Why wasn't Clinton fined for the private server.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

The last sentence is meaningless since it's true for every job ever. When I started as a defense contractor (not my job anymore), I needed to work there for a year to build up to the level where I wouldn't be fired on the spot for bringing my phone into class areas. My boss (employee of 30+ years) could be caught texting in class areas, and he wouldn't burn half of his yearly strikes.
 
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?


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

No one gave a fuck. Gee I wonder why
Click to expand...

I mean yeah, you have to take in to account the fact the way technology has advanced over the last decade or so when viewing these things side by side. I'm in no way defending any Republicans.
 
jehuty said:
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.
Click to expand...
He's also genuinely a pretty stupid guy hearing from people who have interacted with him.
 
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...

Aside from the fact that there isn't really an analogous situation for a low level government employee (are you trying to talk about a low level employee creating their own server for email?)... Yeah, heads of departments are treated differently and have different consequences for actions. That's kind of reality everywhere. Low level employees are almost always subject to more rules and less leeway in those rules, because you can just get another low level employee. Department heads, managers, and other high level employees have to make big decisions the low level ones will never have to.

A quick for example. In my current job I'm a manager. I can give free product to people depending on the situation. I can write it off for marketing or because I want to satisfy a bad review, etc. The low level employees can't give away thousands of dollars worth of product on a whim. That'd be ridiculous.
 
Not sure, but I find the woman to be intelligent enough to understand that the word email is both singular and plural... She says 'emails' like she doesn't know any better. Really grinds my gears.
 
RDreamer said:
Aside from the fact that there isn't really an analogous situation for a low level government employee (are you trying to talk about a low level employee creating their own server for email?)... Yeah, heads of departments are treated differently and have different consequences for actions. That's kind of reality everywhere. Low level employees are almost always subject to more rules and less leeway in those rules, because you can just get another low level employee. Department heads, managers, and other high level employees have to make big decisions the low level ones will never have to.

A quick for example. In my current job I'm a manager. I can give free product to people depending on the situation. I can write it off for marketing or because I want to satisfy a bad review, etc. The low level employees can't give away thousands of dollars worth of product on a whim. That'd be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
My main point is that she messed up out of technological ignorance. It didn't appear to be malicious intent but that doesn't completely absolve her from mistakes.
 
Amir0x said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, you silly. His don't count! He was being sarcastic.
 
RustyNails said:
Because Hillary Clinton did not break any law or rules.

CvF7M1HUkAEaWoD.jpg


The stupid media couldnt wait to jump on the complex story and turned it into a scandal.

Read what happened here: http://electionado.com/canvas/1471731044335
Click to expand...
The surprising thing about all this is that you'll find a lot of people who'd vehemently disagree if you said that 1) propaganda is effective and 2) that it is very prevalent in the US.
 
Her intent behind the email server was fucking disgusting (To avoid FOIA).

But evidence has yet to support she broke anything more than maybe administrative rules.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
My main point is that she messed up out of technological ignorance. It didn't appear to be malicious intent but that doesn't completely absolve her from mistakes.
Click to expand...

I'm just not sure what you would want to do with her then? Do we really expect our politicians to not have some technological ignorance? We're fining them now because of that? She doesn't even have that job anymore!
 
Why would you arbitrarily fine someone just to sate some misguided and mistaken need for justice?

The FBI and the GOP have spent more than a year and a half litigating Clinton for having a private e-mail server and in the end she was found to not have broken any laws.

We don't fine people just because someone thinks they deserve it.
 
Because the US Justice System doesn't make decisions based off how many people are chanting "Lock her up!".

(it sometimes has historically, but I'd like to think we're striving to move past that)
 
RDreamer said:
I'm just not sure what you would want to do with her then? Do we really expect our politicians to not have some technological ignorance? We're fining them now because of that? She doesn't even have that job anymore!
Click to expand...

I never advocated for a fine, I was merely pointing out that its a half truth to say she did nothing wrong.
 
Gallbaro said:
Her intent behind the email server was fucking disgusting (To avoid FOIA).

But evidence has yet to support she broke anything more than maybe administrative rules.
Click to expand...

Are we sure that was her intent? Because she complied with literally the first FOIA request on the server.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine if her server was compromised and her emails intercepted, a fine would make sense.

