Town is a clinton lover
New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats
- Thread starter jeffblue101
- Start date
lain: You probably have them on your sheets....which with Bill isn't saying much. :shocked:Not only was he guilty but Nixon received a presidential pardon from an unelected GOP president - without ever being required to acknowledge his guilt.
While Nixon was allowed to head back to his home in California, courtesy of his presidential "Get Out Of Jail" card, his
subordinates who served in his Administration and followed his instructions, were all left to serve jail time as a reward dor their loyalty!
Last edited:
As someone who would have us believe that he is a devout Christian, I challenge "aCultureWarrior" to produce those Biblical passages that condone engaging in personal attacks and disrespecting those who do not happen to share your opinions!
That being said:
Adults are talking here jgarden, i.e. go back to your toddler (liberal) playpen.
So, was he indicted?
You're the one being blinded by partisanship. You want to find gross negligence, so that's what you see.
1. The current head of the FBI is a life-long registered Republican. He stated that based on successful prosecutions in the past, convictions under the Information Act (1966) required that the individual was guilty of deliberately divulging classified government materials to outside sources.
2. Both of Clinton's predecessors, Rice and Powell, were also Secretaries of State under the Bush Administration and both conducted government business using private accounts. Given that all 3 engaged in the same practices, why was the one Democratic Secretary, but not the two Republican Secretaries of State, included in the investigation?
3. The Information Act only applies to executive agencies - not legislators or the judiciary. Despite dealing with classified material in various committees, members of the House and the Senate are free to use private accounts if they wish because there is no regulating legislation.
4. If account security while conducting government business was the real concern, why haven't the Republicans, with majorities in both the House and the Senate, seen fit to pass comprehensive legislation to resolve this situation. The fact that GOP legislators chose to go on summer holidays, instead of addressing the problem, speaks volumes.
TomO posted this in another thread about her emails so I'm posting it again here:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/
Did the Inspector General come to these conclusions based only on the word of Rice, Powell, Albright and Kerry - or did the IG actually conduct its own investigation, as was the case with Clinton?
The fact remains that the Information Act only applies to executive agencies - members of the House and Senate also sit on committees that deal with classified materials, but there appears to be not legislation that prohibits their use of private accounts.
The fact remains that the Information Act only applies to executive agencies - members of the House and Senate also sit on committees that deal with classified materials, but there appears to be not legislation that prohibits their use of private accounts.
Wrong, I have a practical working knowledge of what the law says concerning handling, possession or transmission of classified things, as well as a repeat for these laws and why they exist, I also have a working practical knowledge of what the consequences are/should be for anyone who has mishandled classified information. The double standard has been set, the fix is in, and because it is one of your own, near and dear to you politically it is a non-issue for liberals such as yourself. Given you are a partisan hack without any respect for the law, just as Hillary is, you will accept the egregious acts she has perpetrated against the nation without care for the consequences this precedent sets, you are just as lawless as she is...shame on you!
You posted a supposedly similar case, but you didn't answer my simple question about it. You can't call it a double-standard unless you can come up with someone who actually experienced different treatment in a similar situation.
Bump:
That's the important question for you, RM. It hardly establishes a similar precedent unless the justice department indicted under similar circumstances. Military discipline isn't the same standard, as you well know.
That's the important question for you, RM. It hardly establishes a similar precedent unless the justice department indicted under similar circumstances. Military discipline isn't the same standard, as you well know.
So it is your contention that Hillary should be able to willfully commit multiple felonious acts, and the common man, civilian or military should be held to a different standard? What has happened here, though you are too much of a partisan hack to admit, is that there are one set of rules for Hillary (or any other person of influence), and another set of rules for everyone else. It is obvious that you find no problem with that because it would absolutely destroy Hillary's/Democrat's chances of holding the White House but, what is being sacrificed for her sake is the law, and without law there is no civil society, as we are already seeing happen in America. "All in all it's just another brick in the wall" right?
New Poll: Most voters disagree with FBI's decision not to indict except deomcrats
America conservatives have a lynch party mentality concerning Hillary because with Trump as their presumptive presidential candidate, that's the only card they have left to play!
The Republican Convention and the general election will provide "Circus Trump" with unlimited opportunities for 'self-inflicted" political controversies that will make "servergate" pale in comparison.
America conservatives have a lynch party mentality concerning Hillary because with Trump as their presumptive presidential candidate, that's the only card they have left to play!
The Republican Convention and the general election will provide "Circus Trump" with unlimited opportunities for 'self-inflicted" political controversies that will make "servergate" pale in comparison.
Rather, he just noted that you haven't actually supported this position, that Comey spoke to the particulars that made this different. Rex asked you to provide an actual parallel to Clinton's case that was handled differently. I already illustrated the numerous reasons why the Marine case wasn't a parallel in almost any meaningful sense.
You are a layman with some experience and understanding of the literal reading of the law. You're also someone with no experience or real understanding of how and why that black letter law has been applied in cases like this or tends to be, of the ins and outs of prosecutorial discretion and reliance on precedent.
I am not taking a position on whether or not the outcome is a good one, because I can truly see either position. What matter are the circumstances of the current case. Clinton was a civilian political appointee, and no longer works at State. The law, as it exists, and the way that the law has been interpreted and enforced does not recommend charges here. The challenge to you is to find an actual parallel case which could sustain such a prosecution under the laws that apply to civilians with no current government job. If she still worked at State, she might be subject to some kind of disciplinary action, as Comey suggested, which would be comparable to the discharge or reprimand your marine case resulted in. But that isn't an option here. And if her actions were clearly intentional, she could be prosecuted as Petreus was. Neither of those cases apply, although new evidence could support the later. But the fact that it hasn't been found after a litany of investigations suggests that it likely doesn't exist, and she likely didn't intentionally do anything wrong. If we started prosecuting civilians who accidentally disclose classified information, I think we'd have a different situation, but it also might be a lot harder to find people willing to do certain jobs, and we'd end up with a lot more prosecutions of people honestly doing their best for the country. Such a policy shouldn't begin with the hyperpartisan environment of a cabinet-level office or a current presidential candidate, in any case.
Last edited:
If it helps, RM, many people, including me, think that this whole incident makes Clinton look very bad. That's a pretty substantial result. We're going into an election, and it well could decide the outcome. It won't for me, since the GOP nominated such a complete knob, but it will potentially for many people. I think it's a tactical mistake to try to take that relative victory and throw it back hoping for the kind of result that would completely disqualify Clinton from office. It just makes them look unreasonable and partisan, which, of course, they are. But I don't think they can help themselves.
Just look at how Trump handled it. He could have had a pretty good day (or longer) but he started spouting off about a bribe between Lynch and the Clintons.
He's the best thing to happen for Hillary in a bid for the White House. After Palin made the ticket I stopped saying, "One thing you'll never see from a Republican nominee" but this one surprised me.
I partially agree but I'm not completely shocked considering the environment we're in right now. I think mostly surprised that Cruz didn't catch on more.