FBI: Clinton "never deleted, nor did she instruct anyone to delete, her e-mail"
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
No they're not. This is arguably the most boring, toothless, and substanceless "scandal" in history. And considering we just came off of BENGHAZI!, that's saying something.
The first time the FBI released it, they did so because, according to Comey, he wanted to cover his ass in case people started to yell at him for failing to charge Hillary (which, people went on to do anyway). If you want to take a more cynical view, Comey was playing politics since that whole press conference thing has never been done before on any other case.
The second time around, Hillary herself actually requested the FBI release the full report.
And finally, can I just say that even Comey himself, after laying out all of Hillary's fuckups STILL said that nothing she did was something that would necessarily disqualify her from continuing to run or work in the State department, let alone run for president?
Seriously, if he can't even bring himself to disqualify Hillary, how can anyone else?
neurosisxeno
Member
The Clinton E-mail server only became an issue when it was revealed during the Benghazi investigation #12 or whatever insane number it was. It's just a continuation of Benghazi--which was originally just a witch hunt for any high level Democrats. People forget, it was originally investigated so thoroughly by Republicans because they wanted to pin it on Obama. After a few stabs at that they started digging through the State Department and began making Hillary testify once every few months to try and get some new information that could hurt Democrats going into 2014 and 2016.
Anyone who claims to be a Liberal or even a Moderate should know exactly what this is, a witch hunt that has evolved into legitimate character assassination against Hillary Clinton. This has been investigated a dozen or so times now, and several organizations have given her a pass saying it may have been careless, but it wasn't criminal. Somehow doing exactly what her predecessor had done--but in a less sleazy way in fact--and taking responsibility for her mistakes and the mishandlings that occurred shows an unacceptable lack of judgment?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Which goes back to the whole issue of personality. Obama is a likable person so they couldn't pin Benghazi on him. They then take the exact same issue and try to pin it on Clinton and it's more effective because she is not as likable.
They tried to pull the same thing with the Iran ransom story and Obama shook it off as well. I doubt Clinton would have been anywhere near as effective in the same situation. Obama just has a way of both chastising and educating the media on these alleged scandals that Clinton does not.
neurosisxeno
Member
Not really. It was a confusing event from an intelligence standpoint, and there wasn't a single figure who was responsible for what happened. The closest thing Clinton came to "accepting responsibility" for Benghazi was saying many times she wishes there was more she could have done--but in reality there really wasn't anything she could have done.
old manatee
Banned
Clinton really needs to get out ahead of this email thing.
Both the FBI and news media have acknowledged the "extraordinary public interest" regarding this story
FBI (initial public statement):
Associated Press:
Comey essentially said she would have been put on leave or fired:
gutter_trash
Banned
the 24h news media royally screwed her over
This is confirmation bias at its finest, something Fox specializes in. Politicize and report something, then cite that reporting as public interest.
And no the fired part is purely your inference, probably built on talking heads spewing the same point to drum up controversy. If you don't think Comey would have clearly stated she should have lost her job, you ain't been paying attention.
1. The FBI acknowledged the public interest. Additionally, according to Fortune (citing an Associated Press poll), "Half of Americans — 50 percent — now consider Clinton’s emails to be a major problem, up from one-third who said that in October 2015."
2.
Transcript of testimony
No he didn't. He said there would be a variety of possible punishments, and that which one could not be decided because FBI processes do not apply to people who are not employees of the FBI.
So in order of seriousness from least to most, Comey said the possible punishments for an employee of the FBI would be:
Reprimand: A slap on the wrist.
Suspension: You don't get to come in to work for a while.
Loss of clearance: You don't get to access classified information any more.
Termination: You're fired.
And there would be a process the FBI would follow to determine which punishment would apply, but that process cannot be used on Clinton, since she is not an employee of the FBI.
So you know no smart people that are tech inept? There are tons of them. Most sensitive info that lawyers deal with are on literal documents and word of mouth rather than cpu info.
These are some really bizarre, pointless, and needless distinctions you are drawing here.
For one thing, Comey said that there are "often very severe consequences" in cases like these:
So if Hillary was an FBI agent, she would more than likely incur "very severe consequences." And I think a reasonable person would interpret that as being fired in most cases.
Also, I don't know why you're trying to draw a distinction between the mishandling of classified information of an FBI agent and that of a State Department official. The point (and implication) is that the mishandling of classified information at the top level of government is often met with serious consequences.
