US Election 2016, part II

[BruceVC]

Remember that "thing" we were discussing a few pages ago Bruce? You're doing it again.

 

What would the penalty for refusing to apologize be anyway? I'd say death. After all, you can make him say it, but you could never be sure he means it!

 

Bruce, sir, you crack me up

GD please continue to point it out when I do it

 

 

But guys sometimes my point is valid but I need to explain further. Its interesting because I think you guys think my " mandatory apology " law cant be implemented but it can if a culture develops in a country like the USA where through a social movement the majority of citizens decide they tired of the vitriol and personal attacks politicians use against each 

 

It wont be legally enforced but it becomes  a point of honor where there will a natural acceptance of it as politicians want to keep there constituents happy.Trust me if you know  you have to publicly apologize you will probably  be careful before accusing people of something...the overall offensive rhetoric should be reduced 

[BruceVC]

 

"No I wouldnt  make it mandatory in your example as  there are  so few examples of that it would be unnecessary "

 

Kiddin' right? IT happens ALL THE TIME.

Sorry I dont believe thats accurate ....can you provide some links?

[Enoch]

How's setting up an insecure private server to send above top secret emails not an instance of intentional and willful mishandling of classified information?

 

Instances aren't enough.  You need to establish intent, and have the evidence to convince a jury of it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Here, the FBI has concluded that a smart defense attorney wouldn't have a particularly hard time establishing enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction.  So long as there's a chance that Clinton set this up for non-classified stuff, but had a few "whoopsies" along the way, a prosecution was doomed to fail.  100 or so bits of classified information in a population in the tens of thousands is bad, but it's not clear-indication-of-intentional-misconduct bad.   

[Volourn]

S"orry I dont believe thats accurate ....can you provide some links?"

 

L0L

[Ganrich]

I'm pretty sure that intent is inconsequential when it comes to breaking national security protocols. In most cases of law, you would be correct, but when you leak classified information intent doesn't matter. I'm leaving for work so I can't find a source to back that up, but I have read it before.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

How's setting up an insecure private server to send above top secret emails not an instance of intentional and willful mishandling of classified information?

 

Instances aren't enough.  You need to establish intent, and have the evidence to convince a jury of it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Here, the FBI has concluded that a smart defense attorney wouldn't have a particularly hard time establishing enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction.  So long as there's a chance that Clinton set this up for non-classified stuff, but had a few "whoopsies" along the way, a prosecution was doomed to fail.  100 or so bits of classified information in a population in the tens of thousands is bad, but it's not clear-indication-of-intentional-misconduct bad.

 

What you said doesn't make sense. If it's intentional, than it establishes intent, no? How stupid would a jury have to be to believe that she didn't know that as a Secretary of State she would be involved in discussions involving classified material? How stupid would they have to be to believe she simply forgot the top secret emails she sent were going out from her private server over the public internet?

 

Punish the hero, reward the villain: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html

Edited July 5, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

Well we can say one thing for certain. In 9/2014 when she said this:

 

 

I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material, so I am certainly well aware of the classification requirements, and did not send classified material.

 

She was lying. If that bothers anyone.

well, is not lying if one assumes that ms. clinton were really incompetent.  hillary clinton, the "extremely careless" choice?

 

*shrug*

 

as o' july, 2016, ms. clinton's failure to take proper security steps with classified information appears to have been a given.  not debatable. the fact that fbi couldn't find evidence o' willful disregard or intentional subversion o' security protocols is less than shocking.  the investigation were too remote from actual events to have been anything other than pro forma.  

 

unlike enoch, is tough for us to see the mishandling o' classified emails as "whoopsies." using a private email server for correspondence that had even the potential o' resulting in communications o' classified info were, in and of itself, careless.  if we were talking o' a couple emails that arguably strayed into classified subject matter, we could understand clinton's mistake.  nevertheless, is tough to claim that none o' the +100 whoopsies that were actual recovered failed to make clinton reflect on the possibility that a private server were a less than ideal option for handling such communications.  more than 100 "whoopsies" as it turns out, is disconcerting.  for Gromnir, is not a matter o' percentages or volume.  +100 opportunities for more enlightened reflection that were ignored by clinton?  "whoopsie" indeed.

