Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Kind of reminds me of people being bashed when questioning GM's decisions.

 

excuse me, are you a scout?! please take your facebook scout degree somewhere else bruh

Quote:Yep, my next thought was Patraeus and Snowden are good now, right? They'll receive formal apologies and such, yes? Snowball's chance in hell.

Patraeus voluntarily GAVE troop movements and exceedingly sensitive information to his girlfriend.

 

Snowden leaked classified information in attempt to sabotage the federal government.

 

Clinton had a couple dozen emails about classified material on a non-approved server, and then deleted them at an appropriate time.

 

 

It's OK to be upset, as thin skinned tweetmaniac Donald is, but there are no parallels with Clinton, Patraeus, and Snowden.  There are other ways to show displeasure over the ruling, and plenty on which to fault Clinton (you can call her careless or clueless, for example), but her conduct was not deemed to be criminal by the FBI, and I have no problem with the ruling.

Quote:So it looks like Petraeus is going to be the right's red herring now?

I'm not sure the use of "red herring" is appropriate, but this outcome certainly brings into question the handling of Gen Patraeus. Heck, what about other high profile cases like John Deutch and Sandy Berger (Clinton Adviser) to name a few. I have been privy to numerous military investigations for far less and many got the boot with discharges that impact the rest of their lives.

Quote:I forget - what law school did you attend?

 

Keep your eyes on that monitor boy. Nothing worse than discovering a screwed up order when you get home.

Quote:I'm not sure the use of "red herring" is appropriate, but this outcome certainly brings into question the handling of Gen Patraeus. Heck, what about other high profile cases like John Deutch and Sandy Berger (Clinton Adviser) to name a few. I have been privy to numerous military investigations for far less and many got the boot with discharges that impact the rest of their lives.

 

but this is Hillary. not some regular joe nobody cares about. different rules apply to royalty. this is america.

Just a few quotes from the statement from the FBI Director.

 

Quote: 

...

 

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.

 

<insert where he describes such evidence>

 

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes
regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

...

 

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

...

 

Unbelievable.

You'd have to have serious denial issues and be out of touch with reality to think there's nothing at all wrong with this decision.

 

But then, that's a requirement of following that party - ignoring more fact than not.  So, in their sick, twisted worldview, life goes on and nothing to see here.  Because they say so.

FBI added to the list of institutions I will never trust again.

Quote:FBI added to the list of institutions I will never trust again.

 

Between the FBI and the IRS, there may be nothing left once Hussein leaves office.

Quote:Patraeus voluntarily GAVE troop movements and exceedingly sensitive information to his girlfriend.


Snowden leaked classified information in attempt to sabotage the federal government.


Clinton had a couple dozen emails about classified material on a non-approved server, and then deleted them at an appropriate time.



It's OK to be upset, as thin skinned tweetmaniac Donald is, but there are no parallels with Clinton, Patraeus, and Snowden. There are other ways to show displeasure over the ruling, and plenty on which to fault Clinton (you can call her careless or clueless, for example), but her conduct was not deemed to be criminal by the FBI, and I have no problem with the ruling.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook'>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook</a>


What you just said would constitute a criminal violation of section 793(f) title 18 of the federal penal code.


Moreover, the moment the server was used for work related matters, the entire server became part of the public record. The idea that she and her lawyers could go through and delete emails before the feds had a chance to review it is a complete castration of the federal records keeping act.

Facts are not relevant to those with their heads buried in the sand.

Quote:Patraeus voluntarily GAVE troop movements and exceedingly sensitive information to his girlfriend.

 

Snowden leaked classified information in attempt to sabotage the federal government.

 

Clinton had a couple dozen emails about classified material on a non-approved server, and then deleted them at an appropriate time.

 

 

It's OK to be upset, as thin skinned tweetmaniac Donald is, but there are no parallels with Clinton, Patraeus, and Snowden.  There are other ways to show displeasure over the ruling, and plenty on which to fault Clinton (you can call her careless or clueless, for example), but her conduct was not deemed to be criminal by the FBI, and I have no problem with the ruling.

 

Uh... no.

 

Perhaps you should read the transcript of the speech.  It was more than a "couple dozen emails" that were classified and no, they weren't "deleted at the appropriate time".  In his own words the FBI Director said that there was evidence of potential violation of the law and he went further to say that anyone that does anything similar would face consequences.

Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook'>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook</a>


What you just said would constitute a criminal violation of section 793(f) title 18 of the federal penal code.


Moreover, the moment the server was used for work related matters, the entire server became part of the public record. The idea that she and her lawyers could go through and delete emails before the feds had a chance to review it is a complete castration of the federal records keeping act.

*Shrug*

 

I'll take the decision of the FBI director, who has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States of America, over the partisan operatives at National Review.

 

That opinion is that no reasonable prosecutor would take this case based on the evidence uncovered, which, by the way, was not revealed to you, me, or National Review.

 

jj, there's plenty of meat out there for you and the other right wingers to gnaw on.  The director laid out a scathing criticism of the actions of the State Department, and those critiques are now going to be used by Republicans for the next 4 months.  What I won't believe, or accept, is that Comey is acting under partisan principles or is incompetent because he made a decision that you and others that endorse your agenda don't like - for your own partisan reasons.

Quote:Uh... no.

 

Perhaps you should read the transcript of the speech.  It was more than a "couple dozen emails" that were classified and no, they weren't "deleted at the appropriate time".  In his own words the FBI Director said that there was evidence of potential violation of the law and he went further to say that anyone that does anything similar would face consequences.

I was referring to the "top secret" classified emails, but fine, bring in the hundreds detailed as classified, or first unclassified and then later classified.  They were sitting on a server that had not been correctly secured by the Department of Defense.

 

They were not distributed illegally to sources that had no business getting them.  They were just on the wrong server. BIG difference, though I know not to you.  I'll agree to disagree.

 

As for "deleted at the appropriate time", well, it they hadn't been, this investigation would not have taken so long.  The FBI had to piece together the emails from deleted segments that were still on the servers that Clinton had turned over to them.

 

As I have maintained from Day One, Clinton did something dumb, and that lapse in judgment will disqualify her from office to some.  Just don't tell me the FBI director didn't do his job correctly.

that's the answer.... *shrug* hahaha

Quote:Patraeus voluntarily GAVE troop movements and exceedingly sensitive information to his girlfriend. Troop movements are not deemed classified unless associated with additional information or OPCON. These were also shared after the fact. Doesn't necessarily excuse the sharing of information with his girlfriend. Oh, by the way, she had a clearance. In addition, the information he ADMITTED to was no higher than SECRET. Still wrong, but Clinton was well beyond this.


 

Snowden leaked classified information in attempt to sabotage the federal government. Not that I agree with what he did, but his action can in fact fall under the
Whistleblower
Protection Act of 1989 (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats).


 

Clinton had a couple dozen emails about classified material on a non-approved server, and then deleted them at an appropriate time. This is just flat out wrong. They are numbered well above 1200 and included Top Secret and SAP information on targets and code names of operatives for upcoming missions. When is the appropriate time to delete emails on a non-approved server? She was attempting to bypass Federal Law.


 

 

It's OK to be upset, as thin skinned tweetmaniac Donald is, but there are no parallels with Clinton, Patraeus, and Snowden.  There are other ways to show displeasure over the ruling, and plenty on which to fault Clinton (you can call her careless or clueless, for example), but her conduct was not deemed to be criminal by the FBI, and I have no problem with the ruling.

Quote:*Shrug*

 

I'll take the decision of the FBI director, who has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States of America, over the partisan operatives at National Review.

 

That opinion is that no reasonable prosecutor would take this case based on the evidence uncovered, which, by the way, was not revealed to you, me, or National Review.

 

jj, there's plenty of meat out there for you and the other right wingers to gnaw on.  The director laid out a scathing criticism of the actions of the State Department, and those critiques are now going to be used by Republicans for the next 4 months.  What I won't believe, or accept, is that Comey is acting under partisan principles or is incompetent because he made a decision that you and others that endorse your agenda don't like - for your own partisan reasons.

 

Well lets just look at what he said and let people make up their own minds.

Quote: 

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.

 

Is there evidence that classified information was improperly stored? - YES

 

Is there evidence that classified information was improperly transmitted? - YES

 

Was classified information mishandled either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way? - YES

 

Answering those three questions from his own words makes it a felony.

 

Was classified information knowingly removed from appropriate systems or storage facilities? - Technically no because the system/storage facility was not an appropriate system.

Quote:You'd have to have serious denial issues and be out of touch with reality to think there's nothing at all wrong with this decision.


But then, that's a requirement of following that party - ignoring more fact than not. So, in their sick, twisted worldview, life goes on and nothing to see here. Because they say so.

Yes, because the other party is pure as the driven snow.


Spare us all your holier than thou rhetoric.


The Clintons are just like every other republican political, except that you ignore the corruption on your side. Open your eyes.

Quote:I was referring to the "top secret" classified emails, but fine, bring in the hundreds detailed as classified, or first unclassified and then later classified.  They were sitting on a server that had not been correctly secured by the Department of Defense.

 

They were not distributed illegally to sources that had no business getting them.  They were just on the wrong server. BIG difference, though I know not to you.  I'll agree to disagree.

 

As for "deleted at the appropriate time", well, it they hadn't been, this investigation would not have taken so long.  The FBI had to piece together the emails from deleted segments that were still on the servers that Clinton had turned over to them.

 

As I have maintained from Day One, Clinton did something dumb, and that lapse in judgment will disqualify her from office to some.  Just don't tell me the FBI director didn't do his job correctly.

 

I'll agree to disagree with you regarding whether or not the FBI Director did his job correctly.  However, I will say that his recommendation that no charges be pursued was very much inappropriate.

 

As far as the classified material "simply being on the wrong server", that's total "male cow feces".  Anyone that knows anything about emailing classified information knows that proper encryption should be used, and for a lot of us, that means also using networks that are secure such as SIPRNet which was specifically designed and set up for use by DoD and the Department of State.

Quote:that's the answer.... *shrug* hahaha

Yeah, I don't let my mind out to rent for the National Review.

 

If I recall from some of your posts, especially regarding the Donald, neither do you.