CDZ FBI Recommends No Charges Against Mrs. Clinton...but what it says creates political drama...AWKWARD

[Slyhunter]

Questions FBI should've asked, who set up the server, who gave permission for it's setup, how long has the server existed, none of which have been asked or answered.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

You know exactly what I meant by 'set up.'

 

[FA_Q2]

Questions FBI should've asked, who set up the server, who gave permission for it's setup, how long has the server existed, none of which have been asked or answered.

AFIK, such questions were asked. She did not receive permission for the setup, she contracted someone to set it up and they know exactly how long the server existed considering Comey spoke about previous systems and iterations that the server went through causing the loss of many emails.

 

[320 Years of History]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

Come on, Flopper, let's not insult others' intelligence with lines such as the one you are drawing...You're splitting hairs (equivocating) by standing on such a strict construction of "set up" as to quibble over the fact that Mrs. Clinton herself is likely not the person who actually did the install and configuration of the server. She engaged someone to do it at her behest, and that's good enough to say that "she set up a server."

Disagree if you want, but don't toss out some puerile crap like that....You should be ashamed of yourself.

The server was actually already being used and in place by her husband for years prior to her being SOS.

It was more a matter of adding her name /email address to the server.

First:
Those two most recent comments have nothing to do with Flopper's remarks about whether Mrs. Clinton herself set up the servers to enable herself as an email user on them. Were you just sharing the information in your comments purely for the sake of sharing it, or did you intend there be some correspondence to the prior remarks in the quoted sequence of remarks?

Second:
To give you an understanding of why I asked the question above....

I don't care, and neither does anyone else who has more to do than engage in picayune banter over immaterial details that don't alter the the nature or extent of the deed(s) that took place or the intent that drove them. Why? Because whether or not Mr. Clinton was using the servers, they were nonetheless:

• servers that did not meet the security protocols of the DoS
• servers that facilitated/carried classified information they should not have carried

Those two factors are demonstrative evidence of the actus rea needed to show criminality. Another element of criminality is mens rea, and whether or not the servers were used by Mr. Clinton does nothing to show Mrs. Clinton as having had the intent of committing her actions with the aim of violating any U.S. laws.

The level of detail/concern/scope you've addressed is that of an IT support worker, not that of an executive. I can assure you that Mrs. Clinton didn't give a damn (1) by what technical steps she obtained the ability to be a user on the servers in question, (2) whether she used the servers her husband was using or some other servers that she purchased, borrowed or received as gifts.

Think of it like this. If something goes wrong with my car's motor, I have the car sent to the dealer with instructions to fix it. I don't particularly care what's wrong; I don't especially care whether the mechanic squirts water on a part to fix it or has to install a replacement part, or something else. Now if the invoice I receive after the repair is done indicates they fixed the brakes, I'm going to want to know why the hell they were meddling with the brakes when the problem was in the engine, but short of something that just doesn't make basic sense, I won't have a thing to say about what else they did. I'm quite sure that Mrs. Clinton thought about the matter of using her own servers that way. ONly if she were going to configure them herself would she have cared about the details of how to make that happen.

 

[Slyhunter]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

Come on, Flopper, let's not insult others' intelligence with lines such as the one you are drawing...You're splitting hairs (equivocating) by standing on such a strict construction of "set up" as to quibble over the fact that Mrs. Clinton herself is likely not the person who actually did the install and configuration of the server. She engaged someone to do it at her behest, and that's good enough to say that "she set up a server."

Disagree if you want, but don't toss out some puerile crap like that....You should be ashamed of yourself.

The server was actually already being used and in place by her husband for years prior to her being SOS.

It was more a matter of adding her name /email address to the server.

First:
Those two most recent comments have nothing to do with Flopper's remarks about whether Mrs. Clinton herself set up the servers to enable herself as an email user on them. Were you just sharing the information in your comments purely for the sake of sharing it, or did you intend there be some correspondence to the prior remarks in the quoted sequence of remarks?

Second:
To give you an understanding of why I asked the question above....

I don't care, and neither does anyone else who has more to do than engage in picayune banter over immaterial details that don't alter the the nature or extent of the deed(s) that took place or the intent that drove them. Why? Because whether or not Mr. Clinton was using the servers, they were nonetheless:

• servers that did not meet the security protocols of the DoS
• servers that facilitated/carried classified information they should not have carried

Those two factors are demonstrative evidence of the actus rea needed to show criminality. Another element of criminality is mens rea, and whether or not the servers were used by Mr. Clinton does nothing to show Mrs. Clinton as having had the intent of committing her actions with the aim of violating any U.S. laws.

