Clinton e-mails, for the lawyers
 

Fellow lawyers,

We all have our specialties in law. Mine is patents.

Pretend we are sitting at a bar and not trying to win an argument. We are just educating each other so we can argue better when we are sober.

Can someone please explain what all the noise is about with Clinton's e-mail? I searched a bit of the U.S. Code and the best I understand is that Clinton needed to preserve her writings to help courts interpret the laws that she helped write.

As Secretary of State she did not help write any laws, i.e. she was not a lawmaker. Why is the news all over her?

As Secretary of State it seems that laws would favor keeping her e-mails secret.

Yes? No?

Seeing as those work emails are the subject of a FOIA request by the Associated Press, all the agencies involved are classifying after the fact. That doesn't stop the RWNJs from claiming she sent/rec'd classified info via her server. As SoS she had another channel for truly classified documents called SIPRA. IIRC.

Then, what do I know? I'm just a nail pounding construction puke. :D

There are laws which deal with the security of communications. Clinton was aware of these protocols since she herself advised juniors.

However she adopted a lax attitude to her handling of e mails. :(

Since Benghazi blew up in the opposition's face, this is the next fake Clinton scandal, imo.

I thought so my self, until Finnbow's posts.

It is common sense: There are bad players - Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Israelis - lurking.
You have to secure your communication.

:D

Fun.

What is RWNJ? Right Wing News Junky?

SIPRA might be the real issue. When I looked into federal law regarding communication it seemed to break into two branches. The first branch was the lawmaking branch which we can all relate with. If we are subject to a law then we want to know why it was written and whether it is being properly used against us.

The second branch was related to security. That might be SIPRA. I have no experience with e-mail discussions at that level, and therefore can not imagine how they might influence a court. Rules of Evidence come to mind, however.

Always refreshing to chat with you all.

I'll take Hillary with over a xenophobic-tinged GOP candidate. A candidate who has to kowtow to Trump is just as bad as Trump himself.

Why is the FBI driving this investigation if there was no potential for breech of law?
Whether there was any actual wrongdoing remains to be determined. So this is not like the Benghazi witch hunt by Issa & Co.

In the interim since her trust factor is on the low side, many people do not expect Hillary to get a clean bill of health and this is having a damaging effect on her campaign.

RWNJ=rightwing nutjob :D

The other party involved is the mainstream press who've had a hard on for the Clintons for the last 20+ years.

I see it as more political theater in nature then one of national security. Would be funny if not so serious that when the Repubs were in office, never a problem having a private server. Only when the Dems are in charge.

Once again, does anyone really think there are secrets kept for long anymore between governments? Or just the "outrage" when the populaces become aware?


Barney

A general got burnt for lax handling. Hillary was Secretary of State.

If the law is truly for everyone and we are a country of laws, not men/women, then Mrs. Clinton should be held to account if the FBI investigation determines she violated the law.

Individuals lower on the diplomatic/command structure have been severely punished recently for lesser breaches of security.

The Secretary of State and all gov. executives should be held to the highest standards of the law - it doesn't matter if some Republicans get perverse pleasure out of watching her tank, they have their own wall of shame.

It seems we have accepted that there are no individuals of either party able to adhere to the laws we who elect them are expected to follow.

It has been a slow, creeping devolution of expectations over the past 30 or so years, and it is pretty depressing.

Its always pretty much been thus, Andrew Jackson wasn't bothered by it, Nixon plainly didn't care until it was too late.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

True enough - although I am getting on in years, I wasn't around for Andrew Jackson. :D

Those who see nothing wrong with Hillary's email problems don't want to see problems. She seemingly handled and stored classified information improperly and destroyed government records subject to a FOIA request. Then she handled the issue dismissively and dishonestly.

The White House certainly recognizes the problem as its spokesman, Josh Earnest, took a shot across the bow of Hillary's candidacy yesterday.

I recall Sandy Berger getting slapped pretty hard for knowingly smuggling classified in his pants.

Petreus got burned, but as the direct commander of secrets central, he certainly couldn't mess up security as bad as he did and survive.

I guess my opinion on this depends on how 'real' the security lapse is. If there was knowing disregard of protection for known classified, that's one thing. If this is a matter of CIA coming in and classifying stuff that State didn't see as needing it, well, that's just a matter of opinion, man....

"A general got burnt" for passing classified information to his mistress.

And, at the time, the "general" was the DCI.