And it's reasonable to infer that the same would go for the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, or any other executive department. To suggest that the consequences between an FBI agent and a State Department official would be fundamentally different is extremely unreasonable. Do you not think each department (Department of Justice and State) treats the seriousness of classified information equally?
Furthermore, the State Department Inspector General cited a former State Department employee who they felt served as the best example of how the process would work:
He's conduct more closely resembled that of Clinton's (and he didn't even have a private server) and he "resigned' once his conduct was revealed.
With all that said, I think it's reasonable to assume that she would have been suspended or more than likely fired.
"involving their pay, involving their clearances." I don't hear "termination in most cases". His words.
In any case, it all depends on the output of the FBI process, the result of which Comey will not speculate on because:
1. it is a hypothetical, and
2. it doesn't even apply to her since these are all administrative remedies and she's
a. no longer a government employee, and
b. even if she was, she did not report to the FBI, and
c. she's not reapplying to a job at the FBI, she's running for President, which does not require a security clearance -- if she wins, access is automatic.
And? What's your point? That there is "public interest" doesn't mean that there was actual criminal wrongdoing, or even serious noncriminal wrongdoing, involved. The public can and have convicted innocent people on the basis of public opinion in the past. "Public interest" is not an unimpeachable force, especially when the issues involve complicated security and IT issues that the public wouldn't have a clue about.
So either you are arguing in bad faith or you are illiterate. "Administrative sanctions", in government (or even high level corporate) talk, boils down to a sternly written letter and a slap on the wrist.
ebullientprism
Member
This is absolutely hilarious. 
dapperbandit
Banned
It doesn't matter whether she specifically instructed anyone to do anything when you have bits like this on CNN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwiMjLX_ABQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwiMjLX_ABQ
1. What do you think "involving their employment" means? He said very severe consequences "involving their employment, involving their pay, involving their clearances."
2.
This speaks to the "range" that he (and you) spoke of earlier....which demonstrates that you clearly don't understand. Yes, he spoke of a "range." But did he mean that he didn't have a good idea of where on the range the appropriate consequences would be? No. Did he have to spell out the fact that the consequences would be on the "higher" end of the discipline spectrum? One would think that her actions would be serious enough to warrant more than just a strongly-worded letter instructing her not to do it again. The fact that that wasn't obvious -- and that you even mentioned the possibility of a mere reprimand (in the context of this discussion) -- just demonstrates to me how unreasonable you are being.
Having said that, what do you presume "very severe consequences" "on the higher end of the discipline spectrum" means?
I already addressed your point that "she's not in the FBI". Also, I have (and always have) been referring to disciplinary actions against Hillary as Secretary of State. Not as a presidential nominee. Not as a former government official. Not as an FBI agent. But as Secretary of State.
And even forgetting about the FBI for a moment, I already showed you what the State Department thought was an appropriate case to liken to Hillary. Once again, the department initiated disciplinary action against him, and he "resigned".
Again, coupled with 1) the example of a guy resigning (fired) for doing what Clinton did, 2) Comey saying that a person at the FBI would probably be subjected to a "higher end" of discipline involving very severe consequences, and 3) the fact that all departments likely treat the mishandling of classified information equally, it is -- again -- reasonable to conclude that Clinton, as Secretary of State, would have been fired.
My bad. I somehow missed that part of the quote. I withdraw the point.
Fair enough.
There wasn't any criminal wrongdoing, but I think it's arguable whether or not there wasn't any "serious" noncriminal wrongdoing. It was serious enough for both the Inspector General and the FBI to imply that a person could be fired for what she did.
Mimic, as a semi-casual, semi-serious political follower, I'll give my own take here. I'm doing this because as far as criticizing Hillary goes, you're far above the average in terms of actually forming your arguments by citing your sources and making accusations. You substantiate your criticisms with facts and that's good.
If people are responding in a defensive manner to HC, then know it's less that she is unassailable in the eyes of many, but because the bullshit outnumbers the legitimate criticism by a factor of about 100 to 1. The media has been dragging her name through the mud for over 25 years at this point, and while she has legitimate fucks ups to her name, most of that is hot garbage that don't go about their methodology in nearly as meticulous method as you. There's sexism, which actually isn't limited to people who literally say "I don't like her because she's a woman". Sexism is a pervasive cultural poison, and even the average person who believes themselves not to be sexist will, in a test, criticize a woman more and credit her achievements less. So when people say it's sexism, it's a pretty big issue. The flip side of that is Republican's hate campaign, which will do anything they need to see HC fail.