The level of detail/concern/scope you've addressed is that of an IT support worker, not that of an executive. I can assure you that Mrs. Clinton didn't give a damn (1) by what technical steps she obtained the ability to be a user on the servers in question, (2) whether she used the servers her husband was using or some other servers that she purchased, borrowed or received as gifts.

Think of it like this. If something goes wrong with my car's motor, I have the car sent to the dealer with instructions to fix it. I don't particularly care what's wrong; I don't especially care whether the mechanic squirts water on a part to fix it or has to install a replacement part, or something else. Now if the invoice I receive after the repair is done indicates they fixed the brakes, I'm going to want to know why the hell they were meddling with the brakes when the problem was in the engine, but short of something that just doesn't make basic sense, I won't have a thing to say about what else they did. I'm quite sure that Mrs. Clinton thought about the matter of using her own servers that way. ONly if she were going to configure them herself would she have cared about the details of how to make that happen.

So her IT technician should go to jail then.

 

[320 Years of History]

Of course she set up the server. It was in her house and established under her direction.

What makes you think that she did not have clear knowledge of what she set up - something that was also unique as well - she is the first secretary to set up her own server.

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

Come on, Flopper, let's not insult others' intelligence with lines such as the one you are drawing...You're splitting hairs (equivocating) by standing on such a strict construction of "set up" as to quibble over the fact that Mrs. Clinton herself is likely not the person who actually did the install and configuration of the server. She engaged someone to do it at her behest, and that's good enough to say that "she set up a server."

Disagree if you want, but don't toss out some puerile crap like that....You should be ashamed of yourself.

The server was actually already being used and in place by her husband for years prior to her being SOS.

It was more a matter of adding her name /email address to the server.

First:
Those two most recent comments have nothing to do with Flopper's remarks about whether Mrs. Clinton herself set up the servers to enable herself as an email user on them. Were you just sharing the information in your comments purely for the sake of sharing it, or did you intend there be some correspondence to the prior remarks in the quoted sequence of remarks?

Second:
To give you an understanding of why I asked the question above....

I don't care, and neither does anyone else who has more to do than engage in picayune banter over immaterial details that don't alter the the nature or extent of the deed(s) that took place or the intent that drove them. Why? Because whether or not Mr. Clinton was using the servers, they were nonetheless:

• servers that did not meet the security protocols of the DoS
• servers that facilitated/carried classified information they should not have carried

Those two factors are demonstrative evidence of the actus rea needed to show criminality. Another element of criminality is mens rea, and whether or not the servers were used by Mr. Clinton does nothing to show Mrs. Clinton as having had the intent of committing her actions with the aim of violating any U.S. laws.

The level of detail/concern/scope you've addressed is that of an IT support worker, not that of an executive. I can assure you that Mrs. Clinton didn't give a damn (1) by what technical steps she obtained the ability to be a user on the servers in question, (2) whether she used the servers her husband was using or some other servers that she purchased, borrowed or received as gifts.

Think of it like this. If something goes wrong with my car's motor, I have the car sent to the dealer with instructions to fix it. I don't particularly care what's wrong; I don't especially care whether the mechanic squirts water on a part to fix it or has to install a replacement part, or something else. Now if the invoice I receive after the repair is done indicates they fixed the brakes, I'm going to want to know why the hell they were meddling with the brakes when the problem was in the engine, but short of something that just doesn't make basic sense, I won't have a thing to say about what else they did. I'm quite sure that Mrs. Clinton thought about the matter of using her own servers that way. ONly if she were going to configure them herself would she have cared about the details of how to make that happen.

So her IT technician should go to jail then.

No, because the same absence of mens rea existed with her tech as it did with her.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You really think, the Secretary of State sets up email servers?

Come on, Flopper, let's not insult others' intelligence with lines such as the one you are drawing...You're splitting hairs (equivocating) by standing on such a strict construction of "set up" as to quibble over the fact that Mrs. Clinton herself is likely not the person who actually did the install and configuration of the server. She engaged someone to do it at her behest, and that's good enough to say that "she set up a server."

Disagree if you want, but don't toss out some puerile crap like that....You should be ashamed of yourself.

The server was actually already being used and in place by her husband for years prior to her being SOS.

It was more a matter of adding her name /email address to the server.

First:
Those two most recent comments have nothing to do with Flopper's remarks about whether Mrs. Clinton herself set up the servers to enable herself as an email user on them. Were you just sharing the information in your comments purely for the sake of sharing it, or did you intend there be some correspondence to the prior remarks in the quoted sequence of remarks?

Second:
To give you an understanding of why I asked the question above....

I don't care, and neither does anyone else who has more to do than engage in picayune banter over immaterial details that don't alter the the nature or extent of the deed(s) that took place or the intent that drove them. Why? Because whether or not Mr. Clinton was using the servers, they were nonetheless:

• servers that did not meet the security protocols of the DoS
• servers that facilitated/carried classified information they should not have carried

Those two factors are demonstrative evidence of the actus rea needed to show criminality. Another element of criminality is mens rea, and whether or not the servers were used by Mr. Clinton does nothing to show Mrs. Clinton as having had the intent of committing her actions with the aim of violating any U.S. laws.

The level of detail/concern/scope you've addressed is that of an IT support worker, not that of an executive. I can assure you that Mrs. Clinton didn't give a damn (1) by what technical steps she obtained the ability to be a user on the servers in question, (2) whether she used the servers her husband was using or some other servers that she purchased, borrowed or received as gifts.

Think of it like this. If something goes wrong with my car's motor, I have the car sent to the dealer with instructions to fix it. I don't particularly care what's wrong; I don't especially care whether the mechanic squirts water on a part to fix it or has to install a replacement part, or something else. Now if the invoice I receive after the repair is done indicates they fixed the brakes, I'm going to want to know why the hell they were meddling with the brakes when the problem was in the engine, but short of something that just doesn't make basic sense, I won't have a thing to say about what else they did. I'm quite sure that Mrs. Clinton thought about the matter of using her own servers that way. ONly if she were going to configure them herself would she have cared about the details of how to make that happen.

So her IT technician should go to jail then.

No, because the same absence of mens rea existed with her tech as it did with her.

Will you shut up with your mens rea BS already. It's annoying that you continually and stupidly ignore the fact that intent is not required. That actually should be quite obvious as NO ONE intends to neglectfully mishandle classified material.

 

[Care4all]

She simply wasn't GROSS Negligent.... GROSS negligence would have been every top secret communication she had with her aids over the 4 years, on her server, not just 7 email chains/110 out of 30 to 40,000.

Gross negligence would have been her staff and herself going to the top secret server and taking document material off of it, and leaving them in a Chinese restaurant...no t/s docs were removed from their proper place by her aids or herself.

It simply was not GROSS Negligence.


Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

Commentary: What the FBI didn't say about Hillary Clinton’s email

Comey stated some 110 emails were classified when they were transmitted and received via Clinton's personal email server. Comey stressed that he did not find evidence that Clinton intended to violate any laws, or that her actions rose to “gross negligence.”

we are not talking about if she was wrong with setting up her server, it does not mean she did not break State dept rules... but was it Criminal? NOPE!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

She simply wasn't GROSS Negligent.... GROSS negligence would have been every top secret communication she had with her aids over the 4 years, on her server, not just 7 email chains/110 out of 30 to 40,000.

Gross negligence would have been her staff and herself going to the top secret server and taking document material off of it, and leaving them in a Chinese restaurant...no t/s docs were removed from their proper place by her aids or herself.

It simply was not GROSS Negligence.


Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

Commentary: What the FBI didn't say about Hillary Clinton’s email

Comey stated some 110 emails were classified when they were transmitted and received via Clinton's personal email server. Comey stressed that he did not find evidence that Clinton intended to violate any laws, or that her actions rose to “gross negligence.”

we are not talking about if she was wrong with setting up her server, it does not mean she did not break State dept rules... but was it Criminal? NOPE!

Oh come...................

EVERY email she ever sent was via that private server. Not one email was sent via official server. Do you really believe that in her ENTIRE stint as Sec State that she only sent or received 110 emails that contained classified material?

AND if that's the case, then why did the State Department estimate that it would take SEVENTY FIVE years to comb through her emails and make them all public? Seventy Five years to make 110 emails public? Yeah right.

 

[Care4all]

She simply wasn't GROSS Negligent.... GROSS negligence would have been every top secret communication she had with her aids over the 4 years, on her server, not just 7 email chains/110 out of 30 to 40,000.

Gross negligence would have been her staff and herself going to the top secret server and taking document material off of it, and leaving them in a Chinese restaurant...no t/s docs were removed from their proper place by her aids or herself.

