tough sell in such a charged case.  He probably also heightened his language in admonition of her for some political cover from the right.  He walked a tight line and I think for the most part he did well in an impossible situation.

 
dparker713 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Well if emails are subject to FOIA request, post them all online a week or two after they are sent.   The week or two to allow for those exceptions, including "spillage" of classified information to be addressed.   I realize that the infrastructure for even archiving of all emails won't be in place until the end of the year (at least for State), but it seems to me to be a small step from archiving to making links to those archives.  And I think such a system would be much cheaper than responding to individual request and, in general lead to better government.  Of course this is neither here nor there when it comes to Hillary's actions from 2008 through 2013.
Click to expand...
The response will be a decrease in email activity - especially anything noteworthy.  This is what happened at the major banks after 2010 or so.  After the first wave of litigation and document requests for the housing crisis, work related emails basically dried up.  All important business was done face to face or over the phone.  Making the email system more or less entirely open would do the same thing in the government - in fact I'd be surprised if this wasn't already happening.
Click to expand...
I understand the "chilling effect" of making emails public, but I think that these broad media requests "for everything" related to whatever will have the same impact.   I'm guessing that while there will remain a place for email for quite a long time it is also being supplanted by other collaboration tools such that getting carried away discussing email is a bit of addressing yesterday's problems.  

 
timschochet said:
Rich, to answer your question (and Slapdash's point, and Boston's) I don't have a suggested alternative to the FOIA. That wasn't my point. My point is that Judicial Watch, IMO, abuses the FOIA and the legal system. I think they're slimy. 

That doesn't make attempting to obstruct the FOIA correct behavior. 
Click to expand...
I don't see it.  They're trying very hard to make Hillary's e-mails public, something that should have been done from the start.  As Slapdash noted, that's not abusing the system, that's using the system for its sole, intended purpose.

 
And somehow someway, the GOP nor the dems will be able to produce a better candidate in 2020, and this Clinton win will turn into a Clinton 2-term.

Man, f#####ck this.

 
After all the Benghazi stuff,  all the lying about the emails,  and people still support this woman.  I'll never understand it.   

 
ShamrockPride said:
And somehow someway, the GOP nor the dems will be able to produce a better candidate in 2020, and this Clinton win will turn into a Clinton 2-term.

Man, f#####ck this.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's true. Paul Ryan seems like a strong candidate to me. If he were the Republican nominee, he would win now.

 
squistion said:
Addison C. Gainous ‏@addisoncolbyg 3m3 minutes ago

Can you imagine what would happen if @HillaryClinton praised Saddam Hussein for ANYTHING? The other side would go... Baathist crazy.
Click to expand...
Yaknow it's weird. Hillary survives criminal allegations that would kill any other candidate and Trump survives saying horrible things that would kill any other candidate. They really deserve each other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
flapgreen said:
After all the Benghazi stuff,  all the lying about the emails,  and people still support this woman.  I'll never understand it.   
Click to expand...
Ya, Benghazi is about the only reason I'd vote for her.   I've been listening to the right wing crybabies go on and on about Benghazi for years, and I still haven't heard anything worth giving a #### about.   Obviously a majority of the public hasn't bought into your bs either. But keep crying about it. 

 
dparker713 said:
In the opening tonight, Poppa Bear claimed only one person had ever been charged under that statute and it was dismissed - that was back in the 80s.  Of course, the source is Poppa Bear's staff, so take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Ha Poppa Bear? And who are you, Goldilocks?

Regardless, I believe it, the stat is too good to check. I guess my thought is that while yes the negligence charge must be very rare, otoh how many factual situations could this occur in? Those must be rare too. Seems to me if Comey had concluded, 'this situation is so rare and unique this is one instance in which the 793 gross negligence standard should apply' that would have been just as reasonable. I'm not faulting Comey, it's just funny how everything written and spoken up to that point could have just as easily resulted in a recommendation to indict as not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yaknow it's weird. Hillary survives criminal allegations that would kill any other candidate and Trump survives saying horrible things that would lullaby other candidate. They really deserve each other.
Click to expand...
She survived them because there was nothing there. No merit to any of the allegations as proven again by the FBI's decision.

 
You know what the Bush Admin used to do with FOIA requests? Either flat out ignore them or respond to them with documents that had every single word blacked out.

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't see it.  They're trying very hard to make Hillary's e-mails public, something that should have been done from the start.  As Slapdash noted, that's not abusing the system, that's using the system for its sole, intended purpose.
Click to expand...
This doesn't track at all.  The major issue was whether she mishandled classified information.  However, any FOIA request would fail to turn over any classified documents, so the key evidence was never going to be obtained in this manner.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ha Poppa Bear? And who are you, Goldilocks?

Regardless, I believe it, the stat is too good to check. I guess my thought is that while yes the negligence charge must be very rare, otoh how many factual situations could this occur in? Those must be rare too. Seems to me if Comey had concluded, 'this situation is so rare and unique this is one instance in which the 793 gross negligence standard should apply' that would have been just as reasonable. I'm not faulting Comey, it's just funny how everything written and spoken up to that point could have just as easily resulted in a recommendation to indict as not.
Click to expand...
Poppa Bear is a reference from The Colbert Report.

 
dparker713 said:
That's not actually an advertisement.  There is certainly a good amount of fair use for those clips, I'm just not sure that includes an advertisement.  
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt a public official or the government retains any rights on a public statement.  Government employees certainly can not profit from their public work.  

 
dparker713 said:
This doesn't track at all.  The major issue was whether she mishandled classified information.  However, any FOIA request would fail to turn over any classified documents, so the key evidence was never going to be obtained in this manner.  
Click to expand...
A lot has come out. It's shown there were actually classified documents improperly held, the type, the quantity, plus numerous other subjects, including those Hillary emailed with, on what, and by their absence what Hillary destroyed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
She survived them because there was nothing there. No merit to any of the allegations as proven again by the FBI's decision.
Click to expand...
:lmao: You must live in another reality. When the FBI declares that you broke the law as written but that it seems that the law hasn't been enforced as written, that certainly isn't a case of baseless accusations. That's a case of getting lucky that previous prosecutors chose to ignore the law as it is written.