 

that being said, we suspect it would be prohibitive tough for a prosecutor to prove necessary intent beyond reasonable doubt. clinton and her people had so much time to prepare before the fbi ever began investigating.  even if clinton were guilty o' something more sinister than a kinda bumbling disregard for possible dangers related to unsecured email communications, the chances o' finding proof o' such woulda' been reduced to a great degree.  

 

*chuckle*

 

our time doing criminal law were limited and now long past, but am recalling a smuggling case that drove us nuts.  had a situation with some jackarse royal from a middle-eastern country trying to smuggle endangered species outta the USA.  is not as uncommon as you might think.  in any event, we had local customs agents inform state department o' their suspicions o' smuggling BEFORE contacting law enforcement.  even worse, folks at state contacted the prince BEFORE calling US Attorney's Office or anybody at DoJ. *&$%! by the time law enforcement interviewed the suspected smugglers, the ne'er-do-wells might as well have been reading responses off o' 3x5 cards. *&$% and @#$* and double $%#@. how long did clinton get to prepare her folks? 

 

dunno.  we weren't expecting anything from the announcement.  weren't gonna exonerate and weren't gonna condemn.  am thinking we got what we expected.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't even understand why it's necessary to prove intent to show negligence. It's not that she didn't intend to send the e-mail. The negligence was in disregarding that the e-mail was classified. No one's claiming she intended the Russians to get hold of them, only that she didn't take any precautions that they don't.

[Gromnir]

I don't even understand why it's necessary to prove intent to show negligence. It's not that she didn't intend to send the e-mail. The negligence was in disregarding that the e-mail was classified. No one's claiming she intended the Russians to get hold of them, only that she didn't take any precautions that they don't.

needed intent and/or more.  couldn't show intent.  weren't enough for gross negligence.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps you are also misreading "intent." espionage and treason would be at issue if we were discussing intent to inform russians through unsecured emails. clarification: intent, when speaking o' criminal negligence and recklessness and gross negligence, does not mean that the defendant actual intended badness to happen.  criminal intent/recklessness replace need for actual intent in very limited situations.  would a reasonable person understand a danger, but the defendant acted with reckless disregard o' such dangers to human life or with indifference to consequences. law and english is not the same.  

Edited July 5, 2016 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I think you guys think my " mandatory apology " law cant be implemented but it can if a culture develops in a country like the USA where through a social movement the majority of citizens decide they tired of the vitriol and personal attacks politicians use against each 

 

 

So, effectively, it can't.

[Ganrich]

OK. I have a second at work.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

Scroll down to section F. Negligence nor intent matter.

 

The only caveat is proof of hacking which they seem to have very little if any. The security on the server was so poor that any hacker worth their salt wouldn't leave a trace. At least from what I have read.

[Elerond]

I'm pretty sure that intent is inconsequential when it comes to breaking national security protocols. In most cases of law, you would be correct, but when you leak classified information intent doesn't matter. I'm leaving for work so I can't find a source to back that up, but I have read it before.

 

Here is two laws that I have seen mentioned in media about Clinton's email server

 

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

 

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

© Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

(d)

(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—

(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and

(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), ©, and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), ©, and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—

(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

© any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.

(4) Notwithstanding section 524© of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

 

 

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

© Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)

(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) The provisions of subsections (b), ©, and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), ©, and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—

(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

© any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.

(4) Notwithstanding section 524© of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

 

Gross Negligence

A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.

 

Bolded part is the section that I have seen different media outlets to cite as most likely subsection that Clinton would have broken.

[Enoch]

unlike enoch, is tough for us to see the mishandling o' classified emails as "whoopsies." using a private email server for correspondence that had even the potential o' resulting in communications o' classified info were, in and of itself, careless.  if we were talking o' a couple emails that arguably strayed into classified subject matter, we could understand clinton's mistake.  nevertheless, is tough to claim that none o' the +100 whoopsies that were actual recovered failed to make clinton reflect on the possibility that a private server were a less than ideal option for handling such communications.  more than 100 "whoopsies" as it turns out, is disconcerting.  for Gromnir, is not a matter o' percentages or volume.  +100 opportunities for more enlightened reflection that were ignored by clinton?  "whoopsie" indeed.

 

that being said, we suspect it would be prohibitive tough for a prosecutor to prove necessary intent beyond reasonable doubt. clinton and her people had so much time to prepare before the fbi ever began investigating.  even if clinton were guilty o' something more sinister than a kinda bumbling disregard for possible dangers related to unsecured email communications, the chances o' finding proof o' such woulda' been reduced to a great degree.  