It's not unreasonable for people who don't desire a Trump future, or even merely give HC a fair assessment, to be extra critical of accusations against her. When there is so much BS surrounding her, it's only reasonable to take extra steps to make sure stuff checks out. Which, again, why I say that your accusations are fair because they're thoroughly researched.
That said, in all that time, nothing anyone has ever posted has convinced me that HC would make any less of a qualified president for it. This email scandal, you can argue that it has a measure of carelessness on her part, no doubt due to her ineptitude with technology, says nothing about her character being malicious or incompetent in such a way that she would not be able to do her job in making policies, protecting the nation, or promoting positive changes in America. Like, this email scandal, even if we agree that she was careless, between that this obviously will never happen again and that no one can prove not only any definitive harm nor can they prove any potential harm that could have come from it (since we don't know if the emails in question were a threat to national security) and the fact that this is basically something that everyone does anyway.... I don't disagree that it was a fuck up and maybe she even escaped consequences that others would have not been able to, but if this is the height of the corruption that Clinton sits in, then I just find it hard to care. No one was hurt, it might be that no one could have even been hurt, and the person in question remains both a well qualified and well intentioned.
And while we can remove context to try and analyze Hillary Clinton's character, we cannot FORGET about the context that we live in, which is that she is running for Donald Trump. I know you've said before that you agree that she is the lesser of two evils, but if you do agree to that, at some point, all the criticisms you have against her simply don't matter. Like, yes, we get it, she isn't perfect, maybe even severely imperfect, but she'd have to be preparing to orchestrate the next holocaust to even compete with Trump.
In light of Trump, really, who gives a fuck?
If people are responding in a defensive manner to HC, then know it's less that she is unassailable in the eyes of many, but because the bullshit outnumbers the legitimate criticism by a factor of about 100 to 1. The media has been dragging her name through the mud for over 25 years at this point, and while she has legitimate fucks ups to her name, most of that is hot garbage that don't go about their methodology in nearly as meticulous method as you. There's sexism, which actually isn't limited to people who literally say "I don't like her because she's a woman". Sexism is a pervasive cultural poison, and even the average person who believes themselves not to be sexist will, in a test, criticize a woman more and credit her achievements less. So when people say it's sexism, it's a pretty big issue. The flip side of that is Republican's hate campaign, which will do anything they need to see HC fail.
It's not unreasonable for people who don't desire a Trump future, or even merely give HC a fair assessment, to be extra critical of accusations against her. When there is so much BS surrounding her, it's only reasonable to take extra steps to make sure stuff checks out. Which, again, why I say that your accusations are fair because they're thoroughly researched.
That said, in all that time, nothing anyone has ever posted has convinced me that HC would make any less of a qualified president for it. This email scandal, you can argue that it has a measure of carelessness on her part, no doubt due to her ineptitude with technology, says nothing about her character being malicious or incompetent in such a way that she would not be able to do her job in making policies, protecting the nation, or promoting positive changes in America. Like, this email scandal, even if we agree that she was careless, between that this obviously will never happen again and that no one can prove not only any definitive harm nor can they prove any potential harm that could have come from it (since we don't know if the emails in question were a threat to national security) and the fact that this is basically something that everyone does anyway.... I don't disagree that it was a fuck up and maybe she even escaped consequences that others would have not been able to, but if this is the height of the corruption that Clinton sits in, then I just find it hard to care. No one was hurt, it might be that no one could have even been hurt, and the person in question remains both a well qualified and well intentioned.
And while we can remove context to try and analyze Hillary Clinton's character, we cannot FORGET about the context that we live in, which is that she is running for Donald Trump. I know you've said before that you agree that she is the lesser of two evils, but if you do agree to that, at some point, all the criticisms you have against her simply don't matter. Like, yes, we get it, she isn't perfect, maybe even severely imperfect, but she'd have to be preparing to orchestrate the next holocaust to even compete with Trump.
In light of Trump, really, who gives a fuck?
Veelk: I really appreciate your comments. Yes, I ultimately do consider Hillary as the lesser (and I wouldn't die of Hillary were president). She'd definitely make a qualified, competent president, but I am more considered about her judgment....and these sorts of things (combined with others) really bother me.
Do I think she's a crook? No. Do I think she's evil? No. Do I think she skirts the rules? Sometimes. Do I have a trust issue with her? Yes. Mostly on her "promises", and the fact that we have this shady business with her and her emails just makes me question her even more. Also, when she claimed not to be a politician, that was almost a red flag to me (with flashing lights and a siren). It said to me that I have to scrutinize her to death because that's a clear attempt to co-opt this anti-establishment movement. She's already presenting a fake persona.....and I'm not cool with that. So everything she does and says I'm wary about.