There wasn't a whole inquiry because she broke the law, it was to make sure she didn't accidently leak confidential information to the public. Which would have been problematic.
 
Can someone explain this email scandal?

I've tried researching it on my own but it just doesn't make sense.

I'm yielding results that vary from "Clinton killed people!" "Clinton deleted the evidence!" "She deleted 33,000 emails!" "She belongs in federal prison!"

None of it makes a lick of sense to me.
 
Spinluck said:
Can someone explain this email scandal?

I've tried researching it on my own but it just doesn't make sense.

I'm yielding results that vary from "Clinton killed people!" "Clinton deleted the evidence!" "She deleted 33,000 emails!" "She belongs in federal prison!"

None of it makes a lick of sense to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to try and explain it but the email thing is getting combined with the Benghazi incident where a couple people died.
 
The ignorance excuse is funny.

She knew what she was doing. She didn't break the law, of course. But she wasn't playing within the rules of the game on the straight and narrow.
 
Spinluck said:
Can someone explain this email scandal?

I've tried researching it on my own but it just doesn't make sense.

I'm yielding results that vary from "Clinton killed people!" "Clinton deleted the evidence!" "She deleted 33,000 emails!" "She belongs in federal prison!"

None of it makes a lick of sense to me.
Click to expand...
Clinton used private server when she was Secretary of State instead of using the government-mandated one, which is concerning for security reasons.
 
Lebron said:
When you provide such thought provoking information like this, it's hard to top. Cut him some slack.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that being a Clinton means that you get away with stuff instead of being unbelievably scrutinized for every tiny little thing clearly doesn't live in anything resembling the real world. Cut him some slack.
 
Gallbaro said:
Her intent behind the email server was fucking disgusting (To avoid FOIA).

But evidence has yet to support she broke anything more than maybe administrative rules.
Click to expand...
No, that was Colin Powell. There's no evidence that Clinton did it for that reason or gave a fuck about what he was selling.

Hillary just wanted to be able to read them on her BlackBerry which she could with a private server but not otherwise. Still shouldn't have done it but by all indications that was her reasoning.
 
Gallbaro said:
Her intent behind the email server was fucking disgusting (To avoid FOIA).

But evidence has yet to support she broke anything more than maybe administrative rules.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it her written intent that she had the server set up so that she could get her emails on her mobile device?

Why, after decades of public service amd having tomdeal with FOIA requests, would Clinton suddenly give a shit?
 
Squalor said:
The ignorance excuse is funny.

She knew what she was doing. She didn't break the law, of course. But she wasn't playing within the rules of the game on the straight and narrow.
Click to expand...

What'a wrong with hosting your own server?

It's not like it was a secret and she complied with FOIA.
 
Spinluck said:
Can someone explain this email scandal?

I've tried researching it on my own but it just doesn't make sense.

I'm yielding results that vary from "Clinton killed people!" "Clinton deleted the evidence!" "She deleted 33,000 emails!" "She belongs in federal prison!"

None of it makes a lick of sense to me.
Click to expand...
Clibton used a private email server instead of a .gov.

Said email got attacked unsuccessfully, then a conservative group FIOA'd the emails and Republicans launched an investigation and got the FBI to investigate whether Clinton broke the law.

The FBI found there were incorrectly marked classified emails on her server, but none were placed there malciiously, and Clinton authored few to none of them, and took part in few of the chains. They would have ended up on her .gov email adress which was non secure as well.

Now, Comey put forward a letter saying he was reopening the investigation because of emails found on Huma's laptop may be related.
 
The punishment for such an action would normally be revocation of top secret clearance. Of course, since she's running for president she has to have intelligence briefings. And as President she can't have her top secret clearance taken away.
 
Spinluck said:
Can someone explain this email scandal?

I've tried researching it on my own but it just doesn't make sense.

I'm yielding results that vary from "Clinton killed people!" "Clinton deleted the evidence!" "She deleted 33,000 emails!" "She belongs in federal prison!"

None of it makes a lick of sense to me.
Click to expand...
Grab a cup of hot chocolate and read through this. It cuts all through the spin bullshit.

http://electionado.com/canvas/1476838502215

Make sure you cover parts B to F.
 
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