 

 

I don't disagree-- I was struggling for terms to explain stuff to WoD there. 

 

We know what we're getting with the Clintons at this point, and that bundle of goods includes a long history of (in the kindest interpretation of available facts) doing dumb things out of reflexive concern for their personal secrecy.  It is disconcerting. 

 

From my perspective, the thing that bugs me more than it probably does most people is that State let her do this.  No way should State's GC and IT security folks have let her keep using her private server in the first place.  Yes, Colin Powell had a similar setup in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea that raises hosts of legal compliance challenges.  Political appointees, in general, will try to get away with a lot unless their civil service management restrains them-- they usually need to be made to give a **** about things like records retention, IT security, official transparency, etc.  In State, that restraint simply wasn't there.  Comey alluded to this in his statment:  "[W]e also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department, in general and with respect to the use of unclassified systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the U.S. government."   The IG Report that was released in May (link to .pdf) discusses this in much more detail, but note that the OIG only bothered to look into this after it started hitting the press. 

 

All that's not to excuse Hillary, of course.  The fact that a control failure enabled a bad decision doesn't make the decision less bad.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Enoch

[Valsuelm]

[Longknife]

I don't even understand why it's necessary to prove intent to show negligence. It's not that she didn't intend to send the e-mail. The negligence was in disregarding that the e-mail was classified. No one's claiming she intended the Russians to get hold of them, only that she didn't take any precautions that they don't.

 

 

I just popped in but curious about this: is it confirmed there's no need to prove intent to show negligence, or is that something you've surmised? I'm only educated in German law, but the big difference between crimes of negligence is that you don't need to prove intent, only that someone conducted themselves in a manner that was so obviously negligent that they should've known better. (example, driving a car while intoxicated)

 

Wish I were educated enough in US law because I too would be curious to know the circumstances she needs to meet to qualify as "grossly negligent."

[Meshugger]

 

As we all know, "there was no classified material" as someone else said that "there was no relationship".

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I don't even understand why it's necessary to prove intent to show negligence. It's not that she didn't intend to send the e-mail. The negligence was in disregarding that the e-mail was classified. No one's claiming she intended the Russians to get hold of them, only that she didn't take any precautions that they don't.

 

 

I just popped in but curious about this: is it confirmed there's no need to prove intent to show negligence, or is that something you've surmised? I'm only educated in German law, but the big difference between crimes of negligence is that you don't need to prove intent, only that someone conducted themselves in a manner that was so obviously negligent that they should've known better. (example, driving a car while intoxicated)

 

Wish I were educated enough in US law because I too would be curious to know the circumstances she needs to meet to qualify as "grossly negligent."

 

Gromnir went over that in his previous post, but I'm not sure I entirely understand. To me if you have a usb stick you forgot you put in your pocket and left a secure location with it, then there's no intent and no gross negligence. If you intentionally sent what you know is a top secret email over what you know is an unsecure channel, then there's intent and gross negligence.

[Gromnir]

am thinking that a bit o' the anger from folks who were disappointed by the fbi recommendation is due to a misunderstanding regarding what is gross/criminal negligence.  gross negligence is not accident or mistake.  when we thinks negligence, we think mistakes, yes? so gross negligence would be a particular bad mistake, yes? 

 

no.

 

gross negligence is more o' a "wtf is wrong with you" standard. doug shoots vincent in the leg but weren't actual planning on killing vincent. intent were to scare vincent and nobody were more surprised than doug when vincent died.  doug drives home while intoxicated.  doug didn't have cab fare and his home were only a few miles away and he didn't think he would cause an accident. doug didn't have a baby seat for his child, so he thought the bungee cords in his trunk would suffice to keep the baby secure in its seat.  etc.  negligence is actions that is unreasonable.  gross negligence requires fumb duckery levels o' stoopidity or indifference. 

