Because she was doing something that has been done traditionally, hasn't been shown to be illegal, and hasn't been proven to be covering anything illegal up? It's SO different that I find it insane you'd think it was "at least the same" and in reality you consider it worse. Anyway, if she did commit a crime, then someone should just charge her already. Until then, you claiming she is committing crimes has little substance. I am not trying to defend Clinton, because I disagree with the choices, but I just find this position to be insane.
Uh, sending Classified and Secret documents to people outside of proper channels IS illegal. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/...-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/ As for lying to cover up things: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ied-under-oath-during-benghazi-hearing-video/ As for why she hasn't been indited? I have no idea. Legally speaking she's ripe for it. I would, however, suspect politics and behind-the-scenes manipulation involved. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have much in the way of any independent press with access to the White House or The Hill. Bush and Cheney were a part of torture and likely other war crimes, including Rumsfeld and others lying to people about the reason to invade Iraq, which is arguably (read: almost certainly) treason. But if I were to point that out, I'd obviously be insane to hold that position because they haven't been charged for those crimes (yet)? Seriously? Firk off. If I had the power to enact any of those people to be brought up on charges I'd have done it. I don't though, so I'm stuck calling for it and asking my government to do it's job properly.
January 11, 2016 When political candidates play Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." at their campaign rallies, you can usually assume they've never listened to the lyrics. But Donald Trump's apparent decision to add the 1984 tune his warm-up music bespeaks a certain political savvy. For one, Trump's vision of America, like "Born in the U.S.A."'s, is a downcast one: an America that, as Trump has repeatedly said, "doesn't win anymore." But perhaps more to the point, Trump has added "Born in the U.S.A." to his playlist at precisely the same time that he has begun repeatedly alluding to the fact that his primary opponent Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Trump is nothing if not clever. http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-now-plays-born-in-the-u.s.a.-at-his-rallies/article/2000516
Trump will probably get a C&D from Springsteen for that, considering Springsteen is an Obama supporter. Trump and many political candidates have continued to ignore artists' rights when it comes to their music. In some cases they might correctly argue that the label controls the rights and they have the rights from the label, but it's still generally a shitty move, IMO. But of course, by the time they stop they already got the use out of it so it's kind of empty victory for the artists when their music is to used to promote something they never agreed to. Also, it's amusing to me personally that Trump attacked Springsteen for campaigning with Obama in 2012 and now uses his songs. But who needs permission when you are rich and powerful, amirite?
probably because that's not a thing and also you have been writing indicted wrong for like a week or two now. it's been bugging me...
I didn't say anything about those guys. Nor am I suggesting that you shouldn't call out the government for things. All I am saying is I don't understand how what Hillary is being accused of and hasn't been proven guilty of is worse than doing similar things to what Hilalry is accused of AND MORE and then shown CONVINCINGLY to be guilty of covering it up, etc., especially given the eventually massive scope of the Watergate Scandal. That just seems a bit of a stretch is all I meant. As for the links, I've seen a lot of arguments for "smoking guns" but as you say, she hasn't been indicted. Probably because even the links you provided are circumstantial and doesn't definitively prove anything. Do I agree that it seems likely? Yes. Do I agree she shouldn't have used a private server? Yes. Do the links prove illegal activity beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't believe so. As for whether she should be indicted? I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe for a second that if the Republicans had the ammo to impeach Obama or indict Hillary they wouldn't do so immediately or at the very least make a much more public show of it. ~ Incidentally, apparently people are now accusing Obama of removing generals for leaking information about him buying a mansion in Dubai. There are so many of these kinds of "reports" that I honestly have no idea what is true or false anymore when it comes what Obama or Hillary may have done or haven't done.
