The FBI takes their charge very seriously and do not cut "superstars" a break. Just the contrary. The FBI wants to make sure their is not the slightest hint of impropriety and investigate matters to their fullest
That does not comport to what Comey said. He said there was wrong-doing and the DoJ declined charges because of 'lack of intent' to an infraction that can be applied under gross negligence.
That is not because of lack-of-seriousness, but there is obvious impropriety and a rather tortured precedent for not even bringing a case. It's also not incompetence or flippancy from the DoJ.
Do you think there is nothing to my 'superstar theory' for high-ranking officials? Would a cabinet official be charged (hypothetically) with equal rigor as a janitor for the same infraction?
Do you think she did anything wrong beyond having an insecure server?
There was no government account.
Government business was conducted on a private server, which was neither secure nor archived.
Yes, there was a government account. This has been covered from day one of this who bull#### issue. It was even stated in the WaPo article you linked. And I quote, "Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement Tuesday: "Like Secretaries of State before her, she used their own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on her Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained."
Come on man, read your own article and try to understand what they are saying. How are you missing the most basic of issues here. You're claiming that there was no government account, which is patently false. An executive is going to have multiple accounts provided by the department and administered accordingly. Suggesting otherwise is just ignoring reality. You are also claiming that the FBI would not investigate these matters and has no purview, over matters that deal with the compliance with federal law. If not them, then who? You are missing some of the most obvious details while trying to build a case that does not exist. This has been common practice for years, which the government has acknowledged as being problematic,and only an amendment in governance has changed that behavior. No conspiracy theories or anything Machiavellian, just government operating as bureaucracies do. If these is anything Machiavellian going on, it is the behavior of the Republicans and their endless attempts to discredit one person using gobs of tax payer dollars.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 08-24-2016 at 11:15 AM.
Reason: Fix reference error.
That does not comport to what Comey said. He said there was wrong-doing and the DoJ declined charges because of 'lack of intent' to an infraction that can be applied under gross negligence.
That is not because of lack-of-seriousness, but there is obvious impropriety and a rather tortured precedent for not even bringing a case. It's also not incompetence or flippancy from the DoJ.
Do you think there is nothing to my 'superstar theory' for high-ranking officials? Would a cabinet official be charged (hypothetically) with equal rigor as a janitor for the same infraction?
Do you think she did anything wrong beyond having an insecure server?
Do I think she did something wrong? Hell yes! Was it something within the bounds of what was permissible based on the laws and guidelines in place? Yes it was. Was it something that had been done before and was considered an acceptable practice by the executive? Again, yes it was. So while I disagreed with what was done, and would have recommended against the use of the system in the first place, it was completely within the rules at the time. The amendment plugged that hole in a much needed way, for the most part. There is still language that could lead to abuse, but that will be dealt with downstream.
Do I think that executives get away with things underlings do not? Yes, they do, but only because their underlings don't have the balls to step up and rat their boss out. Abuses of power are only dealt with when the abuses of power are reported. You're sounding like so many of my fellow Americans, crying that the system is rigged and they have no power to fix it. I say bull#### to that. One person has a voice. They have a vote. They have a dollar. All are democratizing in their own ways. People just have to stop being lazy, stop playing safe, and step up. These big wigs have the power because they aren't afraid to step up and take the power they feel they deserve. You don't like the system, step the hell up and try fix it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Yes, there was a government account. This has been covered from day one of this who bull#### issue. It was even stated in the WaPo article you linked. And I quote, "Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement Tuesday: "Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on her Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained."
Come on man, read your own article and try to understand what they are saying. How are you missing the most basic of issues here. You're claiming that there was no government account, which is patently false.
She emailed them on their government accounts.
The Clinton legal team is arguing that anything sent between SoS and a government official would be preserved by the other party's .gov account.
Also Trump and Nigel Farage scheduled to appear together tonight in Mississippi. Why exactly is Trump campaigning in Texas and Mississippi and cancelling events in Colorado and Nevada again? GOP should be apoplectic over that.
No idea about Mississippi but Texas because he's trying to talk immigration reform and wants the Texas backdrop. Texas also only has a few polls the last few months but it may be tightening and if so watch out (last poll was trump up by 6 or something which is sizeable but a couple of mis-steps away from being in play). Colorado is well into a double digit advantage for Clinton and pretty much a lost cost for Trump.
Nevada depends where you look. 538 has a decent Clinton lead there of about 6% others have it competitive.
Also while I realize the e-mail thing is an issue I also know that rare is the person that truly uses their e-mail correctly and meets company guidelines for confidential information, IP etc. I also imagine that if it were truly looked into you'll see that the Clinton e-mail problem is really a Capitol hill problem when it comes to how confidential information is treated overall.
You are also claiming that the FBI would not investigate these matters and has no purview, over matters that deal with the compliance with federal law. If not them, then who?
