The latest Hillary Clinton shenanigans

[glenn1]

While true, that misses the point entirely. If Repubs want the govt to have robust backups for witch hunts they'll need to fund it.

Or follow their usual- nail the bureaucracy's feet to the floor, scream bloody murder when they can't run.

How about everyone just comes to a bipartisan common-sense solution like "if you're a government official, all official business must be conducted using government-provided technology solutions and equipment"?

 

[Jhhnn]

How about everyone just comes to a bipartisan common-sense solution like "if you're a government official, all official business must be conducted using government-provided technology solutions and equipment"?

No arguments with the sentiment going forward. OTOH, it contradicts what I offered not in the slightest.

Govt employees also need to be able to keep private email private & to contact work using personal devices.

 

[glenn1]

No arguments with the sentiment going forward. OTOH, it contradicts what I offered not in the slightest.

Govt employees also need to be able to keep private email private & to contact work using personal devices.

I don't really care about the servergate thing if she was (even technically) following the rules at the time. Not using best practices when you're at a Cabinet level position is disappointing but not a crime.

OTOH examples like the one from my OP where an official does (or enables a subordinate to do) something which is morally ambiguous and self-serving just because "everyone else does it" is a bunch of crap. I may not agree with Hillary's positions, but I do expect her to display better judgement and character than this. This doesn't even just exhibit the "appearance of corruption," purposely enabling someone to create a conflict of interest like this actually IS corruption IMHO.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't really care about the servergate thing if she was (even technically) following the rules at the time. Not using best practices when you're at a Cabinet level position is disappointing but not a crime.

OTOH examples like the one from my OP where an official does (or enables a subordinate to do) something which is morally ambiguous and self-serving just because "everyone else does it" is a bunch of crap. I may not agree with Hillary's positions, but I do expect her to display better judgement and character than this. This doesn't even just exhibit the "appearance of corruption," purposely enabling someone to create a conflict of interest like this actually IS corruption IMHO.

What was done was not illegal nor does the whole "morally ambiguous" term really has no meaning other than as innuendo. Lots of things are that w/o being immoral at all.

Iirc, Abedin was being paid by the Clinton Foundation from the beginning & such was revealed when she went to work at State. Nobody raised Hell about it back then. Nor is there any evidence to even suggest that her transition to Teneo created any conflict of interest at all, other than in the minds of Hillary haters eager to take a bite at anything.

If you believe there was, state what that conflict was in specific terms.

 

[TheGardener]

How about everyone just comes to a bipartisan common-sense solution like "if you're a government official, all official business must be conducted using government-provided technology solutions and equipment"?

It's not about common sense or being bipartisan. It's about laws and regulations. Just because Jhhnn ignores laws and regulations when convenient and repeats the same nonsense over 100 times, doesn't mean that they don't exist. People go back and point to what Clinton's predecessors did or didn't do. But Obama's executive order didn't exist then, whether they did it or not. Getting a US AG to enforce the law shouldn't be about a bipartisan solution.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I wonder how much, Chelsea Clinton earns at her non profit Clinton foundation job.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not about common sense or being bipartisan. It's about laws and regulations. Just because Jhhnn ignores laws and regulations when convenient and repeats the same nonsense over 100 times, doesn't mean that they don't exist. People go back and point to what Clinton's predecessors did or didn't do. But Obama's executive order didn't exist then, whether they did it or not. Getting a US AG to enforce the law shouldn't be about a bipartisan solution.

Convenient denial. Obama's pertinent executive order didn't exist during Hillary's term as SoS, either, but do go on as if it did.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's not about common sense or being bipartisan. It's about laws and regulations. Just because Jhhnn ignores laws and regulations when convenient and repeats the same nonsense over 100 times, doesn't mean that they don't exist. People go back and point to what Clinton's predecessors did or didn't do. But Obama's executive order didn't exist then, whether they did it or not. Getting a US AG to enforce the law shouldn't be about a bipartisan solution.

It comes down to intent. Did Hillary Clinton intend to circumvent the law by having her own server?

Yes. Yes, she did.

