NationStates

Telconi wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.

The FBI report specifically outlined the number of known times she transmitted classified information via personal e-mail.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:

I haven't commented on the Barr issue, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Cheers.

Eh, going by what we've seen in this thread, it's a reasonable guess to make. It really shouldn't be, but it is.

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:That's not what I heard or read at any point (the general consensus seemed to be "she was dangerously careless, but nothing that happened was actually illegal"). I'm curious where you got this from.

From Comey.

1. “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
2. Clinton’s emails included seven message chains with information classified as top secret.
3. “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”
4. “The security culture of the State Department …was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”
5. Comey acknowledged that the FBI did not normally make public its recommendations to prosecutors as to whether to bring criminal charges. He added: “In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”
6. “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.”
7. “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation.”

https://www.latimes.com/politics/washin ... story.html



2 and 3 there are illegal. 4 is bad policy. 5-7 aren't all that relevant.


1. Excuses what their breaking of the laws regarding classified material, by saying "Well they didn't mean to."

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Telconi wrote:
The FBI report specifically outlined the number of known times she transmitted classified information via personal e-mail.

And then concluded that it wasn't illegal (IIRC the laws that made it illegal weren't in effect when she did it, but I might be wrong on that count).
Was it careless? Definitely. Was it wrong? Yeah, probably. But neither of those things are synonyms for "illegal".

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Eh, going by what we've seen in this thread, it's a reasonable guess to make. It really shouldn't be, but it is.

Me: *rails against Trump, doesn't vote for Trump. Leaves republican party over trump.*
Nobody: Bats an eye.
Me: *Disagrees with democrats*
Everyone: "YOU SUPPORT TRUMP"

cool story.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
From Comey.


https://www.latimes.com/politics/washin ... story.html



2 and 3 there are illegal. 4 is bad policy. 5-7 aren't all that relevant.


1. Excuses what their breaking of the laws regarding classified material, by saying "Well they didn't mean to."

Nowhere in any of this does someone say that she definitely broke the law. #1 implies it, but taking it literally, all it does is rule out the possibility of intent. #3 doesn't say anything about legality. #4 seems to say very little other than "this wasn't unique to her". #5-#7 are, as you said, largely irrelevant, but #6 is worth noting. That leaves #2, which does not by itself prove anything. I mean, you'd think they would be a bit more open about it if they thought she was guilty of treason.
I'm not saying that you're wrong - I don't particularly like Clinton and I have no problem with her getting arrested for crimes, provided that she committed them - but I don't think that this qualifies as good evidence.

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:And then concluded that it wasn't illegal (IIRC the laws that made it illegal weren't in effect when she did it, but I might be wrong on that count).
Was it careless? Definitely. Was it wrong? Yeah, probably. But neither of those things are synonyms for "illegal".

They claimed at the time they didn't have the "C" stamp for classified, however based on need to know rules that's actually not a defense. She, being the secretary of state, is supposed to know what's classifiable and what's not. If I know the new nuclear codes and sell them to China, I don't get away with it just because the paperwork hadn't cleared yet. Granted she didn't do anything as egregious as that, but she represented a huge liability, and took demonstrable steps to obstruct the FBI investigation by destroying evidence.

James Comey wrote:Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed.

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Nowhere in any of this does someone say that she definitely broke the law. #1 implies it, but taking it literally, all it does is rule out the possibility of intent. #3 doesn't say anything about legality. #4 seems to say very little other than "this wasn't unique to her". #5-#7 are, as you said, largely irrelevant, but #6 is worth noting. That leaves #2, which does not by itself prove anything. I mean, you'd think they would be a bit more open about it if they thought she was guilty of treason.
I'm not saying that you're wrong - I don't particularly like Clinton and I have no problem with her getting arrested for crimes, provided that she committed them - but I don't think that this qualifies as good evidence.

Just because you didn't mean to doesn't exonerate you from breaking the law when your own negligence is involved.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Me: *rails against Trump, doesn't vote for Trump. Leaves republican party over trump.*
Nobody: Bats an eye.
Me: *Disagrees with democrats*
Everyone: "YOU SUPPORT TRUMP"

cool story.

Did you miss the part where I said "in this thread"?

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Just because you didn't mean to doesn't exonerate you from breaking the law when your own negligence is involved.

You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.

Telconi wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.

That was what the FBI and the AG said though. It was basically "yes she commited a criminal act, but on accident"

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Just because you didn't mean to doesn't exonerate you from breaking the law when your own negligence is involved.

You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.

Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:You're not wrong but that's also not what I was saying.

But it was. #2 sets up #3, which is the real illegality here. She had the classified information on her unofficial email address which violates policy requiring classified information to be restricted to official channels, and she shared that information using the same email addresses. Sharing classified information via unsecured means is illegal. #4 doesn't say "well it wasn't unique to her" what is says is that her state department differed from every other with the lax levels of security they had in place compared to the other departments. #6 is shorthand "no prosecutor would want this case because the difficulty of garnering a conviction would be way to high." That's no more an exoneration than Mueller's "not enough evidence to substantiate claims of collusion but neither does it exonerate him'"

Which brings us back to #1, well she was extremely careless but she didn't mean to break the law, therefore she's not liable. Which again, if this were anyone else, that shit wouldn't fly at all.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
But it was. #2 sets up #3, which is the real illegality here. She had the classified information on her unofficial email address which violates policy requiring classified information to be restricted to official channels, and she shared that information using the same email addresses. Sharing classified information via unsecured means is illegal. #4 doesn't say "well it wasn't unique to her" what is says is that her state department differed from every other with the lax levels of security they had in place compared to the other departments. #6 is shorthand "no prosecutor would want this case because the difficulty of garnering a conviction would be way to high." That's no more an exoneration than Mueller's "not enough evidence to substantiate claims of collusion but neither does it exonerate him'"

Which brings us back to #1, well she was extremely careless but she didn't mean to break the law, therefore she's not liable. Which again, if this were anyone else, that shit wouldn't fly at all.

I'm doing my best to read this as though it means nothing more and nothing less than what it says. And what it says is "careless", not "illegal". It's definitely not an exoneration, but just going by what I'm seeing here, I see no proof of guilt, and you're saying that proof is there.
But whatever, I hate defending people I don't want to defend, so I'd really like to stop now. If someone who actually likes Clinton wants to do it, then they're welcome to, but I just... don't. That OK with everyone?

Tarsonis wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:I'm doing my best to read this as though it means nothing more and nothing less than what it says. And what it says is "careless", not "illegal". It's definitely not an exoneration, but just going by what I'm seeing here, I see no proof of guilt, and you're saying that proof is there.
But whatever, I hate defending people I don't want to defend, so I'd really like to stop now. If someone who actually likes Clinton wants to do it, then they're welcome to, but I just... don't. That OK with everyone?

I'm saying she committed an illegal act within the framework of the law. Comey drew an imaginary line and said it was okay, because she didn't "Mean to" and her commission of an illegal act was due to carelessness not intent.

Which, for virtually every other fucking law on the books, negligence/carelessness is not an excuse. It might result in a lesser charge, but it is still very much prosecutable. Comey was right that no reasonable prosecutor would touch this case, because with how politically charged it was you'd never get an unbiased jury, let alone trying to get them to convict. This is why the Republicans call foul because it basically gives her special exemption of the rules.

Galloism wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
I'm saying she committed an illegal act within the framework of the law. Comey drew an imaginary line and said it was okay, because she didn't "Mean to" and her commission of an illegal act was due to carelessness not intent.

Which, for virtually every other fucking law on the books, negligence/carelessness is not an excuse. It might result in a lesser charge, but it is still very much prosecutable. Comey was right that no reasonable prosecutor would touch this case, because with how politically charged it was you'd never get an unbiased jury, let alone trying to get them to convict. This is why the Republicans call foul because it basically gives her special exemption of the rules.

I know people like to conflate "careless" with "criminally negligent", but they are really two different concepts. One can be careless without being criminally negligent, although it's hard to be criminally negligent without being careless.

Tarsonis wrote:

Galloism wrote:I know people like to conflate "careless" with "criminally negligent", but they are really two different concepts. One can be careless without being criminally negligent, although it's hard to be criminally negligent without being careless.

I don't think you can draw a distinction in this case with that high level of an office, we're talking about violating known protocols specifically put in place to protect classified information which she flouted. That's criminal negligence, at least in my book.

Ferringinar wrote:

Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.

I haven't seen such a person get elected, since Carter. Nobody wants a wishy-washy president, any more.

Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.

Gormwood wrote:Oh, talking about Hillary Clinton again.

(Image)

Valrifell wrote:

Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.

Trump doesn't even do that, so I'm unsure why we'd hold him to a lesser standard.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Oh, talking about Hillary Clinton again.

(Image)

I mean, she is legitimately an incredibly terrible person.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Oh, talking about Hillary Clinton again.

(Image)

I mean, she is legitimately an incredibly terrible person.