The FBI investigated under two statutes a) felony for mishandling documents and b) misdemeanor for destroying documents.
Neither of those are FRA statutes.
The Clinton legal team is arguing that anything sent between SoS and a government official would be preserved by the other party's .gov account.
You're wrong. Read the quote again. Even using her own email server she has the ability to use that server as a relay for her government accounts, so the audit trail remains intact. Dude, I've configured devices to behave in this manner and had to deal with the compliance issues that come along with it. I've also had to deal with the hell of managing e-discovery with these complex configurations. This is pretty standard stuff and not something draconian. In the black and white world of compliance these types of configurations were a pain in the ass to deal with. Thankfully they are mostly not allowed thanks to the 2014 FRA amendment.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 08-24-2016 at 11:14 AM.
Reason: Fix reference error.
Do I think that executives get away with things underlings do not? Yes, they do, but only because their underlings don't have the balls to step up and rat their boss out. Abuses of power are only dealt with when the abuses of power are reported.
That's an oversimplification.
I was arguing in my NHL superstar theory that there are very good reasons to not prosecute Cabinet officials.
Think of JFK allegedly sneaking out of the White House and evading the Secret Service for fun.
Assuming the story is true, and shirking the duties of the office is criminal, should JFK be charged with the crime he committed?
The FBI investigated under two statutes a) felony for mishandling documents and b) misdemeanor for destroying documents.
Neither of those are FRA statutes.
And another correction to your understanding of how these layered laws work. FRA references Title 18, as do most federal laws and guidelines, specifying the applicable law and penalties for non-compliance. FRA doesn't have to spell out specific statutes because they are already spelled out in the referenced Title 18 section.
I will admit to having a giggle when you refute the FBI purview with a document from the FBI Director discussing their investigation and purview and why they were involved in the investigation because of their specific purview and relation to DOJ. Again, you're missing the most obvious aspects of the articles you're reading.
That's an oversimplification.
I was arguing in my NHL superstar theory that there are very good reasons to not prosecute Cabinet officials.
Think of JFK allegedly sneaking out of the White House and evading the Secret Service for fun.
Assuming the story is true, and shirking the duties of the office is criminal, should JFK be charged with the crime he committed?
WTF? Since when is the President sneaking out of the Whitehouse without a protective detail a crime? Holy crap dude, your really stretching here. This has gone completely off the rails. I think we may be done here.
I will admit to having a giggle when you refute the FBI purview with a document from the FBI Director discussing their investigation and purview and why they were involved in the investigation because of their specific purview and relation to DOJ. Again, you're missing the most obvious aspects of the articles you're reading.
You're laughing at me for provided a source instead of bald assertions?
I'm saying their purview was criminal and the FRA is not a criminal statute. I provided a link where Comey stated their investigation was of two criminal statutes.
I provided a previous source where the the Attorney General specifically stated the FRA was not under the FBI's purview, which you dismissed without refuting.
If you're are just going to make claims from authority then I think this conversation has run its course.
And I quote, "Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement Tuesday: "Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on her Department accounts, with every expectation they would .
“Like secretaries of state before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained.”
edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
how is this any different from what has happened in the past and how did it not comply in the same way other officials did not?
Cyberwarfare wasn't a thing when Colin Powell was in office.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
Last edited by Gozer; 08-24-2016 at 02:05 PM.
Reason: replacing link with quote, adding notation
You're laughing at me for provided a source instead of bald assertions?
I'm saying their purview was criminal and the FRA is not a criminal statute. I provided a link where Comey stated their investigation was of two criminal statutes.
I provided a previous source where the the Attorney General specifically stated the FRA was not under the FBI's purview, which you dismissed without refuting.
If you're are just going to make claims from authority then I think this conversation has run its course.
Did you miss the Title 18 reference in FRA? That is the outcome for specific non-compliance. It clearly states the criminal aspects of the title. The FBI would be responsible for the investigation of these matters and the Attorney General for making a decision to prosecute based on the investigative findings. So while the Attorney General is correct in his comment that the FRA dos not fall under the purview of the FBI, the criminal investigation as a result of Title 18 does. If there is a suspicion of a criminal action in regard to FRA, it is in the FBI's court. Understand?
Not intentional. working from my phone is a pain. See your point though but still believe intent is the same.
This brings a question to mind, how is this any different from what has happened in the past and how did it not comply in the same way other officials did not? I mean, Rove deleted 22million records from an unsanctioned and insecure server. Why the hub bub now?
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 08-24-2016 at 11:19 AM.
Reason: Add a question.
Not intentional. working from my phone is a pain and can't cut ,and paste. Intent still the same.
The opposite meaning has the same intent.
You repeatedly chastised me for not understanding my link. When I point out that you had changed the quote to the opposite meaning, you reply that you were still right all along?
A rather dissapointing end to a seemingly enlightening conservation .
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
