'Murica! (363 Viewers)

[Seven]

So you actually think she's done nothing wrong?

and just curious, where do you get your news/info on this topic from?

I don't know.

I certainly haven't read anything that proves she did something wrong. In fact, I haven't even read anything that says what it is she might have done wrong. There's no real accusation. It's all kept deliberately vague. Usually that's a sign nothing much happened.

And of course the burden of proof isn't on Clinton here.

My sources are mainstream media. They are still your best bet in a media landscape infected with paranoid blogs and hyperaggressive smalltime media channels.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ZoSo]

I don't know.

I certainly haven't read anything that proves she did something wrong. In fact, I haven't even read anything that says what it is she might have done wrong. There's no real accusation. It's all kept deliberately vague. Usually that's a sign nothing much happened.

And of course the burden of proof isn't on Clinton here.

My sources are mainstream media. They are still your best bet in a media landscape infected with paranoid blogs and hyperaggressive smalltime media channels.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

and now he's going after her just a few days before the election. the day before that was released Bill Clinton met with the head of the DOJ...

 

[Seven]

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

and now he's going after her just a few days before the election. the day before that was released Bill Clinton met with the head of the DOJ...

It's funny, because conservative media call Clinton a criminal, yet that statement says:

"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."

Oh, and that sentence you quoted? That does border on criminal.

 

[lgorTudor]

he is not, Kremlin have 0 effect on trump

Trump is definitely Russia's candidate as he is most likely going to destabilize NATO and feed eastern european countries to Putin

 

[ZoSo]

It's funny, because conservative media call Clinton a criminal, yet that statement says:

"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."

Oh, and that sentence you quoted? That does border on criminal.

That is worded in a way to mean that she did not have "intent" and therefore what she did was not illegal, which is false as the relevant laws cover negligence too.

If you actually look at the laws they are obviously violated

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing...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 (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody…and fails to make prompt report…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Her personal email server was not the proper place of custody for classified information. This covers both negligence and intent.

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

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ithout-security-clearance-had-access-clintons

Classified information transmitted to "unauthorized persons"

18 U.S. Code §1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
“(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

Same as 793

There are a few possible reasons why did they not recommend she be prosecuted i.e. "what we are deciding now":

1. Plain corruption
2. Obama wanted to protect her for the election
3. Larger implications... Obama himself could even be implicated

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT

Spoiler

4. FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation (IRS too). It could be an even bigger deal than the emails.


Of course the """"intellectuals"""" here will tell you """"they're just emails"""" and """"she did nothing wrong""""

 

[Seven]

That is worded in a way to mean that she did not have "intent" and therefore what she did was not illegal, which is false as the relevant laws cover negligence too.

If you actually look at the laws they are obviously violated

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing...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 (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody…and fails to make prompt report…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Her personal email server was not the proper place of custody for classified information. This covers both negligence and intent.

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

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...ithout-security-clearance-had-access-clintons

Classified information transmitted to "unauthorized persons"

18 U.S. Code §1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
“(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

Same as 793

There are a few possible reasons why did they not recommend she be prosecuted i.e. "what we are deciding now":

1. Plain corruption
2. Obama wanted to protect her for the election
3. Larger implications... Obama himself could even be implicated

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT

Spoiler

4. FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation (IRS too). It could be an even bigger deal than the emails.


Of course the """"intellectuals"""" here will tell you """"they're just emails"""" and """"she did nothing wrong""""

No. It's not 'false'. You think the FBI doesn't realise negligence can be criminal?

They specifically state Hillary did not commit a crime. That's as clear as it can be. I know they followed it up with vague insinuations and have done their best to influence the elections in a frankly unprecedented way, but even they have not gone as far as claiming a crime was committed.

 

[ZoSo]

No. It's not 'false'. You think the FBI doesn't realise negligence can be criminal?

They specifically state Hillary did not commit a crime. That's as clear as it can be.

Of course they know, the point is that they did not recommend she be prosecuted "now" despite "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions".

I don't know why you refuse to believe that it can't be more than just "she didn't commit a crime" as per "official narrative".

 

[GordoDeCentral]

No. It's not 'false'. You think the FBI doesn't realise negligence can be criminal?