With that said, Trump's mess may outweigh anything Hillary has ever done, but that goes without saying. He's automatically disqualified. Still, I'm very bothered by Hillary. And her constant shady business doesn't help.
(I can hear them coming)
Do I think she's a crook? No. Do I think she's evil? No. Do I think she skirts the rules? Sometimes. Do I have a trust issue with her? Yes. Mostly on her "promises", and the fact that we have this shady business with her and her emails just makes me question her even more. Also, when she claimed not to be a politician, that was almost a red flag to me (with flashing lights and a siren). It said to me that I have to scrutinize her to death because that's a clear attempt to co-opt this anti-establishment movement. She's already presenting a fake persona.....and I'm not cool with that. So everything she does and says I'm wary about.
With that said, Trump's mess may outweigh anything Hillary has ever done, but that goes without saying. He's automatically disqualified. Still, I'm very bothered by Hillary. And her constant shady business doesn't help.
(I can hear them coming)
Melkezadek
Member
Very well said.
Didn't Clinton associates wipe her server after it was under FBI subpoena? That would be Obstruction of Justice if any of us did that.
The only supposed reason Clinton was not charged is that the FBI could not prove "evil intent" for sending and receiving Classified information. Many, many crimes were committed, at the very least Federal Records Act violations, and Clinton got a pass because she "doesn't know" why politically damaging emails were deleted.
You don't have to give an inch, because someone being above the law in America should not be ok and people should be protesting this.
Melkezadek
Member
A statement of fact when no one can know all of the facts is absurd. Clinton had the motive to hide those emails and they disappeared.
Melkezadek
Member
It's IN the documents. If there was even a shred of evidence to the contrary, do you really think that would be left unchecked by the FBI?
Like, I just don't understand how people think they know something the FBI does not. If there were any evidence of them trying to obstruct the investigation, you best believe there was be a massive issue.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Veelk, when you aren't savaging Zack Snyder and BvS, you say some pretty good things.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
It's IN the documents. If there was even a shred of evidence to the contrary, do you really think that would be left unchecked by the FBI?
Like, I just don't understand how people think they know something the FBI does not. If there were any evidence of them trying to obstruct the investigation, you best believe there was be a massive problem.
Bruh, that's a Trump supporter you're responding to. You know what kind of "news" sites he most likely frequents, or what his facebook timeline looks like?
Melkezadek
Member
Thanks for the heads up, had no idea. Forgot that some still exist on here. It'll save me the time.
Honestly, all of the points have been argued to death. There really isn't any more to discuss.
TestOfTide
Banned
MIMIC, you say you have "trust" issues with Hillary. Well inevitably I have to ask, what would, for you personally, she need to do to regain your trust?
I only ask because so far in this campaign, the only thing I can think of that she did which can understandably make you not trust her is when she blatantly took one of Comey's comments out of context to make her look better.
Other then that she has, in this campaign:
- Made her first campaign speech about how we need criminal justice reform
- Given a realistic way of transitioning to cleaner energy
- Spoken about how she plans to boost our economy out of the anemia of our recovery by doing a "New Deal" style investment.
- Spoken about how one of her first things to attempt in office will be the immigration reform we desperately need.
- Brought up the growing problem known as the Alt-Right.
- Reached out across the aisle to make the Democrats' "Big Tent" include even moderate GOP voters.
- Said how she wants to expand Obamacare by adding a public option, expanding Medicare and Medicaid, and adding new regulations against the pharmaceutical industry.
- Given platform to the "Mothers of the Movement" to show how serious she is about Black Lives Matter.
- Chose a running mate that everyone doubted at first but soon learned is a very likable guy.
- Made sure to explain that her focus on who she chooses for SCOTUS is in undoing the damage done by the Citizens United case.
- Apologized (and not in the BS way that Trump "apologized") about her use of a private email server and actually took responsibility for it.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Now obviously a lot of that stuff will be hard without Democrats taking back both houses of congress, but I want to hear from you what she could do as President to regain your trust as well as what she can do right now, before she becomes president, to regain your trust.
I only ask because so far in this campaign, the only thing I can think of that she did which can understandably make you not trust her is when she blatantly took one of Comey's comments out of context to make her look better.
Other then that she has, in this campaign:
- Made her first campaign speech about how we need criminal justice reform
- Given a realistic way of transitioning to cleaner energy
- Spoken about how she plans to boost our economy out of the anemia of our recovery by doing a "New Deal" style investment.
- Spoken about how one of her first things to attempt in office will be the immigration reform we desperately need.
- Brought up the growing problem known as the Alt-Right.
- Reached out across the aisle to make the Democrats' "Big Tent" include even moderate GOP voters.
- Said how she wants to expand Obamacare by adding a public option, expanding Medicare and Medicaid, and adding new regulations against the pharmaceutical industry.
- Given platform to the "Mothers of the Movement" to show how serious she is about Black Lives Matter.
- Chose a running mate that everyone doubted at first but soon learned is a very likable guy.
- Made sure to explain that her focus on who she chooses for SCOTUS is in undoing the damage done by the Citizens United case.
- Apologized (and not in the BS way that Trump "apologized") about her use of a private email server and actually took responsibility for it.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Now obviously a lot of that stuff will be hard without Democrats taking back both houses of congress, but I want to hear from you what she could do as President to regain your trust as well as what she can do right now, before she becomes president, to regain your trust.
This thread seems to be winding down but I'll post anyway and just this once, thank the right wing. I was kinda ambivalent towards HRC. Thankfully conservatives stepped up their smear machine and I got my flashbacks to the nineties all the hate thrown at her then (and her kid)
The media played right along with their "BOTH SIDES!" nonsense so I got to learn about her anti-segregation work. I got to hear about how the awful, corrupt Clinton foundation is a top rated charity that spends millions on sick kids. I got to be reminded of her voting history and how she wanted universal health care twenty years before. This email "scandal" was throughly gone over twice and it was fucking nothing. Hillary Clinton will probably go down as the most vetted candidate in history. I'll be delighted to vote for her.
The media played right along with their "BOTH SIDES!" nonsense so I got to learn about her anti-segregation work. I got to hear about how the awful, corrupt Clinton foundation is a top rated charity that spends millions on sick kids. I got to be reminded of her voting history and how she wanted universal health care twenty years before. This email "scandal" was throughly gone over twice and it was fucking nothing. Hillary Clinton will probably go down as the most vetted candidate in history. I'll be delighted to vote for her.
No, that's an inference you're making based on his comments. The most straightforward, face-value read of his comment is that he is simply referring to departmental differences in policy. FBI has their policy and and other government bodies have their own. It's got nothing to do with level of government, since even the EPA can have access to Secret/Top Secret material, for example.
I think you're assuming a lot about how well coordinated the government is.
If his conduct involved a _commercial_ email account as the passage suggests, it's rather fundamentally different than setting up a standalone, private email server.
Oh please, this shit needs to end. Not everything is sexism. It doesn't matter one god damn who the Democratic candidate is, the Right would be going apeshit over whatever they could find on him/her. Being a Clinton certainly doesn't help.
Anyone who doesn't have trust issues....sorry, "trust" issues with the vast majority of politicians is kidding themselves. Hillary Clinton is no exception. Did you seriously just list a bunch of campaign promises as reasons why Clinton should be trusted? Is this your first presidential election?
So Hillary continuing her political goals is just a campaign promise now.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Civil_Rights
Oh ok.
And she was called untrustworthy as an unelected official when she was pushing for healthcare as the first lady. You can't be this naive to think sexism doesn't play a part. Everyone can and probably is sexist to an extent, whether they like it or know it.
I guess it's not sexism that causes people who claimed Hillay was not progressive enough to say Biden was a good alternative?
And those people were all over GAF during the primary.
Hillary Clinton is pure establishment corruption and it is fucking hilarious to watch the sheep keep on drinking the Kool-aid to defend her just because she is a democrat. Don't get me wrong though, as the alternative is Donald Trump. God damn, ship me to Norway and let me out.
excelsiorlef
Member
Lol yes sheep and you're the enlightened shepherd
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
WAKE UP SHILLARY SHEEPLE
A shepherd? LOL, no. I just don't ignore all of the available information. This is not some football game or us vs them. Hillary is more of the same failed policies and corruption and Trump is a reality show. America is FUCKED. Period.
Scandinavia is the way.
excelsiorlef
Member
Sure you do.
You ignore everything that shows that Clinton has a sold legislative record in favour of she's corrupt to the core and wicked.
Aaronology
Member
"Establishment" is not an insult or a slur. Please show receipts for this alleged corruption.
Sure I do, what? The lady is as establishment and as corrupt as it gets. Ignore that at your own peril. But then the alternative is Bozo the clown. Give me true DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM all day, every day. Again, Scandinavia is the the way.
Melkezadek
Member
There is no way this isn't a parody post.
Raiden1018
Banned
This country...
- Status