"You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."
I am going full copy and paste, with the PolitiFact analysis of this accusation that Donald Trump directed at Hillary Clinton during the second debate between the presidential candidates of 2016. Everything enclosed within square brackets is "me." So "strap in"—as Steve Bannon famously said just before "January 6"—and look for the "bold taste" of boldface.
The FBI concluded that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted over her decision to conduct State Department business exclusively over a private email server, but Donald Trump pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter if he becomes president.
At the second debate between the two presidential nominees, Trump criticized Clinton for turning over half her emails held on her server to the State Department and deleting the rest. He said Clinton should be "ashamed" of herself for deleting 33,000 emails.
"There has never been anything like this," Trump said at the October 9 event in St. Louis. "You get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."
Clinton and her campaign don’t dispute that she deleted these 33,000 emails. They argue that these were personal in nature, rather than work-related, and therefore were not necessary to turn over.
However, they have denied that they deleted the emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015. But an August 2016 FBI report on its investigation shows that Trump’s claim has some merit.
Let’s take a look at the timeline of relevant events, according to the FBI report:
Clinton serves her last day as secretary of state. (February 1, 2013.)
The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city. (July 23, 2014.)
The State Department sends an official letter to Clinton’s staff requesting "emails related to their government work." Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, and aide Cheryl Mills oversaw the review of Clinton’s email archives to produce work-related documents to the department. (October 28, 2014.)
Clinton’s team provides 55,000 pages of emails, or about 30,000 individual emails, to the State Department. Mills tells an employee at Platte River Networks, which managed the server, that Clinton does not need to retain any emails older than 60 days. (December 5, 2014.)
The New York Times breaks the story that Clinton used a personal email account while secretary of state. (March 2, 2015.)
The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit. (Between March 25-31, 2015.)
Clinton’s lawyers send a letter to the Benghazi committee saying that the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the December 5, 2014, turnover. (March 27, 2015.)
Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.
However, the implication—that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny—is unprovable if not flat wrong.
The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned [that] no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.
Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."
Trump said, "You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."
Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later.
The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests. Clinton’s team requested for the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena came. They also argued that all the emails that would be relevant to the subpoena had already been turned over to the State Department.
We rate Trump’s claim [only] Half True. [It's true that 33,000 emails were deleted. But there's nothing that supports the implication that the 33,000 emails were deleted because Hillary Clinton did not want to comply with the subpoena from the "Benghazi" committee.]
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-26-2023).]
You aren't really interested in actual convictions, just your bullshit narrative.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
Yes. Micahael Cohen went to prison for using these funds to influence the election. Even though Trump was not the one convicted it is proof that he is a liar and a con man.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-27-2023).]
Originally posted by fredtoast: This is getting kind of strange. Since you never used the word "understand" in any of your posts why would you ask me if I knew the meaning of the word.
Then you try to accuse me of "playing games" but you won't say what game I am playing. The ONLY way to accuse someone of "playing games" is by exposing the game.
So what game am I playing?
If I didn't fall for it the first time, or the second, why would I fall for your third attempt ?
I know, but I don't really care. You were not the one given the authority and the information to investigate the issue, and you don't have the legal knowledge to make a decision on it.
If I didn't fall for it the first time, or the second, why would I fall for your third attempt ?
There is nothing to "fall for". There is no game. You are just refusing to answer a question because it will make you look really stupid.
So don't answer the question. Just explain what it is you won't fall for? If you don't explain it then I say it does not exist, and you can not prove me wrong.
Picking up where Jake_Dragon left off: I am going full copy and paste, with the PolitiFact analysis of this accusation that Donald Trump directed at Hillary Clinton during the second debate between the presidential candidates of 2016. Everything enclosed within square brackets is "me." So "strap in"—as Steve Bannon famously said just before "January 6"—and look for the "bold taste" of boldface.
The FBI concluded that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted over her decision to conduct State Department business exclusively over a private email server, but Donald Trump pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter if he becomes president.
At the second debate between the two presidential nominees, Trump criticized Clinton for turning over half her emails held on her server to the State Department and deleting the rest. He said Clinton should be "ashamed" of herself for deleting 33,000 emails.
"There has never been anything like this," Trump said at the October 9 event in St. Louis. "You get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."
Clinton and her campaign don’t dispute that she deleted these 33,000 emails. They argue that these were personal in nature, rather than work-related, and therefore were not necessary to turn over.
However, they have denied that they deleted the emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015. But an August 2016 FBI report on its investigation shows that Trump’s claim has some merit.
Let’s take a look at the timeline of relevant events, according to the FBI report:
Clinton serves her last day as secretary of state. (February 1, 2013.)
