Why wasn't Clinton fined for the private server.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Proelite

Proelite

Member
Seems like the proper punishment and would have brought some closure. Mishandling of sensitive info without malicious intent is a fineable offense.

Did the FBI have an interest in dragging out as long as they can?
 
Maybe because she didn't break the law.

Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton break 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.
Click to expand...
 
Proelite said:
Seems like the proper punishment and would have brought some closure. Mishandling of sensitive info without malicious intent is a fineable offense.

Did the FBI have an interest in dragging out as long as they can?
Click to expand...

Can you point to other instances where the user was fined?

How much of the Bush administration that used the gwb43.com server were fined?

You sound like a legal expert here, so I really am curious.
 
You can't demand punishment just because you think someone did something bad. It has to be proven.

For Clinton's server, there simply wasn't a case.
 
See, in the United States (freedom land), if you have lots of money, there is very little obligation to obey the law, even when you are a politician. The US is so free that you don't even have to understand how law or email works to become President.

Not a Trump supporter either..
 
You can't create arbitrary punishments because you want the appearance of fairness or to quell dissent. You must prove something is wrong and against the law. There is no mechanism in place to fine someone for not breaking any laws and just being "careless."

Sorry the law isn't more insane I guess?
 
Proelite said:
Which doesn't benefit her in this case. Getting a fine would have been a much better outcome than an inconclusive and still ongoing investigation.
Click to expand...

The investigation was neither inconclusive or ongoing. The only reason there's new news on it this weak is because Jim Comey sent a deliberately misleading letter to the press about the FBI's investigation into Anthony Weiner's Weiner.
 
I think we should also fine her for the superpredator comment, if we're just gonna fine people for stuff that we don't like, instead of for breaking laws. Also, the Nancy Reagan/AIDS comment is probably fine-worthy.
 
Proelite said:
I was under the impression that she or her staff inadvertently or retroatively broke some laws. I haven't been following this much though.
Click to expand...
She broke internal State Department record keeping policies, but did not violate any laws to any sort of persecutable extent. She had classified emails on her server, but there is broad disagreement between the State Department and FBI what is classified anyhow. Even if there was agreement, attempting legal against against her would have been unprecedented.
 
maquiladora said:
Maybe because she didn't break the law.
Click to expand...
This ^

Dragnet said:
This.
Click to expand...
Not this ^


Any questions?
ZIcgTyb6.jpg
 
maquiladora said:
Maybe because she didn't break the law.
Click to expand...

That is a half truth though. Yes it was determined there was no provable malicious intent, but that doesn't exempt her from breaking the rules out of pure ignorance. If I was a low level government employee doing the same thing I'd likely have been fired.
 
There's no evidence to make any sort charge stick. The FBI director knows this and chooses not to completely destroy his career trying to take it to court. Instead he chooses to describe the actions as extremely careless so as to do the most damage to Hillary possible, and stop there. It's obviously all about optics for partisan purposes rather than substance.
 
Juneau Joe said:
I think we should also fine her for the superpredator comment, if we're just gonna fine people for stuff that we don't like, instead of for breaking laws. Also, the Nancy Reagan/AIDS comment is probably fine-worthy.
Click to expand...

Well in that case *heaves suitcase filled with documents on the table* we might as well get started on the one zillion fucked up things Trump said this season. We'll fund the federal government for a year off the fines.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
That is a half truth though. Yes it was determined there was no malicious intent, but that doesn't exempt her from breaking the rules out of pure ignorance. If I was a low level government employee doing the same thing I'd likely have been fired.
Click to expand...

Well low level employees get fired for smallest reasons anywhere haha.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
That is a half truth though. Yes it was determined there was no provable malicious intent, but that doesn't exempt her from breaking the rules out of pure ignorance. If I was a low level government employee doing the same thing I'd likely have been fired.
Click to expand...

Fire her from what? She was no longer SoS when this came out.
 
The narrative that she broke the law is pretty incredible. It's stuck like glue and most people just assume she did something illegal and got away with it.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
That is a half truth though. Yes it was determined there was no provable malicious intent, but that doesn't exempt her from breaking the rules out of pure ignorance. If I was a low level government employee doing the same thing I'd likely have been fired.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have been prosecuted because you wouldn't have broken the law, and if your situation were analogous to Hillary's, you wouldn't have been fired because you already quit.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
That is a half truth though. Yes it was determined there was no provable malicious intent, but that doesn't exempt her from breaking the rules out of pure ignorance. If I was a low level government employee doing the same thing I'd likely have been fired.
Click to expand...

Half-truth? What law was broken?
 
diablos991 said:
Security clearance also gets revoked when being wreckless with classified..... for normal folk.
Click to expand...

This is definitely true. If someone else started using their personal email to conduct business on government systems as a regular occurrence they'd definitely be fined, and probably lose their clearance (though you can't directly email SIPR from outside).
 
Hollywood Duo said:
That is a half truth though. Yes it was determined there was no provable malicious intent, but that doesn't exempt her from breaking the rules out of pure ignorance. If I was a low level government employee doing the same thing I'd likely have been fired.
Click to expand...

Rice and Powell should be investigated too. Don't say her running for presidency means we can write that fact off.

Powell also told her to use one.

So what do we do now besides fail our own purity test?


Oh yeah, too bad the Bush administration shredded their emails and produced nothing when asked.

No one gave a fuck. Gee I wonder why
 
AlphaDump said:
Rice and Powell should be investigated too. Don't say her running for presidency means we can write that fact off.

Powell also told her to use one.

So what do we do now besides fail our own purity test?
Click to expand...

Investigate them as well.
Classified is classified for a reason.

Just becaus FOIA makes a politician a sad panda doesn't mean they get to put our national security at risk.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
That is a half truth though. Yes it was determined there was no provable malicious intent, but that doesn't exempt her from breaking the rules out of pure ignorance. If I was a low level government employee doing the same thing I'd likely have been fired.
Click to expand...

I've seen lots of discussion on this, and from people I talk to, the internal punishment depends on the intent. Lots of people have accidently had classified info end up in their private emails, see everyone else at the State Department who the chains went through.

I can't imagine I'd face any sort of severe punishment if around a hundred classified emails from hundreds of thousands ended up on my account and all were from large chains with me authoring none of the chains. It's a moot point anyways. You certainly wound have been fined, which is what the thread was about.
 
Our governor in Alabama north (Wisconsin) Scott Walker had both a private email client and during his initial run for governor, had county staff campaign for him on the clock (while working their Milwaukee county government jobs). Both are illegal, and yet nothing happened to Scott Walker in regards to it. Not a fine, not even being publicly shamed (as has happened to Hilary. If nothing happened to him, it's only fair nothing should happen to her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Likes now private on X, formerly Twitter
2
54
3K
DeepEnigma replied
  • Locked
Why doesn't the boss close down this place??
34
1K
EviLore replied
why do cats talk like people?
24
1K
Badlucktroll replied
  • Locked
Why Is Suicide So Stigmatized?
2
68
3K
ThisIsMyDog replied
Brian Cox explains the Fermi Paradox (why we have not yet seen evidence of intelligent alien life)
2
68
3K
GloveSlap replied
Top Bottom