 

comey referenced clinton's actions as being "extremely careless."  am certain that such words were chosen careful. if Gromnir were forced to explain gross negligence w/o using any legal jargon, we might use "extremely careless" to describe the requisite state-o'-mind. if there is a meaningful difference in English 'tween recklessness and extremely careless, it is gonna be so minuscule a gnat would starve on the difference.  even so, comey recognized that, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." why?  well, in similar situations in the past, folks has presumably been fired as 'posed to prosecuted. also, as we tired to stress above in this post, fumb duckery is a rather difficult threshold to overcome.  you got an extreme smart, presentable and well-prepared defendant so proving gross negligence beyond a reasonable doubt is gonna be a more difficult task than in an ordinary prosecution.  

 

bruce asking trump to apologize is kinda misguided here, 'cause comey were pretty darn critical o' clinton. 'ccording to comey, there, "were evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information." comey also made clear that an ordinary member o' the State Department would face consequences if they had acted with the extreme carelessness that clinton displayed.  thanks to ny times v sullivan, a case that trump loathes, is no way trump would ever need apologize.  

 

is more than a few football fans following this board, yes?  comey's comments 'bout clinton reminded us more than a little of the presser by fred bright when he announced that he wouldn't be pursuing a sexual assault/rape case 'gainst ben roethlisberger.  both comey and bright took the opportunity to public chastise a celebrity, but in each case, the burden o' proving beyond a reasonable doubt made prosecution o' a case untenable. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 6, 2016 by Gromnir

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here are a couple more opinions on "intent":

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/06/andrew-mccarthy-fbi-rewrote-the-statute-to-give-hillary-clinton-a-pass/

 

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/05/fmr-ag-mukasey-hillary-violated-felony-standard-of-gross-negligence-others-have-been-prosecuted-for-far-less/

[Gromnir]

first link is kinda repeating what we said 'bove 'bout criminal/gross negligence.  perhaps is easy to get terminology confused. when doug shoots victor in the leg w/o actual intent to kill...

 

*shrug*

 

but again, for a showing o' gross negligence, you are requiring a level o' fumb duckery that is extreme.  

 

now, if is true that folks is routinely prosecuted for far less than what clinton did (failed) to do, then we would be concerned, but to cherry-pick isolated cases where indictments did occur is hardly compelling.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 6, 2016 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

I re watched Comey's statement twice last night. I believe he is on the level and the investigation was probably not influenced. He did let the justice department off the hook by publicly announcing the recommendation. Make of that what you will. His assessment of Clinton's conduct is actually quite damning. It should be a blow to her campaign in a normal election year. However this year is not normal when her opponent is Donald Trump. Had it been any other Republican that statement might even have been a death blow. But I believe this election will see more negative votes cast (votes against a candidate rather than for one) that any other in history.

 

I agree with Grom, no prosecutor would look at this as a likely win and would not be willing to spend the time and money required to litigate the case. I do wish Comey, who is a law enforcement officer not a prosecutor, had not made the decision for them but the end result is the same so I guess it doesn't matter.

 

As I stated before in my experience someone who was careless with classified information could expect to be fired. Well, she has already left so that's out. They could expect to have their security clearances revoked. If she wins this election I don't see how that could happen. How can the President not have the top security clearance? It would make a good story for Veep on HBO though. And finally that individual would be barred from working for the government in the future. Well, this might happen but it's up to us, the voters.

 

So what did we learn from this? That Hillary Clinton is dishonest? I think even her two biggest supporters here BruceVC & Leferd would even agree to that. That she is incompetent? Once again that isn't news. In a normal year an incompetent liar would be facing long odds to win an election but this isn't a normal year.

[Leferd]

That's a good take GD. I don't agree with everything but fair.

 

Though I do want to point out that Director Comey was a career prosecutor with the DoJ --includung stints as the US Attorney for the Southern District of NY and as the Deputy US Attorney General.

 

PS

 

I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, but to me she is by far the best candidate we have that is in line with my world view. She's a politician in the absolute sense, but her motives are honorable as is her dedication for public service. I support her candidacy.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Leferd

[Wrath of Dagon]

If it's a likely win should not be the determining factor. The only criteria should be whether the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Btw, we've lost sight of the fact this case should've had an independent counsel, that it didn't is in itself a subversion of the law. The man who is ultimately responsible for prosecuting the criminal is campaigning with her on the day of the announcement!

 

Edit: http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/04/you-owe-them-nothing--not-respect-not-loyalty-not-obedience-n2186865

 

I actually don't agree with him. The government has all the power. If you don't believe it, try refusing to pay your taxes.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon