• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

hillary is a pathological liar

Strickland33 said:
But it wasn't illegal according an FBI investigation which undoubtedly played this by the book and with pretty legit transparency (eg publicizing their recommendation). It might be immoral; it might be corrupt; it might be unethical; it might be irresponsible; etc, etc, etc. The recommendation was not without a thorough (and significant) critique of Clinton and the State Department.

I can't trust Hillary Clinton any less, so this merely confirms what I thought about her and her campaign all along. It's going to factor in to whether I ultimately hold my nose and vote for her. Should I vote for a candidate who arguably should lose, not gain higher levels of security clearance as a result "mishandling" (whether intentional or accidental) of classified materials? I'm still undecided and probably will be for awhile.

It's a far bigger deal than board libs are making it and it's a far smaller deal than board pubs want it to be.
Click to expand...

No, it was illegal. I think that's why he made the statements that he did. The more I think about it, the more I think he made the detailed statement because his hands are tied. She quite clearly acted contrary to the law and anybody in a lesser position would've been canned at the very least. Decisions to prosecute are based in part on likelihood of conviction. What's the likelihood of convicting Hillary in 90% Democratic Washington DC? You can scoff at that National Review assessment if you want, but the point it makes about gross negligence statutes being independent of statutes governing one's intent can't be ignored. I think he looked at everything, to include likelihood of personal evisceration via Clinton Machine, likelihood of conviction, and the fact that Trump is the presumptive nominee and decided to eat a shit sandwich.
 
The criminal statutes on the books relating to the mishandling of government communications are really weak. This has been known for months. Simply using an unsecured system has never risen to the level of criminal prosecution in the past for anyone. Perhaps this is a sign that the government is behind the times.

They were always going to have to be able to prove that HRC had negative intentions for setting up and using the server, beyond ease of use and general control of personal communications. Or that she deleted stuff intentionally to hide stuff from the FBI. Not just that she had a private server that classified emails went in and out of. We already knew that months ago and the odds have of prosecution have always been low.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
No, it was illegal. I think that's why he made the statements that he did. The more I think about it, the more I think he made the detailed statement because his hands are tied. She quite clearly acted contrary to the law and anybody in a lesser position would've been canned at the very least. Decisions to prosecute are based in part on likelihood of conviction. What's the likelihood of convicting Hillary in 90% Democratic Washington DC? You can scoff at that National Review assessment if you want, but the point it makes about gross negligence statutes being independent of statutes governing one's intent can't be ignored. I think he looked at everything, to include likelihood of personal evisceration via Clinton Machine, likelihood of conviction, and the fact that Trump is the presumptive nominee and decided to eat a shit sandwich.
Click to expand...

She clearly got away with it because of who she is. Pretty much anyone else would have been indicted. Comey painted a picture of gross negligence that might very well have led to the Russians or other "hostile actors" accessing classified material on her unsecured server, but then decides they're not gonna recommend indictment because she didn't intend for that to happen, which is total horseshit. If she doesn't come up with a system to get around FOIA requests, none of this happens.
 
FckVwls said:
The criminal statutes on the books relating to the mishandling of government communications are really weak. This has been known for months. Simply using an unsecured system has never risen to the level of criminal prosecution in the past for anyone. Perhaps this is a sign that the government is behind the times.

They were always going to have to be able to prove that HRC had negative intentions for setting up and using the server, beyond ease of use and general control of personal communications. Or that she deleted stuff intentionally to hide stuff from the FBI. Not just that she had a private server that classified emails went in and out of. We already knew that months ago and the odds have of prosecution have always been low.
Click to expand...
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
Click to expand...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
She clearly got away with it because of who she is. Pretty much anyone else would have been indicted. Comey painted a picture of gross negligence that might very well have led to the Russians or other "hostile actors" accessing classified material on her unsecured server, but then decides they're not gonna recommend indictment because she didn't intend for that to happen, which is total horseshit. If she doesn't come up with a system to get around FOIA requests, none of this happens.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the Attorney General thinks.
 
Not a single Hillary voter on here is willing to admit she got away with it because of who she is. That is what being a Hillary voter does to a person. You inevitably sell your soul to defend those damnable Clintons.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Not a single Hillary voter on here is willing to admit she got away with it because of who she is. That is what being a Hillary voter does to a person. You inevitably sell your soul to defend those damnable Clintons.
Click to expand...

Do you think trump gets bernie voters or do they go libertarian/cankles?
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Not a single Hillary voter on here is willing to admit she got away with it because of who she is. That is what being a Hillary voter does to a person. You inevitably sell your soul to defend those damnable Clintons.
Click to expand...

From what I have read and heard (from law professors, legal experts, not the national review) I don't think any major presidential candidate would have been criminally charged in the same circumstance. It was never likely at all.
 
marquee moon said:
Do you think trump gets bernie voters or do they go libertarian/cankles?
Click to expand...

Trump will get some of anti-establishment Bernie vote. Some will stay home or vote 3rd party. The Bernie voters that used to like Ron Paul types.

But HRC will still get 60-70%+ of Sanders primary voters total. But maybe not as much as the Dems hope.
 
FckVwls said:
From what I have read and heard (from law professors, legal experts, not the national review) I don't think any major presidential candidate would have been criminally charged in the same circumstance. It was never likely at all.
Click to expand...
Like I said, she got off because of who she is. There's one set of laws for the average citizen and another for the elites. The system is rigged. And not a single Clinton voter will admit the obvious.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Not a single Hillary voter on here is willing to admit she got away with it because of who she is. That is what being a Hillary voter does to a person. You inevitably sell your soul to defend those damnable Clintons.
Click to expand...

She always tried to tell the truth, though.

If you're dumb enough to believe Obama let her get on AF1 without knowing the outcome (as was alleged), you deserve what you get out of her Presidency. Dems sound like Tom Brady defenders.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Like I said, she got off because of who she is. There's one set of laws for the average citizen and another for the elites. The system is rigged. And not a single Clinton voter will admit the obvious.
Click to expand...

If this was a normal secretary of state I don't think they would have criminal charges. I have no idea how an "average citizen" could be considered because they would not be in the cabinet and have such information.
 
FckVwls said:
If this was a normal secretary of state I don't think they would have criminal charges. I have no idea how an "average citizen" could be considered because they would not be in the cabinet and have such information.
Click to expand...

Petraeus gave classified info to someone else who also had a clearance. Be smarter than this.
 
jhmd2000 said:
She always tried to tell the truth, though.

If you're dumb enough to believe Obama let her get on AF1 without knowing the outcome (as was alleged), you deserve what you get out of her Presidency. Dems sound like Tom Brady defenders.
Click to expand...

She definitely lied to try to mitigate her role during the primaries to try to get votes. That's what politicians do and she is certainly a politician that is willing to do what it takes to win.
 
FckVwls said:
The Petraeus case is not really that similar.
Click to expand...
His single leak of info was to a person with a valid clearance and the info was returned an accounted for. Also, he is a Republican.
 
jhmd2000 said:
His single leak of info was to a person with a valid clearance and the info was returned an accounted for. Also, he is a Republican.
Click to expand...

He also got caught lying to the FBI
 
But let's get back to "Not criminally charged!" as a pride point for her supporters. Congrats?
 
FckVwls said:
He also got caught lying to the FBI
Click to expand...
I will put his integrity up against hers. She lied for 16 months about nearly every aspect of this investigation (classified, two devices, etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top