[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[osaka35]

A few notes on the recent conversation:

• The original FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence that Clinton ever broke any laws pertaining to her emails.
• The FBI investigation into Clinton's use of emails has not been reopened.
• The emails being referenced today apparently have little if anything to do with Clinton, weren't sent by her, and have nothing to do with her private server.

I would quibble that they couldn't find any evidence of intent, only evidence of recklessness (which they said would land a normal person in jail in a heartbeat). They did not say there's no evidence Just that they found no evidence of intent.

 

[Haloman800]

A few notes on the recent conversation:

• The original FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence that Clinton ever broke any laws pertaining to her emails.
• The FBI investigation into Clinton's use of emails has not been reopened.
• The emails being referenced today apparently have little if anything to do with Clinton, weren't sent by her, and have nothing to do with her private server.

[damage control intensifies]

 

[Smoker1]

 

[Viri]

I'm voting for the second Civil War

 

[Lacius]

I would quibble that they couldn't find any evidence of intent, only evidence of recklessness (which they said would land a normal person in jail in a heartbeat). They did not say there's no evidence Just that they found no evidence of intent.

Your quibbling is nonsensical, and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what actually happened.

Comey flatly said there is no evidence that Clinton broke any laws, and that's almost verbatim. He also said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case (because, as he said, there is no case).

There's no distinction regarding intent.

 

[osaka35]

Your quibbling is nonsensical, and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what actually happened.

Comey flatly said there is no evidence that Clinton broke any laws, and that's almost verbatim. He also said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case (because, as he said, there is no case).

There's no distinction regarding intent.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are miss-remembering while i dont think they're a huge deal, hand-waving away inconvenient facts just makes your position look weaker. better ways to address the problem, in my opinion. though i do hate she literally wants to kill assange, while at the same time being so lackadaisical with her emails. she shady, but she aint crazy.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

emphasis mine:
"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."

"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.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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."

 

[Lacius]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you are miss-remembering while i dont think they're a huge deal, hand-waving away inconvenient facts just makes your position look weaker. better ways to address the problem, in my opinion. though i do hate she literally wants to kill assange, while at the same time being so lackadaisical with her emails. she shady, but she aint crazy.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

emphasis mine:
"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."

"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.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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."

Try again.

Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton broke any laws related to classified data?

Director Comey: We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information.

Edit: There is also nothing in your post where he suggests there's any evidence Clinton broke any laws.

 

[el_gonz87]

This is about America, Jesus, freedom.

Trump 2016, 'MERICA!

 

[osaka35]

Try again.

Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton broke any laws related to classified data?

Director Comey: We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information.

Edit: There is also nothing in your post where he suggests there's any evidence Clinton broke any laws.

yes, exactly. they didn't find enough evidence to justify intent. enough evidence. they did not find any positive evidence she did not do it, as you claimed, only that the evidence they do have is not nearly sufficient to get a conviction with a former secretary of state. a normal person yes, but not a former secretary of defense. you've gotta show intent with them, not recklesness or ignorance. the trick is, you've got take the message as a whole, not just one or two lines.

 

[spotanjo3]

Is America really free ? Ha, no! Also, according to Debate is that 81 percent say No too.

Also there is other news:

New Study Shows ‘Land Of The Free’ Is in Swift Decline, Many Countries Pass Up US in Freedom Rank

 

[Lacius]

yes, exactly. they didn't find enough evidence to justify intent. enough evidence. they did not find any positive evidence she did not do it, as you claimed, only that the evidence they do have is not nearly sufficient to get a conviction with a former secretary of state. a normal person yes, but not a former secretary of defense. you've gotta show intent with them, not recklesness or ignorance. the trick is, you've got take the message as a whole, not just one or two lines.

He clearly says there's no evidence that Clinton broke the law, intentionally or not. Don't be disingenuous and act like the quote I posted had anything to do with intent. You were wrong.

 

[osaka35]

He clearly says there's no evidence that Clinton broke the law, intentionally or not. Don't be disingenuous and act like the quote I posted had anything to do with intent. You were wrong.

