[url]http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-scheduled-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/[/url]
[QUOTE]Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet Saturday with the FBI, a source close to the investigation into her private email server tells The Daily Caller.
The source went on to suggest the interview may take place at her Washington, D.C. home.
The bureau’s interview with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is believed to be the final step in its investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information on Clinton’s private email server.
Hundreds of now-classified documents — some of them “Top Secret” — were sent and received through Clinton’s private server, which she housed at her New York residence during her tenure at the State Department.[/QUOTE]
the meeting is obviously to discuss her grandchildren and golf.
I can't wait to see her walk out with a slap on the wrist
Everyone and their mother knows she's as guilty as fuck, but still nothing will probably happen
still cant believe that a person being openly investigated by the fucking FBI will potentially be the president of the united states
[QUOTE=Bathtub;50630247]still cant believe that a person being openly investigated by the fucking FBI will potentially be the president of the united states[/QUOTE]
donald trump is being openly investigated for raping a 13 year old girl
[QUOTE=Judas;50630276]donald trump is being openly investigated for raping a 13 year old girl[/QUOTE]
There is no comparison to be made between moronic Huffington Post tabloid smear-job trash and the serious investigation of Hillary Clinton for intentional violation of security procedures and her attempts to lie and cover them up. This is a beyond stupid comparison.
[QUOTE=srobins;50630290]There is no comparison to be made between moronic Huffington Post tabloid smear-job trash and the serious investigation of Hillary Clinton for intentional violation of security procedures and her attempts to lie and cover them up. This is a beyond stupid comparison.[/QUOTE]
The point isn't that their crimes are comparable it's that being under investigation doesn't actually mean you are guilty of anything. It certainly raises an eyebrow but if she is found not guilty by the law then the investigation shouldn't be held against her.
That isn't to say that she clearly failed to meet security guidelines, it's just that not enough evidence was found to prosecute her in a court of law.
[QUOTE=Judas;50630276]donald trump is being openly investigated for raping a 13 year old girl[/QUOTE]
i agree it is unbelievable they're both in the running
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50630312] if she is found not guilty by the law then the investigation shouldn't be held against her.[/QUOTE]
why not?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50630312]The point isn't that their crimes are comparable it's that being under investigation doesn't actually mean you are guilty of anything. It certainly raises an eyebrow but if she is found not guilty by the law then the investigation shouldn't be held against her.
[B]That isn't to say that she clearly failed to meet security guidelines, it's just that not enough evidence was found to prosecute her in a court of law[/B].[/QUOTE]
So what's your point? I'm still going to hold it against her because it seems very clear to me that she is guilty and unfit to be president. The fact that she will inevitably be found innocent by a corrupt justice system isn't going to make me magically like her all of a sudden.
He is basically saying that nobody can call Hillary a crook until she gets tried.
Despite how obviously she is a crook.
It's basically like someone saying Richard Nixon can't be criminal since he never got tried in court.
[QUOTE=srobins;50630344]So what's your point? I'm still going to hold it against her because it seems very clear to me that she is guilty and unfit to be president. The fact that she will inevitably be found innocent by a corrupt justice system isn't going to make me magically like her all of a sudden.[/QUOTE]
What if she is actually innocent from a legal standpoint? She can be "guilty" of not following correct guidelines and correct procedures and I'm not saying you can't hold that against her (I blatantly hold her in ability to secure information properly in the post I made), it's just a question of what she did was actually criminal. It sounds like people are presuming guilt until she proves her innocence, which from what I understand is generally considered in poor taste.
[editline]1st July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;50630497]He is basically saying that nobody can call Hillary a crook until she gets tried.
Despite how obviously she is a crook.
It's basically like someone saying Richard Nixon can't be criminal since he never got tried in court.[/QUOTE]
Nixon was almost certainly going to be indicted were it not for. That's not at all a legitimate comparison. And I'm not saying you can't call Clinton a crook until she gets tried, I'm saying it's not fair to call someone a criminal when they haven't even been indicted of anything.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50630578]What if she is actually innocent from a legal standpoint? She can be "guilty" of not following correct guidelines and correct procedures and I'm not saying you can't hold that against her (I blatantly hold her in ability to secure information properly in the post I made), it's just a question of what she did was actually criminal. It sounds like people are presuming guilt until she proves her innocence, which from what I understand is generally considered in poor taste.[/QUOTE]
If you and I can both agree that what she did was wrong and that she is "guilty" of violating procedure, I would hope our legal system comes to a similar conclusion and prosecutes her as they would anyone else. I don't really care to have some big philosophical debate about justice and morality, but I think the point is that she [I]clearly[/I] did a no-no and will most likely face zero consequences, whereas virtually anybody else that behaved similarly would be in big trouble. That's why I'm upset and why a lot of people are upset, and I don't really care whether or not that's in poor taste.
