The reason why Hillary was never indicted and Trump will be Impeached

[Votto]

It's simple, really.fbi

You see, regardless of how bad you may think HC's transgressions were vis-à-vis having a private e-mail server, she fundamentally understood something when it came to dealing with the FBI. It's this: You don't lie to the FBI if you want to avoid federal charge.

Enter Trump...

To put it mildly, Trump lies more easily, more effortlessly, more frequently, and quite frankly, more needlessly than anyone before him. In fact, Trump's lying is so incessantly frequent that it probably rises to the level of compulsive lying. (If you don't know what compulsive lying truly is, please look it up).

What that means is this: If and when Trump is ever interviewed by the FBI, even though I'm not a betting man, I WOULD bet that Trump would lie simply because he can't help himself. Trump would essentially pave the way to his own Impeachment.

Hillary never lied? LOL.

The bigger question is, why did the FBI not make Hillary go on record and force her to come clean or lie and go down in flames?

 

[edward37]

It's simple, really.fbi

You see, regardless of how bad you may think HC's transgressions were vis-à-vis having a private e-mail server, she fundamentally understood something when it came to dealing with the FBI. It's this: You don't lie to the FBI if you want to avoid federal charge.

Enter Trump...

To put it mildly, Trump lies more easily, more effortlessly, more frequently, and quite frankly, more needlessly than anyone before him. In fact, Trump's lying is so incessantly frequent that it probably rises to the level of compulsive lying. (If you don't know what compulsive lying truly is, please look it up).

What that means is this: If and when Trump is ever interviewed by the FBI, even though I'm not a betting man, I WOULD bet that Trump would lie simply because he can't help himself. Trump would essentially pave the way to his own Impeachment.

Hillary never lied? LOL.

The bigger question is, why did the FBI not make Hillary go on record and force her to come clean or lie and go down in flames?

Mommy Mommy she lied ,why can't I lie my ass off too?......DT

 

[Votto]

It's simple, really.fbi

You see, regardless of how bad you may think HC's transgressions were vis-à-vis having a private e-mail server, she fundamentally understood something when it came to dealing with the FBI. It's this: You don't lie to the FBI if you want to avoid federal charge.

Enter Trump...

To put it mildly, Trump lies more easily, more effortlessly, more frequently, and quite frankly, more needlessly than anyone before him. In fact, Trump's lying is so incessantly frequent that it probably rises to the level of compulsive lying. (If you don't know what compulsive lying truly is, please look it up).

What that means is this: If and when Trump is ever interviewed by the FBI, even though I'm not a betting man, I WOULD bet that Trump would lie simply because he can't help himself. Trump would essentially pave the way to his own Impeachment.

Hillary never lied? LOL.

The bigger question is, why did the FBI not make Hillary go on record and force her to come clean or lie and go down in flames?

Mommy Mommy she lied ,why can't I lie my ass off too?......DT

Hillary was a bubble girl. She knew, as did Trump when he promised to throw her in jail, that she was a golden child like Obama and nothing bad would ever happen to her.

 

[edward37]

Votto and you still support Trump after him spitting on our friends?
The NATO Article 5 which says one for all and all for one, if one of us is attacked, all of us are, and we all respond, has only be exercised once. That once was after 9/11 when the good 'ol USA was attacked. And reading Article 5, every NATO nation sent troops to Afghanistan at our request in response to the attacks on NYC and the Pentagon.

But that's not important to the T, now. He's going to do it all himself, now!

 

[Slade3200]

You're not have a very good day with your dimwitted arguments. Intent matters for some offenses and not for others. That's why we have manslaughter and different degrees for murder charges. That's why somebody who gets lost and wanders into private property probably isn't going to get a ticket vs a stalker who climbs a fence to take pictures of somebody in there home is probably getting charged.

I held top secret and SAP security clearances. Intent does not matter if you let classified data out. The act of releasing it is a crime, whether you meant to do it or not. Gross negligence or carelessness is not an excuse.
My analogy with the speeding ticket is perfectly accurate.