I rather disagree. For the same reason I think Dems had enough to go after Bush and Cheney but (with the exception of what-is-face... Kuccinich?) didn't. I think the lack of indictments against either of them has to do with a couple of factors, however, this is largely speculation on my part (with a few minor exceptions): 1. Behind the scenes chicanery. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they weren't receiving pressure from special interests and the like to hold back. Indeed, many have postulated that Hillary (or the Bushes/Clintons in general) happens to have access to possible blackmail of Republicans (and probably some Dems) that might otherwise be in favor of it. There's been much talk about, for example "The DC Madam" and her prostitutes-for-politicians business in DC. 2. Especially regarding Impeachment of Obama, the RNC feels it makes them out to be a "martyr" if they push too hard. They'd rather focus their political capital on something "more productive." (This is the non-speculative one.) 3. De facto sanctioning abuses of power means they get a turn later (and/or aren't hoisted up for their own already existing ones). 4. I believe that the "two party system" itself is largely a sham. At the leadership, both parties are largely working towards many of the same goals, and this is evidenced by how things function. For example, the very unpopular (whether justified or not) ACA could have been repealed or gutted by the Republican super-majority. But it wasn't in spite of most of the freshly elected republicans getting voted in on promises to do precisely that. Mostly Dems, argue that they are against wars and want peace, but tend to rubber-stamp new military engagements regardless of which party is in office. And so on. I don't think it's some big unified thing mind you. Each Congressman is their own person after all. But I do think this means that the leadership of the party pushes for specific things, trading favors, promising that they can then use something later etc. I could, of course, be wrong. But I have read the emails where Clinton instructed a staffer to email classified data over a non-secure transmission, which is a crime (18 US Code Section 793, subsections F and possibly G in particular). That is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not circumstantial. Just having used a private email server for Secretary of State business (without also submitting all of them to National Records) alone is a crime. (Section 1236.22 of NARA, in effect since her time using that email server.) What you're saying is, because there has been no legal action taken against her, it's not proper to say she's a criminal. That's like me pointing to Boss Hogg (Dukes of Hazard for those not familiar) and saying: "Well, he's not been indicted or anything, he's probably okay then." Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your desire to have restraint and limit yourself to what you know for certain (various news media could learn a lot from you in that regard). Ultimately, her guilt should be determined by a court of law. However, I most certainly believe there's more than enough evidence to proceed with that trial, and that there hasn't been one is not, to me, evidence of there not being enough "ammo" to do so but of corruption and/or incompetence within the system.
The emails actually never show exactly what was sent or not sent (unless you have seen things that you haven't linked). I agree it's reasonable to suspect that it was classified information given the context and that some was actually sent, but there's no specific proof that anything classified was actually sent in that manner or that if something was sent that it was actually classified. This would be the equivalent of indicting someone for murder because they said "I want to kill him" but you have no proof that he actually did the killing (or that anyone is dead, in fact). It's certainly a problematic statement for someone to make, but it doesn't equate to proof of guilt, at least not in a court of law. Court of public opinion? Probably enough.
That section of NARA actually specifically states this: So in that way, using a private server itself is not a violation of anything. The National Archives has issued a recommendation not to use personal email but this was after Clinton's term, while 2014 Federal Records Act explicitly prohibited the use of personal emails unless they also copied it to their official one. Jason Baron, former head of litigation for NARA says Clinton didn't violate NARA, calling it "amorphous." Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, believes she did. Bottom line with NARA seems to be whether adequate records were preserved. I would tend to agree she violated the spirit of this law by at least making it more difficult if not impossible to get a full accounting of her emails, but I don't know enough about the details to know if it violated the actual law, especially given that archives of her emails have been released at this point (minus what she claims are personal emails). ~ As far as I know, the current focus of the investigation has moved on from this point and is largely focused on classification of emails. It's possible they come back around to the archiving issue.
Yes, but the lack of properly recording it in the proper system is, as the code itself states. Not only that, but I do recall her (well, State) having deleted at least some of the emails on her service (citing that they were "personal" which would be fine, except there is no way to verify that). I do agree she didn't violate the 2014 provisions (as she wasn't there at the time).
On a completely different note: It seems that in an interview with Alex Jones*, Louis Farrakhan agreed with Donald Trump that refugees must be properly vetted (citing his earlier statements to Bush that [paraphrasing] "there isn't a leader that can unite Islam, but US policies might unite them against the US"). Supposedly the full interview will be published later, but here's an edited part, as well as other thoughts Farrakhan had on Trump: *(Alex Jones is the guy that runs InfoWars, a radio/tv/website news program. While I've found it a reliable source of basic information [they do their best to cite their news], it is a fairly biased organization, with a lot of rhetoric which can get annoying and makes some of their claims dubious.)
Sure. What I don't know is WHAT classifies as satisfying that requirement of the NARA. There's no timeframe stipulation there and no specifics as to how to store other than "appropriate agency recordkeeping system" (whatever that even means). And I also don't know what backups/archiving/recordkeeping the State Department did or did not do at the time. In general tho, these sort of communications and recording keeping violations are likely rampant, and certainly seems to occur in some fashion under every administration and agency (we saw this with the IRS, with Bush 2, with Nixon, etc.). Not saying that makes it ok or anything.
I apologize for "liking" so many of your posts @Ohmin, but you are such a reasonable and detailed chap that it is difficult for me to resist. Even though we don't agree on plenty of specifics, usually small details and such, I am encouraged by your presence in MuriKa. We need more Americans of every single color and gender and race and religion/not religion to discuss matters in great detail and then actively carry the banner of liberty forward. Respect. Have a bright as Hades 2016 man!
Excellent and balanced response. Even though we disagree plenty, I sometimes wish you also could vote in MuriKa... since you are here making this a better country and all anyway. Not to mention the joy and happiness that your efforts in Pox bring to human beings around the globe, and possibly even in human spacecraft.
