Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating
Page 4 of 10 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   Hillary Email issues (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=90335)

buckman 07-05-2016 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103708)
So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?
You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slipknot 07-05-2016 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103680)
Huh? Legally speaking this story is dead.
Huh?
The FBI stated it was illegal but legally speaking the story is dead , HUH?

Slipknot 07-05-2016 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103697)
I just listened to the FBI briefing. The director said explicitly, that they found dozens of emails that were flagged as classified (or something like that) at the time she sent them to her personal server. Again, I'm not expert on these things, but doesn't that mean she lied? Hasn't her defense been all along, that she sent nothing that was classified at the time it was sent?

Yes it shows she has a nose bigger than Pinocchio, and this is the person half of our country wants as POTUS :tm::fishslap:

spence 07-05-2016 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1103715)
You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's not how the law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT 07-05-2016 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103707)
Not necessarily, you could easily pass along an email thread containing classified information without even knowing it.

I've read that one "should have known" incident was discussing a public NYT article about drone strikes simply because the drone program was classified. Big whoop...

I'm glad they did the detailed investigationand that they found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or cover up...conspiracy theories be dammed. You should also put the FBI comments on context of the IG report calling out lax information handling at State well before Clinton.

Fundamentally there's not a lot of new info here aside from the fact that the issue isn't worthy of prosecution...
You are completely out of your gourd. She said that 0 emails were flagged as classified or higher, when she sent. There were over 100. The FBI director said no reasonable person could have failed to know they were being reckless. She's a pathological liar.

But when you won't concede she lied about the sniper attack, I guess denying that she lied here is nothing.

The FBI has concluded that she was extremely careless with the handling of sensitive information.

JohnR 07-05-2016 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103712)
Because I like you I'll give you a mulligan. This is your oppy to bring some game...do it!
John Deutsch
Sandy Berger

buckman 07-05-2016 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103721)
That's not how the law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes it is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 07-05-2016 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103721)
That's not how the law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is a quote from the FBI director today....

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

What part of "violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information.....in a grossly negligent way" don't you understand????



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso 07-06-2016 04:14 AM
As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail and this saddens them .. for me the issues has never been what she and her people did wasn't stupid or irresponsible and I dont disagree with those who feel that way .. My argument has always against the Jail time crowd like birthers no mater the evidence it's in their heads

I only hope that those who hate Hillary would put the same effort looking into the Donald and his Trustworthiness experience his knowledge of world politics his Maybe Crimes and temperament to be POTUS.. and have the same frank conversation ..just an idea

DZ 07-06-2016 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103708)
So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?
Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?

buckman 07-06-2016 07:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103735)
As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail
That's not what the FBI determined at all however it does sadden me that she won't be going to jail ....for this crime at least .
I'm holding out hope that karma and justice eventually catch up to her .
Question ... Does it sadden you that she lied through her teeth ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR 07-06-2016 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103735)
As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail and this saddens them .. for me the issues has never been what she and her people did wasn't stupid or irresponsible and I dont disagree with those who feel that way .. My argument has always against the Jail time crowd like birthers no mater the evidence it's in their heads

I only hope that those who hate Hillary would put the same effort looking into the Donald and his Trustworthiness experience his knowledge of world politics his Maybe Crimes and temperament to be POTUS.. and have the same frank conversation ..just an idea

Comey said she broke laws and the laws she broke are felonies, he said he did not have something that was prosecutable.

BTW - a lot of us that think Hillary is unfit to be president feel Trump is unfit to be president. So get off your high horse.

buckman 07-06-2016 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103751)
Comey said she broke laws and the laws she broke are felonies, he said he did not have something that was prosecutable.

BTW - a lot of us that think Hillary is unfit to be president feet Trump is unfit to be president. So get off your high horse.
And isn't the FBI basically making the case she lied under oath ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch 07-06-2016 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1103735)
As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail and this saddens them .. for me the issues has never been what she and her people did wasn't stupid or irresponsible and I dont disagree with those who feel that way .. My argument has always against the Jail time crowd like birthers no mater the evidence it's in their heads

Most of the anti-Hillary posters also believed that she would not be indicted, so that was accepted beforehand. Comay didn't say she didn't commit a crime. He said, essentially, that the evidence wasn't strong enough to successfully prosecute. The reason for that could be political as well as evidential since the Justice Dept. would have to prosecute. What he did say about what she did is very damning. For those of us who don't believe her, and Comay pointed out her obvious lies in the matter, the evidence he presented did show she violated the statute. But recommending indictment then having her acquitted by the Justice Dept. would not make the FBI look good.

