The final shot at Hillary, just like the others, was a blank.

She was not the subject of that investigation, therefore it is nonsensical to title it a "Final Shot at Hillary". Hillary was never in jeopardy, and for that matter neither were the employees that were the subject, because this was not even a criminal investigation. The fact that Hillary was not cited for a violation does NOT mean that she did nothing wrong. It only means that she was not a subject of this investigation. It was an administrative investigation aimed at current State Department Employees, and several violations were cited. To take that to mean that Hillary did nothing wrong is nothing short of nonsensical.

 

I just did!

 

-Ummm...I am pretty sure that i made it abundantly clear that I reposted a resonse to another poster on the same subject. Obviously you did not cite the Washington Post. You did however cite the same investigation.

-Hillarys name being in the investigation means that the investigation was into Hillary, about as much as the investigation into the assault on the fan at the Yankees game is an investigation of the Yankees. Cmon...you are smarter than that. It was an administrative examination of the behavior of current State Department employees. It was not criminal. and Hillary was not a target of that investigation even remotely, regardless of the reality that the administrative investigation was State Department employees actions relative to her ill conceived home server that clearly violated US Code 1924.

U.S. Code § 1924.Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

• (a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
  offense under subsection (a).
  classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
  

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

 

Now you are catching on.

 

Last chance, please explain what the heck you are talking about.

 

If an employee with a company car was investigated by their company for potential administrative discipline due to a drunk driving charge, is also not a criminal investigation. That doesnt somehow equate to the notion that therefore a crime did not exist. It only means that this particular investigator is tasked with a different objective. Yet you are trying to push the bogus notion that it means that therefore a crime did not exist. Your contortions are silly.

 

And yet you responded to the Washington Post, and not to the investigation itself. I'm not as interested as you are in discussing the Post. I'm more interested in the facts.

Ohhh... I see.... So since the Yankees organization would just be an innocent bystander, it would make as little sense to investigate them, as it would to investigate Hillary.

That's a tremendous concession on your part. So I won't insist on the fact that any investigation of something like that would definitely report if the Yankees had any liability due to criminal negligence. However, it does not remove the fact that so many on the right were duped by a tweet when the wingnut media convinced the right that she was something other than, to use your example, an "innocent bystander"



And I just don't get why Trump supporters keep falling tor this again and again....

(Page 7): The APD effort to evaluate potentially classified emails sent to former Secretary Clinton's private email server in the context of the DoS security incident program involved thousands of person-hours of review and investigative effort, including gathering statements from hundreds of past and present DoS employees, and conducting dozens of interviews.​

 

He was not lying even remotely. However, your conclusion is erroneous. There is reportedly 60k emails, of which Grassley had approximately 33k. In Comeys statement he acknowledged these 60k emails, and while he said they were able to piece together many from other sources, he also acknowledged that they surely also missed many.

"The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Can you now acknowledge that with 33k emails, Grassley was missing many tens of thousands? If you cannot, are you saying that Comey lied about that number?​

US Code 1924 specifically states that removing documents at an unauthorized location is a violation of federal law. Her home server was not authorized. If you are trying to claim that by virtue of being SOS she can make it authorized, that is most certainly not codified. I suppose that one could attempt to make that legal argument, but it would be a dubious claim at best. Comey did not use that logic. I am not sure why you are.

-Can bend the rules as needed? Hmmm...that seems again like some pretty dubious logic. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. In my opinion, that is a shameless cop out.

-Decision was made well in advance, and so therefore an action taken after a subpeona is OK because the directive was given prior? Again, in my opinion this logic is a shameless cop out.

-Grassley was not conducting a criminal investigation, and for that matter, he was not investigating Hillary. He was specifically investigating the administrative actions of currently employed State Department employees. He actually found numerous violations from employees. This was solely an administrative investigation. Why are you then concluding that the lack of a criminal indictment means that no crime existed? In my opinion, this logic is a shameless cop out.

 

I quoted you.
You said carelessness.
That's bullshit

 

A president throat ****ing an intern in the oval office is about as big an abuse of power as exists

 

Yeah, like a gameshow host with a confirmed record of decades of shady business practices.

 

You seem to be having difficulty understanding that my response to another poster touched upon the same subject and then being able to pick out that subject in response. My apology for the confusion. Let me break this down to its most simplistic level from where this conversation began.

You said...

You went on to intimate that you are referring to the Grassley investigation. I take deep exception with your conclusion. Not only did I not call for her to go to jail, but more importantly, Grassleys investigation most certainly was NOT empowered to determine whether or not Hillary did anything illegal. Aside from it being not an investigation into Hillary, it also was not a criminal investigation. I specifically provided you with US code 1924 and while giving a lengthy response, you opted to ignore it altogether.