Just as Pres. Trump had the legal authority to over-ride the classified designation of information that he told to the Russian Ambassador, the Secretary if State has the legal authority to over ride the classified designation of any information pertaining to the Department of State. So, Clinton's seniority made it legal for her to send previously classified material.

Besides, some if not all the material did not get designated as classified until long after Clinton sent it.

wrong again, little fool. SecState does not have the authority to declassify top secret material. The markings were removed from the classified material when she sent it, that is an illegal act. She should have been indicted. Comey saved her with bullshit about "carelessness, and not sophisticated enough". In reality he said that Hillary was ignorant and stupid and therefore should not be prosecuted. It was a circus filled with donkey shit.

I'd be willing to bet that if you gathered and read everybody's emails in our government you'd find similar "carelessness". She didn't give classified information to anybody, just had a few that slipped through the cracks on a private email account, which I'd bet is true for many many other government officials. Perhaps its good that this thing got a spotlight as i'm sure people are going to be way more careful about this stuff from now on, but it makes sense that criminal charges weren't pressed.

No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?

I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.

 

[radical right]

I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

Meanwhile Jared Kushner wanted to transmit presidential level communications through an unsecure russian communication system. And republicans suddenly aren't concerned about unsecured high level communications.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Poor victim Hillary.

 

[radical right]

Poor victim Hillary.

What would you have said if Hillary's e-mail server was in the russian embassy?

 

[Redfish]

OH, holy shit----------Watergate. one political party breaks into the office of the other political party and the president tries to cover it up. Big fuckin deal.

All Nixon had to do was say: "yeah they broke in, they should not have done it, I will make sure they are prosecuted" The cover up is always worse than the crime. Duh, Hillary and her illegal email server.

Ok, so what's your point?

1. that Watergate was nothing
2. that the coverup was worse than the crime
3. Nixon was stupid
4. Clinton getting BJs from a 19 year old in the oval office and then lying under oath about it was a much more serious crime that what ran Nixon out of office.
5. that Hillary should have been indicted. If you did what she did you would be in jail today.

Still really not sure what has you so rattled here. Are you saying what this is, is worse that what Nixon did? That's hard to say since we have no idea if anything happen d here. My only point is Trump is acting like a guilty man, the same way Nixon did.

Trump is not acting guilty. He just wants these things to be looked at fairly and unbiased.

What I was trying to say in the previous post is that what Clinton did: sex with a 19 year old kid in the oval office and then lying under oath, was worse that what Nixon did in trying to cover up a minor breakin.

I'm not sure which was worse. Had Nixon not resigned he no doubt would have been impeached, found guilty and removed from office. Clinton was not removed.

And Trump is acting exactly like Nixon did at the beginning of Watergate. Firing the FBI director was a politically stupid move. Look, I hope the guy is exonerated by Mueller, and we can put this whole thing behind us, but if I had to bet my money, I'd say this will be an albatross for Trump for quite sometime. It is killing his agenda for sure.

Nixon tried to cover up a breakin of a political office, BFD. No one died, no one was hurt. He was stupid to lie about it. He should have said "yeah, my guys did that, it was stupid, I have fired all of them". Politicians many times refuse to see the obvious.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath. He should have been removed from office and would have been it the dems had not controlled congress at the time.

Clinton also fired the FBI director, why no outrage about that? Hillary would have fired Comey if she had won. The double standard here is laughable.

Trump has said many times that he wants the investigation to be completed. Yes, it is hurting his ability to get things done for the country, the left is scared shitless that he is going to be successful

 

[Redfish]

I held top secret and SAP security clearances. Intent does not matter if you let classified data out. The act of releasing it is a crime, whether you meant to do it or not. Gross negligence or carelessness is not an excuse.
My analogy with the speeding ticket is perfectly accurate.

Just as Pres. Trump had the legal authority to over-ride the classified designation of information that he told to the Russian Ambassador, the Secretary if State has the legal authority to over ride the classified designation of any information pertaining to the Department of State. So, Clinton's seniority made it legal for her to send previously classified material.