Jesus! Channeling Trump now, are you?

Because they were whistle blowers.

False equivalency.

Hillary didn't disclose any of the information in her possession.

Personal emails, according to Sec. Clinton. I'm aware of no contradictory evidence.

'We don't believe she did anything wrong' is not a vote of confidence for someone who is running for the highest office in the country. That is the problem and as the FBI digs and it is discussed in the media, her support will continue to erode. That makes her a poor choice for a candidate. Sooner we accept this, the better. Anyone here actually expect her poll numbers to move up nationally especially in the swing states?

Actually can you really destroy the email. If it is received from another account then it exists somewhere else. If Hillary sent an email and destroyed it later that email is on another server somewhere. And it looks like none were classified at the time. It looks like the only thing she could have destroyed was a file or email she never sent anywhere.

Perhaps Hillary had a shared yahoo account with another person (i.e. the other person knew the password too) and instead of emailing she would just file an email in a draft folder and the other person would open up said draft folder on another computer halfway around the world, just like on 24 and Alias. Then they would have not email trail to investigate.

Of course Yahoo would be able to find out the locations of where the account was opened.

I am sure when Hillary is indicted it will all come out. That should be just around the corner.

Might that be because of a possible obstruction of the investigation (i.e., destroying files)? Had she used the State system, her emails would have been archived where she couldn't have destroyed them. This is a problem of her own making and she's made a hash out of dealing with it.

It seems you're willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trust/truthfulness. She's done nothing over the years to deserve it. Until this mess, I would have been happy to support and defend Hillary. No longer. She's dishonest, aloof and a decidedly lousy candidate.

Here we go again.

Finn gettin his daily "Hillary Hate" on. :rolleyes:

That's precisely what I'm willing to give her and precisely what you refuse to giver her. That's what pisses me off about this whole mess, that supposed "liberals" are buying into this bullshit right wing witch hunt.

As to her having "done nothing over the years to deserve" the benefit of the doubt, what, in your estimation, has she done to disqualify herself from a fair hearing?

Pursuant to the deleted emails, there have been reports mentioning that internet forensics experts are pretty confident that they can recover them.

I don't do hate, dipshit. I leave that to you.

This has to be the most tired, ill used political phrase in history.

Any time a politician is caught with their pants down, it's a "witch hunt." Next time I get a speeding ticket, I'll try that.

I'm sure if it was John Boehner or Ted Cruz in the crosshairs it would be "a vigorous examination for the cause of justice."

The law is no respecter of persons - or parties.

The DOJ and FBI are conducting a right-wing witch hunt? Yeh, right.:rolleyes:

I suppose you bought her story about the long sought Rose law firm billing records associated with the Whitewater investigation just happening to materialize on a White House table.

You can trust and adore Hillary all you want. I don't. In my book, she dismissive, untrustworthy and a lousy candidate. YMMV.

If that were true, Bush, Cheney, and dozens of others in that administration would have been tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes.

That is your opinion, and not one shared by the UN investigation in to the matter.

It was Obama who made a conscious decision not to do so and it had nothing to do with a desire to allow them to get away with any possible crimes.

As long as we're dreaming of war crime tribunals, a case you have some personal experience with - do a little reading on Henry Cabot Lodge and the coup in Vietnam that made it our war until the end.

No thanks.

I'm going to stick around and keep kicking the ass off of you Hillary haters.

If she gets the nomination, a Democratic Presidency will be in serious jeopardy.

Biden has a much better chance of beating what is so far an unimpressive list of opponents.

And - Lodge was a Republican - I thought you would like that.

Although to be fair, he was an acknowledged dummy with no experience in Indochina - appointed by Kennedy as a favor and turned loose - the White House had no idea what was happening until it was over and too late.

I don't want her to get the nomination either.

I want Bernie.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to let you misogynist dickheads get away with your shit.

So, anybody who thinks Hillary isn't the best the Dem's can offer as a candidate is a hater? If the GOP wins the election, it will be such knee-jerk defense of a flawed candidate that will largely be responsible.

I wish you would argue on the facts - I know you like riding the ragged edge of disaster, but throwing hate bombs like "misogynistic" around is a bit out there.

In case you haven't noticed, I want Bernie Sanders to get the nomination.

And if Uncle Joe jumps in, he'll be my second choice.

So, you're a misogynistic hater too. Congrats.

QFT.:p