WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 2:14 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8580
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob Juch wrote:
This is the same FBI that is accused of helping Trump be elected.


...and kept Hillary Clinton out of jail.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15166
Location: By the phone
BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
This is the same FBI that is accused of helping Trump be elected.


...and kept Hillary Clinton out of jail.
What kept Secretary Clinton out of jail was her failure to commit a crime. What contributed to keeping her out of the Oval Office was Director Comey's unjustified and unprecedented innuendo that new evidence of misconduct had surfaced. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:26 am 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8309
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
This is the same FBI that is accused of helping Trump be elected.
...and kept Hillary Clinton out of jail.
What kept Secretary Clinton out of jail was her failure to commit a crime. What contributed to keeping her out of the Oval Office was Director Comey's unjustified and unprecedented innuendo that new evidence of misconduct had surfaced.
For a smart guy, you sure are an idiot. Clinton committed several crimes. Comey's conclusions gave the impression that intent was a component of those crimes. It is not. Surely, you've read the actual statutes and Comey's list of what Hillary actually had done. How can an intellectual lawyer come to the conclusion that no crime was committed?

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3219
Location: Merion, Pa.
Estonut wrote:
For a smart guy, you sure are an idiot. Clinton committed several crimes.
Having worked with highly classified information for my entire career, I know something about this subject. Security violations do occur. We're all human and make mistakes. Consequences range from a warning to removal of security clearances and firing. The only violations prosecuted as crimes are intentionally revealing classified information to an uncleared person.

Clinton's worst violation was this:
Director Comey wrote:
Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
While classification levels are sometimes murky (so many of Clinton's unclassified emails were classified later) the difference between Special Access and unclassified is obvious. Anyone who's had a security briefing knows that if you read an email like that on an unclassified system, you must report it, and you definitely can't reply or forward it.

Estonut wrote:
Comey's conclusions gave the impression that intent was a component of those crimes. It is not.
As Comey says, "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." So intent is very important. Like I said (and so does Comey), nobody is ever criminally prosecuted for unintentional security violations. But even if they won't "lock her up," her carelessness and dismissive attitude deserved to be campaign issues.

Another fact that's overlooked: Clinton made a huge mistake when she used a private server, because otherwise nobody would have known about the problem. But legally, transmitting classified information on the unclassified State Department system would have been just as bad. And using a commercial email service would have been worse, because it isn't possible to sanitize the system after a violation is discovered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:48 am 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8309
Location: Garden Grove, CA
The author of the article linked below wrote:
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.

18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] 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 one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

Entire article

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13330
Estonut wrote:
The author of the article linked below wrote:
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.

18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] 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 one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

Entire article


Please enlighten me. Was it you or was it the staff of the Daily Wire who reviewed the hours of testimony and tons of documents to determine what Clinton did or did not do? Because that's what a jury would have to do to convict her, and that's what a grand jury would have to do, at least in part, to indict her.

You're relying on what James Comey said in two paragraphs of summing up in his description of her behavior. The fact that it doesn't jibe with his eventual decision not to press charges likely says more about the actual quality of the evidence itself and the fact that his claims in regard to it may well have been hyperbole calculated to get a reaction from the right wingers.

Further, there's been no proof that Clinton knew that the material was classified, and that knowledge, or at least gross negligence in making that determination, was key to a conviction on any of those statutes. It's the difference between me seeing a classified document on my desk and taking it home to work on it, and me seeing a pile of papers on my desk, one of which in the middle is classified, and taking them home. The worst thing that's been shown is that if she had checked more carefully, she could have noticed there were classified documents. That's the definition of ordinary as opposed to gross negligence.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:02 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15166
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Well, it's not a special prosecutor but it's better than nothing. --Bob


Yes, let's investigate all the #FAKE NEWS. Let's see if any of these allegations have any legs. But if they don't, we need to find out who leaked them and make them pay a big price.

In other news, they have decided to investigate Comey, but not Lynch to find out what happened when she met with Bill Clinton. They can knock themselves out for all I care. It's all a dog and pony show anyway. Nothing ever happens. At least when democrats get investigated.
Not looking so fake now.

And it looks like Flynn lied to the FBI by denying that he'd discussed sanctions during his (multiple) phone calls with the Russian ambassador. Lying to the FBI is a felony. I await as many as 37 investigations from the House Oversight Committee to get to the bottom of this.

We have already reached the point where the classic question is appropriate. What did Donny know and when did he know it? --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15166
Location: By the phone
I really wish that Attorney General Lynch had appointed a special prosecutor before she left office. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8580
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
I really wish that Attorney General Lynch had appointed a special prosecutor before she left office. --Bob


To investigate herself for meeting with and discussing an active investigation with the spouse of the target of that investigation? Yeah, me, too.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3219
Location: Merion, Pa.
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
I really wish that Attorney General Lynch had appointed a special prosecutor before she left office. --Bob


To investigate herself for meeting with and discussing an active investigation with the spouse of the target of that investigation? Yeah, me, too.

The Senate Democratic Leader sounds like he agrees with both of you.

Senator Schumer wrote:
There cannot be even the scintilla of doubt about the impartiality and fairness of the attorney general, the top law enforcement official of the land.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 6:46 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15166
Location: By the phone
Bob78164 wrote:
jarnon wrote:
FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump

Any action by the Obama or Trump administration would be seen as political and would be self-defeating.
I agree that anything done by Trump would be seen as political, but I don't think that would stop him or that it would necessarily hurt him significantly. Nor do I think that the appointment of a special prosecutor would be self-defeating. After all, the Benghazi Committee was transparently political in intent, yet it was still able to do significant damage.

I am encouraged that Congress apparently intends to make its probe a serious one. But I'd feel better if an independent prosecutor, who won't have an incentive to go easy for political reasons, were investigating. --Bob
Told you it wouldn't stop him. I'm glad it seems to have hurt him, and I'm relieved that a special counsel was appointed. ABC is reporting that the White House was blindsided by the appointment so I have hope that the appointment process really was independent, and I have confidence in Mueller to run a competent investigation. I just wish he'd been appointed four months ago. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.