Besides, some if not all the material did not get designated as classified until long after Clinton sent it.

wrong again, little fool. SecState does not have the authority to declassify top secret material. The markings were removed from the classified material when she sent it, that is an illegal act. She should have been indicted. Comey saved her with bullshit about "carelessness, and not sophisticated enough". In reality he said that Hillary was ignorant and stupid and therefore should not be prosecuted. It was a circus filled with donkey shit.

I'd be willing to bet that if you gathered and read everybody's emails in our government you'd find similar "carelessness". She didn't give classified information to anybody, just had a few that slipped through the cracks on a private email account, which I'd bet is true for many many other government officials. Perhaps its good that this thing got a spotlight as i'm sure people are going to be way more careful about this stuff from now on, but it makes sense that criminal charges weren't pressed.

No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?

I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.

you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.

Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.

She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.

 

[Redfish]

I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

Meanwhile Jared Kushner wanted to transmit presidential level communications through an unsecure russian communication system. And republicans suddenly aren't concerned about unsecured high level communications.

If that is true, and there is nothing but wild ass allegations at this point, then he should be prosecuted just as Hillary should be prosecuted.

NO ONE should be above the law. Political elites should be treated exactly the same way you and I are treated.

 

[edward37]

Ok, so what's your point?

1. that Watergate was nothing
2. that the coverup was worse than the crime
3. Nixon was stupid
4. Clinton getting BJs from a 19 year old in the oval office and then lying under oath about it was a much more serious crime that what ran Nixon out of office.
5. that Hillary should have been indicted. If you did what she did you would be in jail today.

Still really not sure what has you so rattled here. Are you saying what this is, is worse that what Nixon did? That's hard to say since we have no idea if anything happen d here. My only point is Trump is acting like a guilty man, the same way Nixon did.

Trump is not acting guilty. He just wants these things to be looked at fairly and unbiased.

What I was trying to say in the previous post is that what Clinton did: sex with a 19 year old kid in the oval office and then lying under oath, was worse that what Nixon did in trying to cover up a minor breakin.

I'm not sure which was worse. Had Nixon not resigned he no doubt would have been impeached, found guilty and removed from office. Clinton was not removed.

And Trump is acting exactly like Nixon did at the beginning of Watergate. Firing the FBI director was a politically stupid move. Look, I hope the guy is exonerated by Mueller, and we can put this whole thing behind us, but if I had to bet my money, I'd say this will be an albatross for Trump for quite sometime. It is killing his agenda for sure.

Nixon tried to cover up a breakin of a political office, BFD. No one died, no one was hurt. He was stupid to lie about it. He should have said "yeah, my guys did that, it was stupid, I have fired all of them". Politicians many times refuse to see the obvious.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath. He should have been removed from office and would have been it the dems had not controlled congress at the time.

Clinton also fired the FBI director, why no outrage about that? Hillary would have fired Comey if she had won. The double standard here is laughable.

Trump has said many times that he wants the investigation to be completed. Yes, it is hurting his ability to get things done for the country, the left is scared shitless that he is going to be successful

LOL the pos can't get his own party to go along with him Soon you'll see people leaving WH who don't want their good names spoiled The man is a disaster and if he thinks we can go it alone he's more brain damaged than we thought

 

[Slade3200]

Just as Pres. Trump had the legal authority to over-ride the classified designation of information that he told to the Russian Ambassador, the Secretary if State has the legal authority to over ride the classified designation of any information pertaining to the Department of State. So, Clinton's seniority made it legal for her to send previously classified material.

Besides, some if not all the material did not get designated as classified until long after Clinton sent it.

wrong again, little fool. SecState does not have the authority to declassify top secret material. The markings were removed from the classified material when she sent it, that is an illegal act. She should have been indicted. Comey saved her with bullshit about "carelessness, and not sophisticated enough". In reality he said that Hillary was ignorant and stupid and therefore should not be prosecuted. It was a circus filled with donkey shit.

I'd be willing to bet that if you gathered and read everybody's emails in our government you'd find similar "carelessness". She didn't give classified information to anybody, just had a few that slipped through the cracks on a private email account, which I'd bet is true for many many other government officials. Perhaps its good that this thing got a spotlight as i'm sure people are going to be way more careful about this stuff from now on, but it makes sense that criminal charges weren't pressed.

No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?

I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.

you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.

Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.

She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.

Apparently you have your facts mixed up.

1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified

2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.

To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant

The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email

 

[Redfish]

1. that Watergate was nothing
2. that the coverup was worse than the crime
3. Nixon was stupid
4. Clinton getting BJs from a 19 year old in the oval office and then lying under oath about it was a much more serious crime that what ran Nixon out of office.
5. that Hillary should have been indicted. If you did what she did you would be in jail today.

Still really not sure what has you so rattled here. Are you saying what this is, is worse that what Nixon did? That's hard to say since we have no idea if anything happen d here. My only point is Trump is acting like a guilty man, the same way Nixon did.

Trump is not acting guilty. He just wants these things to be looked at fairly and unbiased.

What I was trying to say in the previous post is that what Clinton did: sex with a 19 year old kid in the oval office and then lying under oath, was worse that what Nixon did in trying to cover up a minor breakin.

I'm not sure which was worse. Had Nixon not resigned he no doubt would have been impeached, found guilty and removed from office. Clinton was not removed.

And Trump is acting exactly like Nixon did at the beginning of Watergate. Firing the FBI director was a politically stupid move. Look, I hope the guy is exonerated by Mueller, and we can put this whole thing behind us, but if I had to bet my money, I'd say this will be an albatross for Trump for quite sometime. It is killing his agenda for sure.

Nixon tried to cover up a breakin of a political office, BFD. No one died, no one was hurt. He was stupid to lie about it. He should have said "yeah, my guys did that, it was stupid, I have fired all of them". Politicians many times refuse to see the obvious.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath. He should have been removed from office and would have been it the dems had not controlled congress at the time.

Clinton also fired the FBI director, why no outrage about that? Hillary would have fired Comey if she had won. The double standard here is laughable.

Trump has said many times that he wants the investigation to be completed. Yes, it is hurting his ability to get things done for the country, the left is scared shitless that he is going to be successful

LOL the pos can't get his own party to go along with him Soon you'll see people leaving WH who don't want their good names spoiled The man is a disaster and if he thinks we can go it alone he's more brain damaged than we thought

Trump is a threat to the DC establishment pukes in both parties. That's a good thing for America. DC has become a pile of steaming horseshit, and both parties are equally quilty.

Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign. Drain the swamp, cut taxes for working americans, create a business friendly environment, enforce our borders, enforce our laws, demand equal treatment from our trading partners.

Your real issue is that he is succeeding where Obama failed. Tough shit.

 

[edward37]

Still really not sure what has you so rattled here. Are you saying what this is, is worse that what Nixon did? That's hard to say since we have no idea if anything happen d here. My only point is Trump is acting like a guilty man, the same way Nixon did.

Trump is not acting guilty. He just wants these things to be looked at fairly and unbiased.

What I was trying to say in the previous post is that what Clinton did: sex with a 19 year old kid in the oval office and then lying under oath, was worse that what Nixon did in trying to cover up a minor breakin.

I'm not sure which was worse. Had Nixon not resigned he no doubt would have been impeached, found guilty and removed from office. Clinton was not removed.

And Trump is acting exactly like Nixon did at the beginning of Watergate. Firing the FBI director was a politically stupid move. Look, I hope the guy is exonerated by Mueller, and we can put this whole thing behind us, but if I had to bet my money, I'd say this will be an albatross for Trump for quite sometime. It is killing his agenda for sure.

Nixon tried to cover up a breakin of a political office, BFD. No one died, no one was hurt. He was stupid to lie about it. He should have said "yeah, my guys did that, it was stupid, I have fired all of them". Politicians many times refuse to see the obvious.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath. He should have been removed from office and would have been it the dems had not controlled congress at the time.

Clinton also fired the FBI director, why no outrage about that? Hillary would have fired Comey if she had won. The double standard here is laughable.

Trump has said many times that he wants the investigation to be completed. Yes, it is hurting his ability to get things done for the country, the left is scared shitless that he is going to be successful

LOL the pos can't get his own party to go along with him Soon you'll see people leaving WH who don't want their good names spoiled The man is a disaster and if he thinks we can go it alone he's more brain damaged than we thought

Trump is a threat to the DC establishment pukes in both parties. That's a good thing for America. DC has become a pile of steaming horseshit, and both parties are equally quilty.

Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign. Drain the swamp, cut taxes for working americans, create a business friendly environment, enforce our borders, enforce our laws, demand equal treatment from our trading partners.

Your real issue is that he is succeeding where Obama failed. Tough shit.

Yeah red Russia's been trying to split us from our allies for 6-8 years Took the moron only 1/2 year

 

[Redfish]

wrong again, little fool. SecState does not have the authority to declassify top secret material. The markings were removed from the classified material when she sent it, that is an illegal act. She should have been indicted. Comey saved her with bullshit about "carelessness, and not sophisticated enough". In reality he said that Hillary was ignorant and stupid and therefore should not be prosecuted. It was a circus filled with donkey shit.

I'd be willing to bet that if you gathered and read everybody's emails in our government you'd find similar "carelessness". She didn't give classified information to anybody, just had a few that slipped through the cracks on a private email account, which I'd bet is true for many many other government officials. Perhaps its good that this thing got a spotlight as i'm sure people are going to be way more careful about this stuff from now on, but it makes sense that criminal charges weren't pressed.

No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?

I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.

you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.

Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.

She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.

Apparently you have your facts mixed up.

1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified

2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.

To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant

The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email

1. it only takes one to create a felony violation
2. yes, she was. Weiner and Huma both had access and neither had a security clearance appropriate for that level of data.

You cant see those emails unless you have a TS clearance and can demonstrate a need to know.

What Comey revealed was sufficient for anyone else to be indicted and convicted. She got special treatment. Do you think maybe Bubba and Lynch made a deal on the tarmac in AZ? of course they did.

 

[Redfish]

Trump is not acting guilty. He just wants these things to be looked at fairly and unbiased.

What I was trying to say in the previous post is that what Clinton did: sex with a 19 year old kid in the oval office and then lying under oath, was worse that what Nixon did in trying to cover up a minor breakin.

I'm not sure which was worse. Had Nixon not resigned he no doubt would have been impeached, found guilty and removed from office. Clinton was not removed.

And Trump is acting exactly like Nixon did at the beginning of Watergate. Firing the FBI director was a politically stupid move. Look, I hope the guy is exonerated by Mueller, and we can put this whole thing behind us, but if I had to bet my money, I'd say this will be an albatross for Trump for quite sometime. It is killing his agenda for sure.

Nixon tried to cover up a breakin of a political office, BFD. No one died, no one was hurt. He was stupid to lie about it. He should have said "yeah, my guys did that, it was stupid, I have fired all of them". Politicians many times refuse to see the obvious.

Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath. He should have been removed from office and would have been it the dems had not controlled congress at the time.

Clinton also fired the FBI director, why no outrage about that? Hillary would have fired Comey if she had won. The double standard here is laughable.

Trump has said many times that he wants the investigation to be completed. Yes, it is hurting his ability to get things done for the country, the left is scared shitless that he is going to be successful

LOL the pos can't get his own party to go along with him Soon you'll see people leaving WH who don't want their good names spoiled The man is a disaster and if he thinks we can go it alone he's more brain damaged than we thought

Trump is a threat to the DC establishment pukes in both parties. That's a good thing for America. DC has become a pile of steaming horseshit, and both parties are equally quilty.

Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign. Drain the swamp, cut taxes for working americans, create a business friendly environment, enforce our borders, enforce our laws, demand equal treatment from our trading partners.