 
GroveDiesel said:
:lmao: You must live in another reality. When the FBI declares that you broke the law as written but that it seems that the law hasn't been enforced as written, that certainly isn't a case of baseless accusations. That's a case of getting lucky that previous prosecutors chose to ignore the law as it is written.
Click to expand...
And if the FBI ever said that, you'd be right.

 
apalmer said:
And if the FBI ever said that, you'd be right.
Click to expand...
I thought the above was really well stated but to me it has two possible meanings - either Comey inserted a provision into 793f which isn't there or the Feds as a matter of past history simply don't enforce that law when it is broken (and yes Hillary broke it). I've been reading Comey's statement as the latter.

eta - also like I said above, there aren't that many instances where gross negligence could occur, but this is one of those rare instances, so it's not that the DOJ has not enforced this law (793f) in the past but that so few people have broken it that it has not arisen as a practical matter, but this certainly met the letter and spirit if the law such that this is one of those rare instances. Comey could have just easily said that given the facts he laid out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The biggest fallout from this will be on the million plus people who regularly handle classified information.  How can you take all the training and rules seriously when Hillary does all this without even a slap on the wrists?   

The circumstances are a bit different since she is not currently a government employee and assuming she wins, is an elected official and not a typical employee subject to be granted clearance.   But this is a slap in the face to everyone who does follow the rules and are held accountable.  

 
apalmer said:
And if the FBI ever said that, you'd be right.
Click to expand...
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, "

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. 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."

He flat out says that there is evidence that the statutes were broken, but then says that they are not recommending prosecution because previous indictments were for situations that had intent of some sort. 

 
We'll have to wait a week or so to see how the post-exoneration polling works out, but the betting markets seem to like the resolution of the e-mail affair, with a slight tick in Clinton's favor:

Clinton - 4/11, Trump 3/1

 
wdcrob said:
We'll have to wait a week or so to see how the post-exoneration polling works out, but the betting markets seem to like the resolution of the e-mail affair, with a slight tick in Clinton's favor:

Clinton - 4/11, Trump 3/1
Click to expand...
The fundamentals of this race are ridiculous. It's not just a question of candidates or their flaws or policies or what mood the country is in or demographics, there's one candidate who isn't even running a professional campaign. 

 
dparker713 said:
Rich Conway said:
I don't see it.  They're trying very hard to make Hillary's e-mails public, something that should have been done from the start.  As Slapdash noted, that's not abusing the system, that's using the system for its sole, intended purpose.
Click to expand...
This doesn't track at all.  The major issue was whether she mishandled classified information.  However, any FOIA request would fail to turn over any classified documents, so the key evidence was never going to be obtained in this manner.
Click to expand...
You're mixing separate issues.  The purpose of the server in the first place was to avoid FOIA, in order to keep the public's eyes away from Hillary's correspondence.

A second, separate issue is that she mishandled classified info.  It would have been mishandling even if she had used a .gov e-mail address.

 
Prediction: In a week, timschochet will forget all about this and revert right back to "most qualified ever" and "she did nothing wrong".

 
GroveDiesel said:
It really is incredible that today was a perfect demonstration of how awful both candidates are. One was called extremely careless with State secrets and had the head of the FBI essentially concede that she broke the law but say that the law is rarely enforced in cases like this. 

And instead of her opponent taking this gift and using it to beat her over the head as proof that she's incompetent and reckless and wouldn't even be qualified to view classified info anymore if she were in any other position than the Presidency, he goes out in loony tunes world and accuses everyone involved of corruption. And then praises Saddam Hussein for good measure.

it's unreal that one of these clowns will be our next President.
Click to expand...
It's unreal until you put Clinton's carelessness re: email compliance up against actual illegal stuff done by former Presidents. Imagine that instead of being careless with email, Hillary had illegally sold arms to Iran in order to illegally fund a secret war in Nicaragua?  

 
GroveDiesel said:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, "

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. 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."

He flat out says that there is evidence that the statutes were broken, but then says that they are not recommending prosecution because previous indictments were for situations that had intent of some sort. 
Click to expand...
He says there is evidence of POTENTIAL violations.  The statute requires a certain level of intent (either actual intent or gross negligence) to make those potential violations ACTUAL violations.  The determination of what constitutes intentional or grossly negligent conduct is based, in part, on precedent, and in this case, the FBI does not believe that level of conduct can be proven.  That is not the same as saying " you broke the law as written but that it seems that the law hasn't been enforced as written.":  In fact, it's the exact opposite: it's saying "we're only going to enforce the law as it is written, and not try to make a careless mistake a crime."

 
tommyGunZ said:
It's unreal until you put Clinton's carelessness re: email compliance up against actual illegal stuff done by former Presidents. Imagine that instead of being careless with email, Hillary had illegally sold arms to Iran in order to illegally fund a secret war in Nicaragua?  
Click to expand...
Or sabotaged peace negotiations.

 
tommyGunZ said:
It's unreal until you put Clinton's carelessness re: email compliance up against actual illegal stuff done by former Presidents. Imagine that instead of being careless with email, Hillary had illegally sold arms to Iran in order to illegally fund a secret war in Nicaragua?  
Click to expand...
I can imagine it.  You, squistion, and BFS would be posting "Iii11!!!ran!!1!! CoO000ontraaaa!!!!"  timschochet would be posting "this topic bores me".

 
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
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top