It simply was not GROSS Negligence.


Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

Commentary: What the FBI didn't say about Hillary Clinton’s email

Comey stated some 110 emails were classified when they were transmitted and received via Clinton's personal email server. Comey stressed that he did not find evidence that Clinton intended to violate any laws, or that her actions rose to “gross negligence.”

we are not talking about if she was wrong with setting up her server, it does not mean she did not break State dept rules... but was it Criminal? NOPE!

Oh come...................

EVERY email she ever sent was via that private server. Not one email was sent via official server. Do you really believe that in her ENTIRE stint as Sec State that she only sent or received 110 emails that contained classified material?

AND if that's the case, then why did the State Department estimate that it would take SEVENTY FIVE years to comb through her emails and make them all public? Seventy Five years to make 110 emails public? Yeah right.

you are clueless on this F & B.... It was reported and explained that they have a SEPARATE system for Secret information and a separate system and restricted area for Top Secret information, she and her high level Aides with clearance used those systems in house, and she DOES HAVE a government user id/account for those two systems and so do her aides have separate user ids for those systems.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

She simply wasn't GROSS Negligent.... GROSS negligence would have been every top secret communication she had with her aids over the 4 years, on her server, not just 7 email chains/110 out of 30 to 40,000.

Gross negligence would have been her staff and herself going to the top secret server and taking document material off of it, and leaving them in a Chinese restaurant...no t/s docs were removed from their proper place by her aids or herself.

It simply was not GROSS Negligence.


Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

Commentary: What the FBI didn't say about Hillary Clinton’s email

Comey stated some 110 emails were classified when they were transmitted and received via Clinton's personal email server. Comey stressed that he did not find evidence that Clinton intended to violate any laws, or that her actions rose to “gross negligence.”

we are not talking about if she was wrong with setting up her server, it does not mean she did not break State dept rules... but was it Criminal? NOPE!

Oh come...................

EVERY email she ever sent was via that private server. Not one email was sent via official server. Do you really believe that in her ENTIRE stint as Sec State that she only sent or received 110 emails that contained classified material?

AND if that's the case, then why did the State Department estimate that it would take SEVENTY FIVE years to comb through her emails and make them all public? Seventy Five years to make 110 emails public? Yeah right.

you are clueless on this F & B.... It was reported and explained that they have a SEPARATE system for Secret information and a separate system and restricted area for Top Secret information, she and her high level Aides with clearance used those systems in house, and she DOES HAVE a government user id for those two systems and so do her aides have separate user ids for those systems.

I'm clueless about this? LOL

 

[Care4all]

She simply wasn't GROSS Negligent.... GROSS negligence would have been every top secret communication she had with her aids over the 4 years, on her server, not just 7 email chains/110 out of 30 to 40,000.

Gross negligence would have been her staff and herself going to the top secret server and taking document material off of it, and leaving them in a Chinese restaurant...no t/s docs were removed from their proper place by her aids or herself.

It simply was not GROSS Negligence.


Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

Commentary: What the FBI didn't say about Hillary Clinton’s email

Comey stated some 110 emails were classified when they were transmitted and received via Clinton's personal email server. Comey stressed that he did not find evidence that Clinton intended to violate any laws, or that her actions rose to “gross negligence.”

we are not talking about if she was wrong with setting up her server, it does not mean she did not break State dept rules... but was it Criminal? NOPE!

Oh come...................

EVERY email she ever sent was via that private server. Not one email was sent via official server. Do you really believe that in her ENTIRE stint as Sec State that she only sent or received 110 emails that contained classified material?

AND if that's the case, then why did the State Department estimate that it would take SEVENTY FIVE years to comb through her emails and make them all public? Seventy Five years to make 110 emails public? Yeah right.

you are clueless on this F & B.... It was reported and explained that they have a SEPARATE system for Secret information and a separate system and restricted area for Top Secret information, she and her high level Aides with clearance used those systems in house, and she DOES HAVE a government user id for those two systems and so do her aides have separate user ids for those systems.

I'm clueless about this? LOL

About the secret and top secret systems used by her and her staff....you claimed she did not have a gvt account for secret and top secret, and that EVERYTHING had to go thru her server that was top secret because she only had an acct thru her server....

that my dear, is utter bull crap....

admit it.