Your real issue is that he is succeeding where Obama failed. Tough shit.

Yeah red Russia's been trying to split us from our allies for 6-8 years Took the moron only 1/2 year

Expecting our allies to pull their weight is something that should have been done long ago. Don't worry, Germany and the others will line up and pay up.

For the record, the USA has been trying to influence foreign elections since 1776. Every country does it, this is nothing new.

as to splitting us from our allies. Obama did a masterful job of that for 8 years. He made the USA the laughing stock of the entire world. Trump is fixing that.

 

[Slade3200]

I'd be willing to bet that if you gathered and read everybody's emails in our government you'd find similar "carelessness". She didn't give classified information to anybody, just had a few that slipped through the cracks on a private email account, which I'd bet is true for many many other government officials. Perhaps its good that this thing got a spotlight as i'm sure people are going to be way more careful about this stuff from now on, but it makes sense that criminal charges weren't pressed.

No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?

I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.

you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.

Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.

She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.

Apparently you have your facts mixed up.

1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified

2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.

To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant

The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email

1. it only takes one to create a felony violation
2. yes, she was. Weiner and Huma both had access and neither had a security clearance appropriate for that level of data.

You cant see those emails unless you have a TS clearance and can demonstrate a need to know.

What Comey revealed was sufficient for anyone else to be indicted and convicted. She got special treatment. Do you think maybe Bubba and Lynch made a deal on the tarmac in AZ? of course they did.

Huma got security clearance in 2009. If she sent some meeting agendas to her husband to print out then that's on Huma not Clinton.

Again, without knowing what info the emails contained we can't know the severity of the offense. Was she driving 2 mph over the speed limit or 20?

 

[Redfish]

No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?

I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.

you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.

Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.

She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.

Apparently you have your facts mixed up.

1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified

2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.

To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant

The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email

1. it only takes one to create a felony violation
2. yes, she was. Weiner and Huma both had access and neither had a security clearance appropriate for that level of data.

You cant see those emails unless you have a TS clearance and can demonstrate a need to know.

What Comey revealed was sufficient for anyone else to be indicted and convicted. She got special treatment. Do you think maybe Bubba and Lynch made a deal on the tarmac in AZ? of course they did.

Huma got security clearance in 2009. If she sent some meeting agendas to her husband to print out then that's on Huma not Clinton.

Again, without knowing what info those 3 emails contained we can't know the severity of the offense. Was she driving 2 mph over the speed limit or 20?

there are no degrees of classified data disclosure. Either she did it or not, and Comey said that she did. She is guilty and got off because of who she is. That is wrong.

you are correct, Huma should also be indicted.

 

[Slade3200]

I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.

You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.

you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.

Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.

She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.

Apparently you have your facts mixed up.

1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified

2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.

To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant

The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email

1. it only takes one to create a felony violation
2. yes, she was. Weiner and Huma both had access and neither had a security clearance appropriate for that level of data.

You cant see those emails unless you have a TS clearance and can demonstrate a need to know.

What Comey revealed was sufficient for anyone else to be indicted and convicted. She got special treatment. Do you think maybe Bubba and Lynch made a deal on the tarmac in AZ? of course they did.

Huma got security clearance in 2009. If she sent some meeting agendas to her husband to print out then that's on Huma not Clinton.

Again, without knowing what info those 3 emails contained we can't know the severity of the offense. Was she driving 2 mph over the speed limit or 20?

there are no degrees of classified data disclosure. Either she did it or not, and Comey said that she did. She is guilty and got off because of who she is. That is wrong.

you are correct, Huma should also be indicted.

There obviously are degrees of offenses and a level of discretion allotted to our investigators and prosecutors and judges to decide what punishments if any are deserved for specific crimes.

Clinton did not intentionally expose or reveal classified info. She communicated 3 classified messages to people with clearance on an unsecured server. Yes, it's a violation, but it is not in par with somebody who intentionally gives national security secrets to the press or one of our enemies.