[editline]1st July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50630578]Nixon was almost certainly going to be indicted were it not for. That's not at all a legitimate comparison. And I'm not saying you can't call Clinton a crook until she gets tried, I'm saying it's not fair to call someone a criminal when they haven't even been indicted of anything.[/QUOTE]
How is that unfair? I won't rely on a corrupt legal system to dictate to me who the good guys and bad guys are, and nobody else should either. If the education system decided that 2+2=5, I'd still think it was 4.
I'm confident they'll find no wrongdoing
[QUOTE=srobins;50630611]If you and I can both agree that what she did was wrong and that she is "guilty" of violating procedure, I would hope our legal system comes to a similar conclusion and prosecutes her as they would anyone else. I don't really care to have some big philosophical debate about justice and morality, but I think the point is that she [I]clearly[/I] did a no-no and will most likely face zero consequences, whereas virtually anybody else that behaved similarly would be in big trouble. That's why I'm upset and why a lot of people are upset, and I don't really care whether or not that's in poor taste.[/QUOTE]
Violating security guidelines isn't necessarily the same as an actual criminal act. I'm sure there is some overlap for the more egregious violations but I think she would have been indicted a long time ago if what she did was obviously criminal.
I appreciate that you atleast admit that you are presuming guilt before innocence and won't beat around the bush about it like a bunch of other posters, and like I said I think she is clearly guilty of the same sort of lax electronic security that previous Secretary's have been guilty of, my point was simply that what she did may not have been outright criminal, hence the comparison to Trump being under investigation for various crimes.
[QUOTE=srobins;50630290]There is no comparison to be made between moronic Huffington Post tabloid smear-job trash and the serious investigation of Hillary Clinton for intentional violation of security procedures and her attempts to lie and cover them up. This is a beyond stupid comparison.[/QUOTE]
how is a rape accusation not serious?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50630641]I'm confident they'll find no wrongdoing[/QUOTE]
You sound like a fucking corrupt movie villain
[QUOTE=srobins;50630611]If you and I can both agree that what she did was wrong and that she is "guilty" of violating procedure, I would hope our legal system comes to a similar conclusion and prosecutes her as they would anyone else. I don't really care to have some big philosophical debate about justice and morality, but I think the point is that she [I]clearly[/I] did a no-no and will most likely face zero consequences, whereas virtually anybody else that behaved similarly would be in big trouble. That's why I'm upset and why a lot of people are upset, and I don't really care whether or not that's in poor taste.
[editline]1st July 2016[/editline]
How is that unfair? I won't rely on a corrupt legal system to dictate to me who the good guys and bad guys are, and nobody else should either. If the education system decided that 2+2=5, I'd still think it was 4.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, mob rule. That's what our country was founded on. If 51% of people decide something, it must be correct! Fuck due process, fuck fair trials, just hang criminals because of a gut feeling
[QUOTE=srobins;50630611]
How is that unfair? I won't rely on a corrupt legal system to dictate to me who the good guys and bad guys are, and nobody else should either. If the education system decided that 2+2=5, I'd still think it was 4.[/QUOTE]
It's unfair because you want to classify people based on a gut feeling about corruption in our legal system. It would be naive to ignore the various interests at play here between the Obama administration, the Department of Justice, the State Department, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC but I also believe it's entirely possible that she didn't actually commit a crime that someone can be indicted of. Again, lax security and an apparently disregarding attitude about classified information. [B]I'm not defending these actions. They reflect badly on her judgement personally and professionally.[/B] I'm saying that they may not be prosecutable in a court of law.
[QUOTE=Judas;50630647]how is a rape accusation not serious?[/QUOTE]
it's nothing compared to, at best, negligent disclosure of state secrets, and at worst, treason...
[QUOTE=srobins;50630344]So what's your point? I'm still going to hold it against her because it seems very clear to me that she is guilty and unfit to be president.[/QUOTE]
A court of law might find somebody innocent, but it's my opinion that they're guilty anyway, so none of that fancy judicial or evidence stuff actually matters.
[QUOTE=unrezt;50630685]it's nothing compared to, at best, negligent disclosure of state secrets, and at worse, treason...[/QUOTE]
Treason isn't what you think it is.