U.S. Code 1924
(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
offense under subsection (a).
classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924




Since you incessantly brag about your purported "research" that you conduct before making every argument, it should be easy for you to show me where in the Grassley report emanating from his administrative investigation, that he made a determination on the applicability or lack therein of US Code 1924 to Hillary's actions in having a home server?

 

The word "knowingly" is key. At the time the emails were sent/received, none were marked as classified. It was only during the investigation that about 110 or so were determined to contain information that should have been marked. Hillary was not responsible for applying document markings and did not intentionally or knowingly send or receive them as secret documents. She also did not intend to distribute secrets to others for gain or other purpose.

She was not above the law, rather, the law did not apply to the situation.

 

Of course it's at taxpayer expense. Their salaries are also at taxpayer expense. So what?

Yes, deflecting. You made a claim, you couldn't back it up, so you changed the subject. That's called deflection.

deflect, verb

1. cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.

 

When you are the SOS and traffic daily in classified information, it is a ridiculous expansion of credulity to derive that a SOS using a home server instead of the secured system designed for such documents, is NOT going to know that it will contain classified information. The law most certainly applied to her situation, rather Comey working in concert with the Obama DOJ chose not to prosecute. Of course she knew what she was doing.

For every guilty as sin murder defendant, the defense lawyer is required to throw out some type of garbage or another to put up in their defense eventhough they know full well that it is nonsense. Just because you can throw up garbage, does NOT mean that therefore you shouldn't evaluate that garbage for legitimacy. All you are doing is repeating the garbage excuse and refusing to evaluate its legitimacy. OF COURSE she knew that her home server had classified information. Hell some of it was even TOP SECRET.

Her actions were a clear violation of US Code 1924

 

Don't be silly, you lost the election

 

No, it isn't BS, and I resent that label. I don't do bullshit, sweetie. That was uncalled for.

See comment #139.

 

Not me, the country..........as we increasingly see every single day.

 

1. Using a home server was not against the rules. It is now, because of this, but it wasn't then.

2. Emails containing classified information would have large, vivid red banners at the top and bottom of each page. Some information that should have caused those markings to be applied was missed by the people whose job it is to classify documents, including emails. I know this because I've done that very type of work and have been trained in both original and derivative document marking. None of Hillary's emails on her home server had markings. That isn't on her.

3. Comey went beyond the pale in publicly excoriating her for careless mishandling. He was no fan of hers, and proved that with the public statement, and again in October, days before the election, letting the world know that the investigation was reopened due to emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, while at the same time saying absolutely nothing about the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign. Comey could not have been more anti-Clinton. The decision not to prosecute came from Comey and no one else. Anything else is pure speculation and right wing spin.

4. She was careless and ignorant to use a home server for such important work, but that was not a crime.

 

We all lost, and continue to lose, with that incompetent POS soiling the office.

 

Actually, it's my understanding Comey consulted with the executive staff at the FBI before reaching the decision not to prosecute due to the absence of the necessary element to press charges, intent.

 

1.) US Code 1924 says "with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location ". You are talking about State Department guidelines. I am talking about the LAW. The LAW says you cannot have them in an unauthorized location. Clearly, a home server is NOT an authorized location. Saying that State Department guidelines didnt specifically preclude it is like a child telling his mother that she didnt tell him not to throw a rock through the window. Some things are obviously implicit. She broke the LAW. If you want to argue that she did not break State Department guidelines that is a different argument. An argument which happens to be akin to the rock throwing childs argument, but a different argument nonetheless.

2) Since you have worked with classified documents, then surely you must know that the Secretary of State is often times creating a classified document as she writes. A SOS surely knows when they have a classified document regardless if the classified label has yet to be applied. The crime isnt having a document with a red banner, it is in possessing classified information at an unauthorized location.

3) Comey did not apply the law to her. I would surmise that he brought up her new emails was because he assumed she was going to win and he wanted to provide cover for himself to make himself look objective after his nonsensical no charges determination which wasnt even his choice to make in the first place. Regardkless if that was his motive or not, he did NOT apply the law to her actions. She held numerous classified documents, some of them top secret in an unauthorized location. That is a violation of the law. Not applying a 5 year felony to a person is hardly an example of him not being a fan.

4) Retaining classified documents at an unauthorized location is a felony. That means she committed a crime when she stored those documents on her home server.

 

We lost the election in 2012 and 2008 but you weren't so upset then lol!

 

Did Russia force you to vote for him over Hillary? Were you a victim of their influence?