They specifically state Hillary did not commit a crime. That's as clear as it can be. I know they followed it up with vague insinuations and have done their best to influence the elections in a frankly unprecedented way, but even they have not gone as far as claiming a crime was committed.

At this point one is either too stupid or dishonest to admit that, yet are perfectly fine supporting a candidate who is sponsored by a hostile nation who wants nothing more than the demise of the US

 

[Ronn]

Speaking of those vague insinuations by Comey, it was reported last night that he did this because he knew some of his agents are going to leak that Weiner story. That's worth am investigation which we all know won't happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZoSo]

At this point one is either too stupid or dishonest to admit that, yet are perfectly fine supporting a candidate who is sponsored by a hostile nation who wants nothing more than the demise of the US

keeping SAP level classified information on an insecure server (which they are 99% sure was hacked by five foreign governments) = good for the US

enemy of my enemy = my friend ≠ sponsored

 

[Ronn]

Texas
http://www.complex.com/life/2016/11/texas-poll-worker-attacked-donald-trump-sign-razor-blades

 

[campionesidd]

keeping SAP level classified information on an insecure server (which they are 99% sure was hacked by five foreign governments) = good for the US

enemy of my enemy = my friend ≠ sponsored

So you admit Trump is America's enemy?

 

[Fr3sh]

I wonder what would be worse, having trump as a president or living in Canada.

I wonder what's worse, Trump winning and fucking up the country, or Hillary winning and Trump's follower revolt and burn down every government building they can find. :xfinger:

- - - Updated - - -

Either way I can wait.
has to be one of the two :xfinger:

 

[campionesidd]

I wonder what's worse, Trump winning and fucking up the country, or Hillary winning and Trump's follower revolt and burn down every government building they can find. :xfinger:

- - - Updated - - -

Either way I can wait.
has to be one of the two :xfinger:

I wouldn't mind a Trump revolt. Would be delicious irony if the people demanding Hillary to be locked up find themselves behind bars for criminal acts of violence.

 

[Fr3sh]

I wouldn't mind a Trump revolt. Would be delicious irony if the people demanding Hillary to be locked up find themselves behind bars for criminal acts of violence.

Would be HILARIOUS to say the least!!

Trump to go to the International Criminal Court.

- - - Updated - - -

Then Trump pulls down the Bush's and the Clinton's with him :xfinger:

 

[ALC]

Then Trump pulls down the Bush's and the Clinton's with him :xfinger:

Grab 'em right by the bushy

 

[happybum]

The one thing media fails to emphasise is what Trump/Clinton represent fundamentally. Clinton represents status quo (she admits it), Trump represents unpredictability (he admits this too).

People who have kids, good paying jobs, and don't want to rock the boat will go for Clinton. People who are tired of their lives, and want to rock the boat will vote Trump, even if the risk is high. It's goes beyond racism and whatever issues. It's something that hits the core.

It's a bit of a referendum on people's lives.

 

[Post Ironic]

The one thing media fails to emphasise is what Trump/Clinton represent fundamentally. Clinton represents status quo (she admits it), Trump represents unpredictability (he admits this too).

People who have kids, good paying jobs, and don't want to rock the boat will go for Clinton. People who are tired of their lives, and want to rock the boat will vote Trump, even if the risk is high. It's goes beyond racism and whatever issues. It's something that hits the core.

It's a bit of a referendum on people's lives.

This is true to an extent.... but only for whites, and more so for white males than white females.

Poor african americans and latinos/hispanics will overwhelmingly vote democrat regardless of the quality of life they lead, and unless things change drastically with the Republican party, always will.

 

[campionesidd]

True, and with the changing demographics of the country Republicans are living on borrowed time.

 

[Ronn]

The one thing media fails to emphasise is what Trump/Clinton represent fundamentally. Clinton represents status quo (she admits it), Trump represents unpredictability (he admits this too).

People who have kids, good paying jobs, and don't want to rock the boat will go for Clinton. People who are tired of their lives, and want to rock the boat will vote Trump, even if the risk is high. It's goes beyond racism and whatever issues. It's something that hits the core.

It's a bit of a referendum on people's lives.

That's only his core base who voted for him in the primaries. He has the support of majority of the republicans now. Many of them are pretty affluent. Evangelical Christians vote for him mostly because of supreme Court and the fact that they hate Democrats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk