Mirror Finish Polishing ~ 1-816-529-6089 ~ sales@mirrorfinishpolishing.com ~ mirrorfinishpolishing.com For the best rate on home, auto, life or business/commercial insurance call me at 888-959-0955, cell 636-734-1310 or bricehazelwood@weiss-ins.com. Never Done Garage - donewhenimdead.com Peerless Automotive Reconditioning - 1155 W. Dennis Ave, Olathe Ks, 66061 - 913-893-1201 Mark H. Epstein ~ The Epstein Law Firm, LLC ~ 913-396-5123 Wilkes Automotive ~ wilkesautomotive.com ~ 246 Marion St, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ 913-254-7171 Skandalous Inc ~ www.skandalousinc.com DIY Auto Repair Inc ~ www.diyautorepairkc.com ~ 11509 Strangline Rd, Olathe KS 66062 ~ 913-226-3806 Your advertisement here! The Law Offices of Jeremiah Johnson, LLC ~ 104 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ (913)764-5010 ~ www.kcatty.com - www.johnsoncountydui.com ~ jeremiah@kcatty.com Santa Fe Body, Inc ~ 8717 Lenexa Drive, Overland Park, KS 66214 ~ (913) 894-6090 House of Boost LLC Nude? HouseofHID.com - The #1 source for HID The Print Shop KC 816.200.6694 or Ryan@RMD-Photography.com the art of tyleR ~ http://tyleR.bigcartel.com ~ TYLERcoey.com ~ MUTTtoy.com ~ MUTTtoy@gmail.com W-K Chevrolet Buick Pontiac Cadillac GMC ~ 3310 W. Broadway, Sedalia, MO 65301 ~ 800-382-5088 ~ Cell 660-553-8928 ~ dustin@wkchevy.com ~ www.wkchevy.com

Go Back   KCSR - THE Kansas City Forum > General Forums > Politics, Religion, Current Events

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 2016-07-07, 02:31 PM   #201
77Nova
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 596
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 4
Thanks (Received): 16
Likes (Given): 20
Likes (Received): 83
Dislikes (Given): 0
Dislikes (Received): 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreakdna View Post
They could try to prosecute her but transmitting classified information on unsecured lines is (sadly) common practice among many civilians of both parties. If you prosecute Clinton for it you open the door to Rice, Powell and anyone that's picked up the phone to have a more efficient conversation when gov't tech sucks (which it appears to do with some regularity).
Sadly, you are right. And it is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreakdna View Post
for BuddyLee - no, most likely nothing with come from this but more bluster and more theatre/leaks from congressional committees that are going to try and drag the ever living fuck out of this. actual criminal charges/punishment aren't the point of this exercise for Congress. its political theatre to keep a negative line of attack open for a few more months. its the same reasoning behind investigating something that 7 other committees have investigated and all come to the same general conclusion about... they convened the longest Congressional investigation in history (longer than 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Watergate, etc) and found almost literally nothing new about that situation. its theatre and politics, not actual investigation so the potential for/the actual punishment doesn't really matter to them, its all about the show and creating headlines along the way.
You don't think there is anything behind the lying to congress? I guess she can try to make the same case, that she unknowingly lied.
77Nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 02:41 PM   #202
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 77Nova View Post
Sadly, you are right. And it is absolutely ridiculous.

You don't think there is anything behind the lying to congress? I guess she can try to make the same case, that she unknowingly lied.
Comey's line about the mislabeling of classified emails all she needs. He made it apparent that it would have been easy to overlook it.

Now, whether she actually did or not is anyone's guess. But that's all it would be, a guess.
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 03:44 PM   #203
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 50,909
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcFed93 View Post
Comey's line about the mislabeling of classified emails all she needs. He made it apparent that it would have been easy to overlook it.

Now, whether she actually did or not is anyone's guess. But that's all it would be, a guess.
Comey said today that 3 emails had portion markings... so I'm not sure she can hide behind they weren't clearly marked.

Unless I'm misunderstanding.
__________________
2015 Genesis Coupe Ultimate
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 03:49 PM   #204
77Nova
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 596
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 4
Thanks (Received): 16
Likes (Given): 20
Likes (Received): 83
Dislikes (Given): 0
Dislikes (Received): 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
Comey said today that 3 emails had portion markings... so I'm not sure she can hide behind they weren't clearly marked.

Unless I'm misunderstanding.
Apparently it doesn't matter what she did, it only matters what she intended to do.
77Nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 03:55 PM   #205
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
Comey said today that 3 emails had portion markings... so I'm not sure she can hide behind they weren't clearly marked.

Unless I'm misunderstanding.
You're correct, but Comey also stated that they weren't labeled according to procedure and that even though she was familiar with the classification procedure it would be reasonable to assume those could have been overlooked.
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 03:58 PM   #206
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

Good article on comparing previous cases like this and how it was handled versus how the Clinton case was handled.

Based on these other cases, it sounds like it wasn't handled much differently than it would've been for anyone else.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...probes-n604856

For everyone talking about being "fried" for anyone else doing the same thing, it's interesting to see how little the penalties are for people that willfully leak classified information once everything is adjudicated.

Last edited by ForcFed93; 2016-07-07 at 04:02 PM..
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:04 PM   #207
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcFed93 View Post
You're correct, but Comey also stated that they weren't labeled according to procedure and that even though she was familiar with the classification procedure it would be reasonable to assume those could have been overlooked.
But he also said in his press event that headers were stripped basically to hide that they were classified. He also said that someone in that position should know and basically said what you said is not a fucking excuse.

You and phreak are trying your best to defend her and its fucking hilarious that you just can't do it. This is indefensible at this point and the only thing you guys can try to use is a blame everyone else defense and it's reasonable that she overlooked it.

She was the fucking head of the fucking state dept. gross negligence shouldn't just be an oh well she had a whoopsie. What would she just conveniently overlook as CiC?
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:08 PM   #208
77Nova
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 596
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 4
Thanks (Received): 16
Likes (Given): 20
Likes (Received): 83
Dislikes (Given): 0
Dislikes (Received): 0
Default

Quote:
Good article on comparing previous cases like this and how it was handled versus how the Clinton case was handled.

Based on these other cases, it sounds like it wasn't handled much differently than it would've been for anyone else.
As much as I may dislike the outcome, I can see where Comey is coming from. Given the evidence we know at this point, it would be a difficult case to make. Clinton was very good an not providing the key ingredients he needed to make a solid case. It's just the way our legal system works. Kinda like the Casey Anthony trial. Everyone knows she did it, but she still got off due to the legal process.

I think the two bigger issues now are the lies to congress (probably hard to prove and will go nowhere) and the access of classified information given to people who didn't have clearance.

Quote:
“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee’s chairman, asked.

“Yes,” Comey replied.

After a piercing moment of silence, the Republican congressman inquired, “What do you think her intent was?”

Comey said Clinton’s decision to give non-cleared people access to classified information was to “get good legal representation” and produce requested emails to the State Department.
How is this not a crime in itself? I couldn't believe he simply blew it off like it was no big deal.

Last edited by 77Nova; 2016-07-07 at 04:10 PM..
77Nova is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:10 PM   #209
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Leawood
Posts: 6,772
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 158
Thanks (Received): 115
Likes (Given): 393
Likes (Received): 632
Dislikes (Given): 8
Dislikes (Received): 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
Comey said today that 3 emails had portion markings... so I'm not sure she can hide behind they weren't clearly marked.

Unless I'm misunderstanding.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/co...linton-attacks
Quote:
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) asked Comey if Clinton should have known that the emails contained classified information based on that marking.

"So a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a first lady, wouldn't a reasonable person know that that was a classified marking?" Meadows asked.

"Yeah, before this investigation, I probably would have said yes. I'm not so sure," Comey replied. "I don't find it incredible."

Meadows found Comey's response surprising.

"Director Comey, come on. I mean, I've only been here a few years, and I understand the importance of those markings," the congressman said. "So you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be? That's your sworn testimony today?"

"No, no," Comey responded. "Not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be. But it's an interesting question as to whether — this question about sophistication came up earlier — whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘C’ in parens means."

"So you're saying this former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking?" Meadows then asked

"That's not what I said," Comey shot back. "Not what I'm saying. You asked me did I assume that someone would know. Probably before this investigation, I would have. I'm not so sure of that answer any longer. I think it's possible — possible — that she didn't understand what a 'C' meant when she saw it in the body of an e-mail like that. It's possible."
Comey hemmed and hawed quite a bit today but that's the relevant part as far as I can tell

and the last part of the exchange is what she would use as a defense (for better or worse). she has to have knowingly or intentionally done it per the parts of the statute that I've read are pertinent.
__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln
phreakdna is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:14 PM   #210
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FOACAD View Post
But he also said in his press event that headers were stripped basically to hide that they were classified. He also said that someone in that position should know and basically said what you said is not a fucking excuse.
Actually, during his testimony today, he basically said you're completely wrong on the bolded part.

He clarified that when she did this, it was to strip all classified portions so that it could be sent over non-secure channels.

Quote:
Asked by Jason Chaffetz, James Comey explained that in an email in which Hillary Clinton instructed a top adviser to make a secure fax "non paper" and take the classified markings off to send on a non-secure line, that meant in "State Department parlance" that she instructed him to strip the classified information out.

“Actually it caught my attention when I first saw it, and what she explained … and other witnesses did as well is what she meant by that is send it in a non-classified format," Comey said. “In diplomatic circles ('non paper') means something we could pass to another government.”
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:16 PM   #211
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

There are also statues that outline negligence.

I'm really not sure how you too are still able to defend this. It's just beyond any logic that I'd expect you two to have.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:18 PM   #212
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 50,909
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreakdna View Post
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/co...linton-attacks

Comey hemmed and hawed quite a bit today but that's the relevant part as far as I can tell

and the last part of the exchange is what she would use as a defense (for better or worse). she has to have knowingly or intentionally done it per the parts of the statute that I've read are pertinent.
That's fucking insane... but I guess if it keeps you legal then you go with it. Wow.
__________________
2015 Genesis Coupe Ultimate
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:20 PM   #213
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FOACAD View Post
I'm really not sure how you too are still able to defend this. It's just beyond any logic that I'd expect you two to have.
I don't think you'll find anyone defending this as good or even acceptable practice. I sure don't believe it is. And Hillary, very early on, admitted that as well.

What we're saying is that the people that have had access to everyone and everything around the case made the call and they did so with a lot more information, experience and judgment than you have.

Edit: Did you read those previous cases? An FBI agent left classified national security documents in a briefcase, in a hotel, THAT GOT STOLEN and the DOJ declined to pursue charges.

Last edited by ForcFed93; 2016-07-07 at 04:22 PM..
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:22 PM   #214
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcFed93 View Post
Actually, during his testimony today, he basically said you're completely wrong on the bolded part.

He clarified that when she did this, it was to strip all classified portions so that it could be sent over non-secure channels.
Holy fuck. Do you even realize what it's saying? Clearly you don't.

She had classified material. When that material has the proper markings on it it isn't supposed to be transferred over any non classified medium.

Stripping the markings doesn't just *viola* make it non classified. It's still classified!!! It still shouldn't go over a non classified medium.


When I was dealing with TS documents on our SIPR net, if I had copied them, removed the markings and then sent them to someone on NIPR I'd be hanging out with Chelsea Manning right now.

So no he didn't say I'm wrong. He went further and said its even worse because that shows she knows that the markings are supposed to be there and taking them off was an attempt to make it look like a more pedestrian document.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:22 PM   #215
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Leawood
Posts: 6,772
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 158
Thanks (Received): 115
Likes (Given): 393
Likes (Received): 632
Dislikes (Given): 8
Dislikes (Received): 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
That's fucking insane... but I guess if it keeps you legal then you go with it. Wow.
not disagreeing with that at all. it really does seem to be coming down to a question of "how dumb/ignorant/unintentional do her actions have to be to remain legal and is she willing to say that she was that level of dumb/ignorant/unintentional?"
__________________
Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ”all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy. - Lincoln
phreakdna is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:27 PM   #216
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 50,909
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FOACAD View Post
Holy fuck. Do you even realize what it's saying? Clearly you don't.

She had classified material. When that material has the proper markings on it it isn't supposed to be transferred over any non classified medium.

Stripping the markings doesn't just *viola* make it non classified. It's still classified!!! It still shouldn't go over a non classified medium.


When I was dealing with TS documents on our SIPR net, if I had copied them, removed the markings and then sent them to someone on NIPR I'd be hanging out with Chelsea Manning right now.

So no he didn't say I'm wrong. He went further and said its even worse because that shows she knows that the markings are supposed to be there and taking them off was an attempt to make it look like a more pedestrian document.
I don't think you understood him... their stance isn't removing the classified MARKINGS... but the classified INFORMATION. Like redacting the classified material inside a memo, so that it is no longer needing to be considered classified.

Right ForceFed?
__________________
2015 Genesis Coupe Ultimate
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:30 PM   #217
JDLM
Schutzstaffel
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 162,110
Post Thanks / Like
Default

read though this post then came upon this .

There are legitimate political arguments to make about Hillary Clinton’s emails. These aren’t them.









A protester yells at Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as she speaks at the Cleveland Industrial Innovation Center on June 13 in Cleveland. (Tony Dejak/Associated Press)


Here's what we know for sure right now:
  • Hillary Clinton's private email server handled 110 emails with classified information -- which Clinton had promised it didn't.
  • Hillary Clinton, according to FBI Director James Comey, was "extremely careless" in using the server and might have put national security in jeopardy.
  • Hillary Clinton will not face criminal charges for her use of a private email server.
  • Hillary Clinton is running for president.
Those factors, combined, have produced enough overheated rhetoric and allegations, attacks and defenses, to keep both parties occupied for somewhere between four months and eight years. The arguments are loud. They're widespread. They're ... often not very good.
Below, we look at four arguments you might hear -- two from each side -- that don't really hold water.
Argument 1: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did it, too!


This is a popular argument from those defending Clinton -- and even Clinton herself.



Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered it as a defense in March: "Colin Powell, I think, did it similar to her. But she’s turning over more documents than anybody else: 55,000. I think she’s come forward more than just about anybody else has." And Clinton herself said that "my predecessors did the same thing."


But they didn't.


As The Post's Fact Checker previously wrote about Clinton's predecessors as secretary of state:
Rice rarely used e-mails while secretary. Powell did use his personal account on the job, and by his own admission no longer has access to the account he used then. The State Department, NARA and Powell’s staff are now working to figure out what e-mails need to be, or could be, retrieved.
By the time Clinton took office, federal expectations for archiving electronic records were clearer than they were under Powell’s tenure. That does not absolve Powell for not being able to locate his records a decade later, or for not turning them over to National Archives back then. But it does mean that Clinton was held to a more definitive standard. Moreover, this common defense among her supporters is used to deflect the central issue: that Clinton exclusively used a personal account, and did not provide records until she was requested to, after she left office. That is the most relevant point, so the Democrats earn Three Pinocchios.
The big difference here is indeed that last point: that Clinton had her own private server, and that she used it exclusively. Neither Rice nor Powell did that.
Powell himself and Rice staff members (not Rice herself) received a limited number of emails containing classified information on their private accounts -- two in Powell's case and 10 in the case of Rice's staff -- but neither used private email on the scale that Clinton did. And the number of emails in Clinton's case is much larger because of it: 110 that included classified information, Comey said.


The second major point is that the expectations were different during Powell's and Rice's tenures; Clinton got very clear guidance about use of private email as secretary of state. The State Department's inspector general addressed this point in its May report on Clinton's email practices, according to The Post's Carol Morello and Jia Lynn Yang:
But the report also notes that by the time Clinton became secretary of state, the guidance on email use was much more detailed, suggesting that pointing to Powell is not an entirely fair comparison.
And then there's a third point: Clinton is running for president. If Powell and Rice were doing so, perhaps their email practices and other aspects of their secretary of state tenures would be more closely examined.
Argument 2: R.I.P., the rule of law

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) speaks at a presidential forum sponsored by Heritage Action at the Bon Secours Wellness Arena on Sept. 18, 2015, in Greenville, S.C. (Richard Shiro/Associated Press)


It has been clear for a while now that Clinton broke the rules in using her private server. And for some, that's enough to warrant criminal charges.


"Clinton Is Above The Law, So the Law Is Dead," declared a headline on the Blaze, a conservative website.


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered this: "The FBI showed clearly that Clinton violated classified procedures and carelessly, recklessly endangered national security — and did so repeatedly, over 100 times. The FBI then announced she would face no charges. This is an outrage, and the rule of law has been shattered."


But it's worth noting a key point made by Comey: Breaking the rules is not the same as breaking the law. The latter carries with it a higher standard; in this case, it was whether Clinton was "grossly negligent" in using her private server.


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


Clinton violated the rules, clearly, and even Comey suggested that she could have endangered national security. From there, it's a judgment call on whether he thinks she did so through gross negligence. Reasonable people can disagree -- and will.


Is being "extremely careless" the same as being "grossly negligent"? That's a valid question. But saying this completely voids the rule of law is making a prediction that is very likely to be proven wrong.


Argument 3: Clinton was exonerated
Democrats, including Clinton, have at times insisted that this is basically much ado about nothing. This takes the form of pointing to Powell and Rice, but it also takes other forms -- such as blanket denial that it's a valid issue and even contending that Clinton has now been exonerated.
"It's over. It's time to move on," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "Republican attempts to continue their political hit job are just that: They're political."
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) even suggested before Comey's announcement that Clinton was about as likely to be indicted as any of us are.


But there's a reason Clinton's campaign moved from its early blanket denials into apologizing and emphasizing that she did nothing deliberately criminal: It looked bad.


Comey's announcement Tuesday was not an exoneration of Clinton; it was full of bad news for her and evidence that she messed up. We learned that Comey thinks Clinton was "extremely careless."


It didn't rise to the level of criminal charges, in Comey's estimation, but the idea that this was just some pointless witch hunt was not borne out by the facts. And is it really all that outlandish to say it was a possibility that Clinton could have been charged? It's hard to say this, given Comey's presentation.


Again, it's a judgment call. But suggesting that it's a big nothingburger is a claim that doesn't really hold up right now.

President Obama stands with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during a Clinton campaign event in Charlotte, N.C., on July 5. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Argument 4: Clinton could be pardoned -- or even pardon herself


The New York Post, in its characteristically subtle way, suggested that President Obama might still pardon Clinton: "Hillary will remain on the hook — unless Obama pardons her."


Relatedly, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.), in the course of one 10-minute interview Wednesday with Breitbart, suggested that Republicans might need to shut down the government in response to Clinton not being charged and also suggested that Clinton, if elected president, would simply pardon herself.


"We are in a crisis because Hillary Clinton, if the voters do not stop her, will be the next president of the United States," Issa said. "She will, in fact, on Day One say, 'Pardon me,' and she’ll mean it. She’ll have pardoned herself."


This is a very strong charge that involves the ability to see the future in very specific detail. It also is a suggestion with no real founding or precedent.


Could Clinton pardon herself? Of course. It's legal to do so, and there was some talk that her husband could potentially do it back in the impeachment days in the late 1990s. But would she? That's nearly impossible to imagine. Were Clinton to become president, pardoning herself would effectively render her a lame duck. It's also not clear why she would pardon herself preemptively with no actual criminal charges (especially because Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch says there will be none).











As for Obama pardoning her: There is, of course, precedent for a president pardoning another president. But that was pardoning a former president (Richard Nixon) who wasn't about to begin a four-year term. Obama pardoning Clinton, like Clinton pardoning herself, would basically nullify her political capital -- not to mention reflect poorly on Obama.
Things can change, but this is all wild speculation right now.
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:38 PM   #218
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
I don't think you understood him... their stance isn't removing the classified MARKINGS... but the classified INFORMATION. Like redacting the classified material inside a memo, so that it is no longer needing to be considered classified.

Right ForceFed?
But he didn't say that.

He specifically said classified markings. Removed the markings so it could be sent. Not the information.

He said it in the presser and again to congress. STRIPPED MARKINGS. Nothing about the information being redacted.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:46 PM   #219
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
I don't think you understood him... their stance isn't removing the classified MARKINGS... but the classified INFORMATION. Like redacting the classified material inside a memo, so that it is no longer needing to be considered classified.

Right ForceFed?
That's my interpretation. Apparently FOACAD says that's wrong.
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 04:52 PM   #220
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForcFed93 View Post
That's my interpretation. Apparently FOACAD says that's wrong.
Read his exact words. Then listen to the presser again.

He knows what he's saying when he says markings. That isn't a mis step and he really means stripped the info.

I have dealt with these things personally. My last deployment I was dealing with it daily. You take those markings off and sure it looks like it's ok but the information doesn't just all of a sudden become unclassified.

Every email I sent had a pop up asking what level to classify it as. If there was anything in the email at Secret level then the entire email is now secret. Just because I don't put that marking on there doesn't change the fact it's secret.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 05:16 PM   #221
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

I'm not going to try to question your military experience, but I am going to point out to you that the state department is not the military and they don't follow the same policy. I deal with both the military and non military in my job and the exact same word can mean two completely different things to those in the military versus those that aren't.

Until you have State department and diplomatic experience, you don't have the level of knowledge that the head of the FBI does.
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 05:27 PM   #222
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

The state dept and the entire govt deals with the same classification system. The same terms that are involved here (SCIF for example) are used in the military and govt wide. It isn't changed just because it's the state dept Vs the military. My clearance allows me access to the same shit a state dept employee has access to if I were to be employed by them and be read on. And vice versa, their clearance if they joined the military is the same.

I'm just going off what the director verbally has said. He said she did all this stuff and basically should have known better. Then in front of congress said well maybe she didn't know any better. It's mind blowing.
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 05:37 PM   #223
ForcFed93
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Topeka KS
Posts: 4,133
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 16
Thanks (Received): 96
Likes (Given): 334
Likes (Received): 673
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 29
Default

I'm not saying they don't use the same classification system. I'm saying while you may not have any ability to redact portions of classified documents, she may have that ability (and apparently does). If the FBI had evidence that she stripped classification markings only and sent a classified document to foreign governments, I would want to believe she'd be tried for treason. Apparently the FBI didn't think that was the case.
ForcFed93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 05:57 PM   #224
FOACAD
الكافر المشرف
 
FOACAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Blue Springs
Posts: 73,834
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 570
Likes (Given): 36
Likes (Received): 3831
Dislikes (Given): 27
Dislikes (Received): 148
Default

You really think she would?

The things he outlined in the presser fit multiple statutes she could be brought up on charges for. He said though that a prosecutor wouldn't take the case which is why he isn't recommending indictment.

Talking with a friend who has worked on the federal level of the judicial system for a while his comment was that our system has become so reliant on prosecutorial success rate vs charges anything that actually meets the elements to a crime. Prosecutors move up in their career by having a 99% success rate vs having charged everything they can by the letter of the law and then have be "beaten".
FOACAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2016-07-07, 08:01 PM   #225
JDLM
Schutzstaffel
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lenexa
Posts: 162,110
Post Thanks / Like
Default

So they are reopening the case in this I read...
__________________

AW|E90|ZSP|ZPP|2XA|NAV|HID| ///M | BMS |JB4 | VRSF



JDLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.13.37
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1993-2012, KCSR.org