 

[paperview]

She simply wasn't GROSS Negligent.... GROSS negligence would have been every top secret communication she had with her aids over the 4 years, on her server, not just 7 email chains/110 out of 30 to 40,000.

Gross negligence would have been her staff and herself going to the top secret server and taking document material off of it, and leaving them in a Chinese restaurant...no t/s docs were removed from their proper place by her aids or herself.

It simply was not GROSS Negligence.


Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

Commentary: What the FBI didn't say about Hillary Clinton’s email

Comey stated some 110 emails were classified when they were transmitted and received via Clinton's personal email server. Comey stressed that he did not find evidence that Clinton intended to violate any laws, or that her actions rose to “gross negligence.”

we are not talking about if she was wrong with setting up her server, it does not mean she did not break State dept rules... but was it Criminal? NOPE!

Oh come...................

EVERY email she ever sent was via that private server. Not one email was sent via official server. Do you really believe that in her ENTIRE stint as Sec State that she only sent or received 110 emails that contained classified material?

AND if that's the case, then why did the State Department estimate that it would take SEVENTY FIVE years to comb through her emails and make them all public? Seventy Five years to make 110 emails public? Yeah right.

you are clueless on this F & B.... It was reported and explained that they have a SEPARATE system for Secret information and a separate system and restricted area for Top Secret information, she and her high level Aides with clearance used those systems in house, and she DOES HAVE a government user id for those two systems and so do her aides have separate user ids for those systems.

I'm clueless about this? LOL

Yes.

 

[320 Years of History]

Come on, Flopper, let's not insult others' intelligence with lines such as the one you are drawing...You're splitting hairs (equivocating) by standing on such a strict construction of "set up" as to quibble over the fact that Mrs. Clinton herself is likely not the person who actually did the install and configuration of the server. She engaged someone to do it at her behest, and that's good enough to say that "she set up a server."

Disagree if you want, but don't toss out some puerile crap like that....You should be ashamed of yourself.

The server was actually already being used and in place by her husband for years prior to her being SOS.

It was more a matter of adding her name /email address to the server.

First:
Those two most recent comments have nothing to do with Flopper's remarks about whether Mrs. Clinton herself set up the servers to enable herself as an email user on them. Were you just sharing the information in your comments purely for the sake of sharing it, or did you intend there be some correspondence to the prior remarks in the quoted sequence of remarks?

Second:
To give you an understanding of why I asked the question above....

I don't care, and neither does anyone else who has more to do than engage in picayune banter over immaterial details that don't alter the the nature or extent of the deed(s) that took place or the intent that drove them. Why? Because whether or not Mr. Clinton was using the servers, they were nonetheless:

• servers that did not meet the security protocols of the DoS
• servers that facilitated/carried classified information they should not have carried

Those two factors are demonstrative evidence of the actus rea needed to show criminality. Another element of criminality is mens rea, and whether or not the servers were used by Mr. Clinton does nothing to show Mrs. Clinton as having had the intent of committing her actions with the aim of violating any U.S. laws.

The level of detail/concern/scope you've addressed is that of an IT support worker, not that of an executive. I can assure you that Mrs. Clinton didn't give a damn (1) by what technical steps she obtained the ability to be a user on the servers in question, (2) whether she used the servers her husband was using or some other servers that she purchased, borrowed or received as gifts.

Think of it like this. If something goes wrong with my car's motor, I have the car sent to the dealer with instructions to fix it. I don't particularly care what's wrong; I don't especially care whether the mechanic squirts water on a part to fix it or has to install a replacement part, or something else. Now if the invoice I receive after the repair is done indicates they fixed the brakes, I'm going to want to know why the hell they were meddling with the brakes when the problem was in the engine, but short of something that just doesn't make basic sense, I won't have a thing to say about what else they did. I'm quite sure that Mrs. Clinton thought about the matter of using her own servers that way. ONly if she were going to configure them herself would she have cared about the details of how to make that happen.

So her IT technician should go to jail then.

No, because the same absence of mens rea existed with her tech as it did with her.

Will you shut up with your mens rea BS already. It's annoying that you continually and stupidly ignore the fact that intent is not required. That actually should be quite obvious as NO ONE intends to neglectfully mishandle classified material.

Red:
And there in red and white is found yet another illustration of the absurdity that confounds and suffuses your thinking.

 

[katsung47]

Comey did so because the FBI does not want to impress people that they manipulate the election though Tramp is a candidate of their's. That's too evident. They have other methods to escort Trump to the president seat.

 

[MisterBeale]