I'm confused. Why are you ignoring the quote I gave and the context it provides for yours? Or does your quote overwrite previous quotes from the same person? ooo or is your quote that individual correcting what they said previously?

 

[Lacius]

I'm confused. Why are you ignoring the quote I gave and the context it provides for yours? Or does your quote overwrite previous quotes from the same person? ooo or is your quote that individual correcting what they said previously?

It's that you havent provided a single piece of evidence from Comey or anyone else to suggest that Clinton broke any laws, intentionally or otherwise.

 

[el_gonz87]

I'm voting for Trump, because schools is this nation's backbone.

 

[osaka35]

It's that you havent provided a single piece of evidence from Comey or anyone else to suggest that Clinton broke any laws, intentionally or otherwise.

I'm not sure of your level of understanding of the law, so I'm not sure how I should word my response. You said they have found positive evidence that clears clinton's name completely (your first post I responded to). That is incorrect, which is what I've been trying to tell you. What they DID say is that the minimum amount of evidence to prove intent, which they need to proceed with prosecution of a former secretary of defense in this scenario, was not met (see my quote for them saying as much). At worst I'm being pedantic, but it's crucial in court cases to be precise and accurate in your wording.

 

[Lacius]

You said they have found positive evidence that clears clinton's name completely (your first post I responded to).

If you're going to lie about what I said, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

This is about America, Jesus, freedom.

Trump 2016, 'MERICA!

The last statement you made is basically a total antonym of the first three

 

[osaka35]

The original FBI investigation concluded that there's no evidence that Clinton ever broke any laws pertaining to her emails.

You said they have found positive evidence that clears clinton's name completely

If you're going to lie about what I said, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post.

I apologize. That was my mistake. You said "no evidence", whereas I thought you said "evidence that clinton didn't break any laws" as that seemed to be the basis for why you were arguing with me (I was agreeing with you in my original response, just pointing out a slight correction in language...then you seem to reject the very premise of what I was saying)

That being said,

Comey flatly said there is no evidence that Clinton broke any laws, and that's almost verbatim.

[Comey:] "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."

He also said no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case (because, as he said, there is no case).

[Comey:] "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."

Don't be disingenuous and act like the quote I posted had anything to do with intent

[Comey:]"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...All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

If you only want to look at your particular quote in isolation in order to say that Comey has never said, or never intended, that intent was the core of why she was not prosecuted, then there's little I can argue with you about.

That being said, they said they weren't able to find any direct evidence that she intentionally did things to obstruct anything. Just that she was really dumb for hosting classified information on her own server. She's a politician, so I doubt she would have been prosecuted even if they did find anything.

 

[Lacius]

snip

Nothing you posted is Comey saying there's evidence Clinton did anything illegal. Saying she was arguably negligent is not the same thing as saying she did anything illegal, and we know now that the evidence he was referring to wasn't even true. Contrary to what Comey thought he was talking about, Clinton did not send nor receive information properly marked as classified. In addition, you're ignoring the quote from Comey where he flat out says, "We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information."

Why are you even arguing this? You're objectively wrong.

 

[osaka35]

Nothing you posted is Comey saying there's evidence Clinton did anything illegal. Saying she was arguably negligent is not the same thing as saying she did anything illegal, and we know now that the evidence he was referring to wasn't even true. Contrary to what Comey thought he was talking about, Clinton did not send nor receive information properly marked as classified. In addition, you're ignoring the quote from Comey where he flat out says, "We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information."

Why are you even arguing this? You're objectively wrong.

I think you're missing something lol. that quote is not mutually exclusive to the idea that intent was the biggest reason why she didn't violate any of the statutes. She was secretary of defense. The statutes that apply to her are different than other people. Comey said as much. What did you think he was talking about? And AGAIN:

I would quibble that they couldn't find any evidence of intent, only evidence of recklessness (which they said would land a normal person in jail in a heartbeat). They did not say there's no evidence Just that they found no evidence of intent.

If you think I'm objectively wrong, I think you're not understanding the point I'm making. I was just trying to point out a quibble over the specifics, then you got all insulty.