MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 2, 2019 11:21:01 GMT -8
RSM, you are correct.
It is the written policy of the State Department that only federal government servers be used to conduct State Department business. Yet the Secretary of State intentionally violated that policy to set up her own private server, as well as going to all the trouble to install it, secure it and maintain it. Doing so was clearly not a matter of convenience, nor was it unintentional, but rather a premeditated effort to control what could and could not be accessed in her communications.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 3, 2019 4:34:41 GMT -8
It was evidence. Since it was later determined that no crime occurred it can't be "evidence of a crime".
Ok.
"Intent" is a necessary component of many crimes, like murder for example. Using the dead body we found in the basement we wanted to charge Hillary with murder but when the autopsy results came back we found that it was death by natural causes so we didn't prosecute her for murder. Sometimes the evidence doesn't mean what you think it means, and sometimes you must 'intend" to commit a crime or there's no crime. Also, it's possible that she wasn't prosecuted because they were unsure of their ability to get a conviction. Prosecutors make those kinds of decisions every day.
I don't agree with your interpretation of the law, and I suspect that the FBI might have a few lawyers working for them who advised the FBI to act the way they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 3, 2019 4:37:17 GMT -8
So we've gone from "she committed a crime" to "she violated a State Department policy".
Is her alleged motive an important component of the crime or policy violation you mentioned?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 3, 2019 7:34:06 GMT -8
I didn't say she committed a crime, although the intentional violation of the Code of Federal Regulations might be argued to be a crime. However, the gross negligence with national security that she displayed, and the suspicions of her intent in going to all the trouble to violate policy and establish her own server should have been enough for people to reject her as a candidate and a nominee.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 3, 2019 7:56:29 GMT -8
Well it seems to be the reason you personally rejected her as a candidate, and that's perfectly understandable. As to whether she should have been rejected as the nominee, I'd say she wasn't nearly as worthy of rejection as the Republican candidate, or for that matter, some past candidates put forward by the Republicans. Frankly, I don't hold Hillary in the same contempt as you guys do. I don't think the violation of State Department policy was that serious, and the woman certainly had the experience to run for the office she sought. She certainly had far more experience in government than the idiot we have in the WH now. That used to be important to Republicans...not so much anymore.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Nov 3, 2019 9:15:14 GMT -8
RSM, you are correct. It is the written policy of the State Department that only federal government servers be used to conduct State Department business. Yet the Secretary of State intentionally violated that policy to set up her own private server, as well as going to all the trouble to install it, secure it and maintain it. Doing so was clearly not a matter of convenience, nor was it unintentional, but rather a premeditated effort to control what could and could not be accessed in her communications. A volitional act, on the part of a high ranking government official, that was only “investigated” for the cameras... the outcome of which was predetermined by her supporters from the attorney general on down. we have a right to our own opinions on how that all played out. We do not have any right to invent facts we want to support our opinions. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Nov 3, 2019 9:17:02 GMT -8
I didn't say she committed a crime, although the intentional violation of the Code of Federal Regulations might be argued to be a crime. However, the gross negligence with national security that she displayed, and the suspicions of her intent in going to all the trouble to violate policy and establish her own server should have been enough for people to reject her as a candidate and a nominee. Any objective person versed in the handling of classified information, will state without equivocation that her handling of that information was gross negligence (as opposed to extreme carelessness that Strzok changed the description to), and that IS a crime. "Intent" does not play into the equation, despite what much of the media will want us to believe. www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/state-department-clinton-email-server/index.html |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 3, 2019 9:34:27 GMT -8
Character and integrity matter to me, because I suppose I make the childish mistake of expecting more of my statesmen than just not being convicted of any crimes.
Clinton had two choices to make:
(a) As the head of the State Department, she could abide by the written policies of that department, or she could arrogantly and knowingly ignore and violate them.
(b) She could use the State Department servers that were already up and running, with all their intrinsic safeguards, or she could go to all the trouble to obtain, install, set up, secure and maintain her own private server at a remote location.
In both cases she chose the latter, despite the questions they raise, despite the unnecessary cost and effort they would entail, and despite knowing that national security could be compromised. The question remains, why did she choose to do all that, unless it was to conceal communications she didn't want open to government or public scrutiny?
That's why she was a shit that I could never vote for, regardless of her policy positions or who her opponent was.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 3, 2019 11:39:00 GMT -8
It was never determined that no crime occurred, rather Hillary was not prosecuted for the crime. That a personal server existed with State Department information on it is, in & of itself, evidence of a crime. it was the dead body in the basement, shot 5 times, with all of its limbs cut off. Not a suicide and not an industrial accident, a crime. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it does indeed make a sound. If a crime is committed, but no one is charged, evidence of that case is still considered to be evidence of a crime. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 3, 2019 11:46:28 GMT -8
There are crimes where intent matters, this was not one of them. It is possible that Hillary was not prosecuted because Comey did not believe he could get a prosecution (which would have been odd based on the airtight case he laid out on his July 5th, 2016 press conference). It is also possible that Comey is corrupt. It is also possible that Comey is incompetent. It is also possible that Comey did not want to end up on the Clinton kill list. It is also possible that Comey is deeply in love with Hillary Clinton and thought this would be the way to woo her away from Bill. Based on all of the evidence & actions, the most plausible possibility is corruption. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 3, 2019 14:03:32 GMT -8
Ye, there are crimes where intent matters, such as murder, but there are also crimes where intent does not matter, such as the other varieties of manslaughter. Either way, the victim is just as dead. The bottom line is that Hillary intentionally violated State Department policy, and she intentionally put national security at risk by conducting State Department business on her personal Radio Shack server. She is an unconvicted criminal. Either that, or she's so oblivious and incompetent that she shouldn't even be elected dogcatcher.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Nov 3, 2019 17:39:25 GMT -8
Ye, there are crimes where intent matters, such as murder, but there are also crimes where intent does not matter, such as the other varieties of manslaughter. Either way, the victim is just as dead. The bottom line is that Hillary intentionally violated State Department policy, and she intentionally put national security at risk by conducting State Department business on her personal Radio Shack server. She is an unconvicted criminal. Either that, or she's so oblivious and incompetent that she shouldn't even be elected dogcatcher. Now I have to disagree,MDDad: in my never-to-be-considered “humble” opinion, Hillary would make a splendid dog catcher. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 4, 2019 3:19:38 GMT -8
Sure but the problem here is that you're not satisfied with her punishment. In effect she was found guilty of manslaughter but given no time and that rankles.
Your entitled to that opinion, but that's all it is...an opinion.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Nov 4, 2019 20:07:48 GMT -8
Your entitled to that opinion, but that's all it is...an opinion. I would disagree, that statement is a fact based on evidence. It has never been questioned whether or not she had set up a private server, she admitted it. Based on the law, doing so is a crime, no matter the intent or lack thereof (like manslaughter). Now, if the prosecutor declines to pursue charges, that does not dissipate the crime, it only means Hillary is not being held responsible for it. That is the definition of an unconvicted criminal. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 5, 2019 9:19:20 GMT -8
The problem with that is according to your logic people who are acquitted of crimes in a court of law are still criminals. That doesn't work for me.
|
|