I only hope that those who hate Hillary would put the same effort looking into the Donald and his Trustworthiness experience his knowledge of world politics his Maybe Crimes and temperament to be POTUS.. and have the same frank conversation ..just an idea
The anti-Hilary posters all have, looked negatively into the Donald's reputation, but a choice has to be made. Hillary already has a political resume which is one of failed policies and a rigid temperament to stick to and defend those policies, which should be enough to say no to her.

Slipknot 07-06-2016 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1103754)

For those of us who don't believe her, and Comay pointed out her obvious lies in the matter, the evidence he presented did show she violated the statute. But recommending indictment then having her acquitted by the Justice Dept. would not make the FBI look good.

better to have tried and failed, then not having tried at all.

Now they look worse to people like me who are not asleep

spence 07-06-2016 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1103728)
What part of "violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information.....in a grossly negligent way" don't you understand????
He didn't say that was the finding, that was the initial inquiry...which they found didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute.

spence 07-06-2016 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103724)
John Deutsch
Sandy Berger
Deutsch? Nothing happened, he's still in good standing.

Berger? There you have intentional theft of classified material, lying about the theft and destruction of the documents. And for all that he got a slap on the wrist.

Swing, and a miss...

spence 07-06-2016 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1103715)
You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is not what Comey said.

Quote:
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
i.e. the felony standard for gross negligence was not met.

buckman 07-06-2016 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103768)
This is not what Comey said.



i.e. the felony standard for gross negligence was not met.
Extreme carelessness !!
That is the definition of gross negligence .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence 07-06-2016 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103751)
Comey said she broke laws and the laws she broke are felonies, he said he did not have something that was prosecutable.
He did not, specifically he said there was evidence of "potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."

That's not the same thing as saying Clinton committed a felony.

fishbones 07-06-2016 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103766)
Deutsch? Nothing happened, he's still in good standing...
Nothing happened? He lost his security clearance, which was unprecedented for someone in his position. And he was negotiating a plea deal with prosecutors at the time he was pardoned by President Clinton. By the way, no one from the CIA was consulted or informed that he was going to be pardoned on Clintons last day in office. I certainly wouldn't say he's in good standing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman 07-06-2016 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103765)
He didn't say that was the finding, that was the initial inquiry...which they found didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute.
He stated that classified material WAS found on her server....

So SOMEONE is guilty of intentionally or negligently mis-handling classified material.

So who is it???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT 07-06-2016 11:45 AM
Now her camp is saying they may keep lynch as ag? If that's true, Hilary has tons of contempt for all of us. Is she that brazen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

justplugit 07-06-2016 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1103745)
Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?
and


I would venture to say she would not be able to pass a Top Secret Clearance Test at this point and how can you elect a candidate for President that doesn't have one?

spence 07-06-2016 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1103774)
He stated that classified material WAS found on her server....

So SOMEONE is guilty of intentionally or negligently mis-handling classified material.

So who is it???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Considering the IG report showed a history of sloppy information handling well before Clinton, the amount of classified information was fairly low, there isn't any malicious intent and that it doesn't appear anything bad is known to happen as a result...I doubt we'll ever know.

It's not like they're going to go make an example of people when the policies have already been tightened up.

spence 07-06-2016 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1103745)
Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?
I'm note sure that's such a clean cut decision. Executives are often given more wiggle room on matters like this out of respect for the weight and complexities of their responsibilities...and in this case responsibilities born out of public service rather than shareholders.

buckman 07-06-2016 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1103775)
Now her camp is saying they may keep lynch as ag? If that's true, Hilary has tons of contempt for all of us. Is she that brazen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's called a bribe .
If Hillary gets in she will nominate Obama and then Lynch for SCJ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman 07-06-2016 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103779)
I'm note sure that's such a clean cut decision. Executives are often given more wiggle room on matters like this out of respect for the weight and complexities of their responsibilities...and in this case responsibilities born out of public service rather than shareholders.
"Public Service " lmao
Yea she only got mega mega wealthy off her " public service "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DZ 07-06-2016 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103779)
I'm note sure that's such a clean cut decision. Executives are often given more wiggle room on matters like this out of respect for the weight and complexities of their responsibilities...and in this case responsibilities born out of public service rather than shareholders.
So you agree that would be a double standard?

spence 07-06-2016 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103772)
Nothing happened? He lost his security clearance, which was unprecedented for someone in his position. And he was negotiating a plea deal with prosecutors at the time he was pardoned by President Clinton. By the way, no one from the CIA was consulted or informed that he was going to be pardoned on Clintons last day in office. I certainly wouldn't say he's in good standing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It looks like it was temporarily Suspended and he got it back. His case does appear to be a bit different though, Deutsch was routinely using non-classified systems to knowingly process large volumes of classified information. It was intentional, not a small volume of classified information spilling into an unclassified system which from what I understand is quite common.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.
Page 4 of 10 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com