[QUOTE=Judas;50630647]how is a rape accusation not serious?[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to get into whatever stupid rape accusation argument you clearly are interested in, but I'll say that I think it's convenient that after the media failed to stop Trump by calling him racist, homophobic and sexist for the past year, a Jane Doe springs up and accuses him of raping her in the 90's. Obviously it should be investigated but I highly doubt there'll be any actual evidence of Donald Trump raping a 13 year old girl (seeing as there [I]is none[/I] so far). Maybe I'm a big jerk but I honestly doubt that Donald Trump raped a 13 year old 20+ years ago, sorry!
[editline]1st July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50630656]Ah yes, mob rule. That's what our country was founded on. If 51% of people decide something, it must be correct! Fuck due process, fuck fair trials, just hang criminals because of a gut feeling[/QUOTE]
Ironic given that you've called for the dismantling of the entire concept of democracy multiple times on this forum because you hate Trump so much.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50630696]Treason isn't what you think it is.[/QUOTE]
enlighten me
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;50630695]A court of law might find somebody innocent, but it's my opinion that they're guilty anyway, so none of that fancy judicial or evidence stuff actually matters.[/QUOTE]
A court of law doesn't really find somebody innocent, it just fails to find them guilty. Which is why, like I've said, Hillary Clinton being found "innocent" in a court of law doesn't change the fact that I think she did something wrong.
[editline]1st July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50630672]It's unfair because you want to classify people based on a gut feeling about corruption in our legal system. It would be naive to ignore the various interests at play here between the Obama administration, the Department of Justice, the State Department, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC but I also believe it's entirely possible that she didn't actually commit a crime that someone can be indicted of. Again, lax security and an apparently disregarding attitude about classified information. [B]I'm not defending these actions. They reflect badly on her judgement personally and professionally.[/B] I'm saying that they may not be prosecutable in a court of law.[/QUOTE]
Okay, sure, that's fair. If it turns out nothing she did is technically illegal then yeah I can't get upset about them not throwing her in prison. I feel like deleting emails pertaining to an ongoing investigation is most likely illegal though?
[QUOTE=srobins;50630723]
Okay, sure, that's fair. If it turns out nothing she did is technically illegal then yeah I can't get upset about them not throwing her in prison. I feel like deleting emails pertaining to an ongoing investigation is most likely illegal though?[/QUOTE]
people in the military have gotten in jail for less than what she did
Basically [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793]this[/url] is likely the law that was violated if they go through with the indictment
[quote](f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
[/quote]
The private server is definitely not the proper place for classified information custody
There's also possible fees related to failing to meet FOIA guidelines, but I believe those are applied to the agency not the individual.
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552[/url]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50630644]Violating security guidelines isn't necessarily the same as an actual criminal act. I'm sure there is some overlap for the more egregious violations but I think she would have been indicted a long time ago if what she did was obviously criminal. [/QUOTE]
Eh, im in the USN. If I had dicked around like she was, they would nail me in the ass so fucking hard.
[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;50630971]Eh, im in the USN. If I had dicked around like she was, they would nail me in the ass so fucking hard.[/QUOTE]
This.
As a submariner, I'm regularly trusted with top secret material. If I was found to have some of it on my personal computer, whether it's hooked up to the internet or not, no matter what the purpose of me having it there is, I'd get my peepee slapped so fucking hard. My entire life ripped apart by the investigation. Everyone I've ever talked to interrogated by agents showing up at their door asking if I shared TS info with them. Following all of that, a wonderful sentence to Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks for a long time.
Top Secret information is information deemed to cause [I]exceptionally grave[/I] (not exaggerating, that's part of the definition drilled into our heads) damage to national security if it gets into the wrong hands. Nothing insignificant is deemed top secret. For example, submarine operating speeds, frequencies, procedures, all the little details about our boats the enemy could use to easily defeat us if they knew, all classified SECRET. That should put into perspective just how fucking severe top secret info is and how ultra buttfucked anyone found keeping it on a personal unsecure server should be.
[QUOTE=srobins;50630713]I'm not going to get into whatever stupid rape accusation argument you clearly are interested in, but I'll say that I think it's convenient that after the media failed to stop Trump by calling him racist, homophobic and sexist for the past year, a Jane Doe springs up and accuses him of raping her in the 90's. Obviously it should be investigated but I highly doubt there'll be any actual evidence of Donald Trump raping a 13 year old girl (seeing as there [I]is none[/I] so far). Maybe I'm a big jerk but I honestly doubt that Donald Trump raped a 13 year old 20+ years ago, sorry!
[editline]1st July 2016[/editline]
Ironic given that you've called for the dismantling of the entire concept of democracy multiple times on this forum because you hate Trump so much.[/QUOTE]
That's not irony. Democracy is mob rule. Due process is a republic
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.