-John

 

[Jhhnn]

It comes down to intent. Did Hillary Clinton intend to circumvent the law by having her own server?

Yes. Yes, she did.

-John

There was no law to circumvent.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

There was no law to circumvent.

On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.

She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.

Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).

Two examples demonstrate this point.

When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.

Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.

Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.

Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.

The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.

Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bullshit.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...versy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

 

[wetech]

Bullshit.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...versy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

So one former AG says it was the same / worse than Petraeus; the US prosecutor says it's not the same, based on public information, and goes on to defend Hillary...

Anne M. Tompkins is a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and former United States attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. She is a donor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

 

[Jhhnn]

So one former AG says it was the same / worse than Petraeus; the US prosecutor says it's not the same, based on public information, and goes on to defend Hillary...

Attack the message rather than the messenger to have a legitimate point.

Mukasey was mistaken in believing that the server was wiped, jumping to the usual right wing conclusion and he was also wrong about a pertinent point of Constitutional law-

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264

His attack was based on mistaken belief, not fact.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

For the still brain dead, Hillary supporters, I will let a judge lay it out in plan English. The DNC needs to nominate anyone but her! This woman is dangerous for ALL Americans! Are you forgetting that her Husband looked us in the eye and lied? That he sold our ICBM targeting tech to China for mere pocket change for campaign cash? My dear fellow American citizen, WAKE UP!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0vufz01qn0

 

[soundforbjt]

For the still brain dead, Hillary supporters, I will let a judge lay it out in plan English. The DNC needs to nominate anyone but her! This woman is dangerous for ALL Americans! Are you forgetting that her Husband looked us in the eye and lied? That he sold our ICBM targeting tech to China for mere pocket change for campaign cash? My dear fellow American citizen, WAKE UP!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0vufz01qn0

The opinion of a talking head @ Faux News matters how?

 

[alien42]

For the still brain dead, Hillary supporters, I will let a judge lay it out in plan English. The DNC needs to nominate anyone but her! This woman is dangerous for ALL Americans! Are you forgetting that her Husband looked us in the eye and lied? That he sold our ICBM targeting tech to China for mere pocket change for campaign cash? My dear fellow American citizen, WAKE UP!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0vufz01qn0

i remember her husband being by far the best president in my lifetime.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

The opinion of a talking head @ Faux News matters how?

Oh, gee, attack the messenger. This judge ISN'T just giving an opinion, she is citing the laws! Next you will be telling us that the opinions of judge Andrew Napolitano, a Constitutional scholar, are irrelevant because he might be a republican.

 

[soundforbjt]

Oh, gee, attack the messenger. This judge ISN'T just giving an opinion, she is citing the laws! Next you will be telling us that the opinions of judge Andrew Napolitano, a Constitutional scholar, are irrelevant because he might be a republican.

She's no longer a judge is she? She's a mouthpiece for Fox which is republican biased. Surely she has to "tow" the line on her opinions to keep her job.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

She's no longer a judge is she? She's a mouthpiece for Fox which is republican biased. Surely she has to "tow" the line on her opinions to keep her job.

Left, right, middle, Fox, or MSNBC, the law is the law, How can you be biased, accused of towing the line, or be opinionated, or be a mouth piece when it comes to the law, or the Constitution? There is not a gray area here.

 

[soundforbjt]

Left, right, middle, Fox, or MSNBC, the law is the law, How can you be biased, accused of towing the line, or be opinionated, or be a mouth piece when it comes to the law, or the Constitution? There is not a gray area here.

There is always a grey area, otherwise we wouldn't need the SC.

 

[Bowfinger]

Left, right, middle, Fox, or MSNBC, the law is the law, How can you be biased, accused of towing the line, or be opinionated, or be a mouth piece when it comes to the law, or the Constitution? There is not a gray area here.

Exactly, which is why all Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, 9-0.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Exactly, which is why all Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, 9-0.

Sadly sir, I understand what you are trying to convey. Corporations are people, private companies can levy a tax, and the second amendment is only one vote away from being abolished. So much for Stare Decisis.