The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city. (July 23, 2014.)
The State Department sends an official letter to Clinton’s staff requesting "emails related to their government work." Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, and aide Cheryl Mills oversaw the review of Clinton’s email archives to produce work-related documents to the department. (October 28, 2014.)
Clinton’s team provides 55,000 pages of emails, or about 30,000 individual emails, to the State Department. Mills tells an employee at Platte River Networks, which managed the server, that Clinton does not need to retain any emails older than 60 days. (December 5, 2014.)
The New York Times breaks the story that Clinton used a personal email account while secretary of state. (March 2, 2015.)
The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit. (Between March 25-31, 2015.)
Clinton’s lawyers send a letter to the Benghazi committee saying that the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the December 5, 2014, turnover. (March 27, 2015.)
Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.
However, the implication—that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny—is unprovable if not flat wrong.
The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned [that] no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.
Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."
Trump said, "You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."
Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later.
The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests. Clinton’s team requested for the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena came. They also argued that all the emails that would be relevant to the subpoena had already been turned over to the State Department.
We rate Trump’s claim [only] Half True. [It's true that 33,000 emails were deleted. But there's nothing that supports the implication that the 33,000 emails were deleted because Hillary Clinton did not want to comply with the subpoena from the "Benghazi" committee.]
Nice post rinse.
A question that wasn't answered in the posting is this.
Were the instructions to delete the emails in writing, or was it verbal?
Is there documentation, or just verbal testimony concerning the " Oh, I just forgot to delete the emails."
If it was documented, could it have been documented 'after the fact'?
You aren't really interested in actual convictions, just your bullshit narrative.
well the rump will be CON-VICTED SOON ON SOME OF THE 91 AND GROWING LIST those will prove very very important to the nation's future
BUT WILL YOU EVER DISCUSS OR DEBATE OR JUST INSULT I do note that style is close to how the rump runs his governments with an added unneeded regressive religious influences
once again no one in government top to bottom should ever be immune to any law under any circumstance the very idea is corrupt
A question that wasn't answered in the posting is this.
Were the instructions to delete the emails in writing, or was it verbal?
Is there documentation, or just verbal testimony concerning the " Oh, I just forgot to delete the emails."
If it was documented, could it have been documented 'after the fact'?
"Oh, I forgot" seems awfully convenient.....
I think the main point is that when the deleted emails were recovered and analyzed there was nothing there that indicated they would have been intentionally deleted to hide evidence of wrongdoing.
So all the questions about "when", "how", and "to whom" the instructions were given don't really matter. "Why" is the important question, and the evidence shows it was not for illegal purposes.
I think the main point is that when the deleted emails were recovered and analyzed there was nothing there that indicated they would have been intentionally deleted to hide evidence of wrongdoing.
So all the questions about "when", "how", and "to whom" the instructions were given don't really matter. "Why" is the important question, and the evidence shows it was not for illegal purposes.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: PROBLEM --> EMOTION --> JUDGMENT --> REASON
There is zero "emotion" in my argument. All I did was refer to the results of the official investigation.
The people who are controlled by emotion are the ones reject the evidence found in the investigation. They claim that they "know" Hillary was guilty of criminal behavior even thought the official investigation found evidence to the contrary. These people only "know" things based on their political beliefs. They ignore the results of the investigation and claim she is guilty because they are controlled by emotion instead of reason.
Originally posted by fredtoast: There is nothing to "fall for". There is no game. You are just refusing to answer a question because it will make you look really stupid.
No, answering it or not answering it will not make me look stupid. You can not prove me wrong.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: So don't answer the question. Just explain what it is you won't fall for? If you don't explain it then I say it does not exist, and you can not prove me wrong.
There is no game. You are just running away.
I am not running away or playing this game either.
Originally posted by fredtoast: They claim that they "know" Hillary was guilty of criminal behavior even thought the official investigation found evidence to the contrary.
Actually, they admitted 100% that Hillary was guilty of a multitude of crimes; however, they stated that they wouldn't convict because of intent.
Let me know if you'd like me to grab the link to the YouTube video for you...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Actually, they admitted 100% that Hillary was guilty of a multitude of crimes; however, they stated that they wouldn't convict because of intent. Let me know if you'd like me to grab the link to the YouTube video for you...
A fair summary of the two current federal cases against Donald Trump is that Donald Trump committed felony federal crimes, and that the DOJ, in the person of Special Counsel Jack Smith, seeks to convict Donald Trump because the DOJ is confident that Jack Smith has the evidence and the arguments to convince a jury in each case that Donald Trump's criminal intent is beyond any reasonable doubt.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Actually, they admitted 100% that Hillary was guilty of a multitude of crimes;.
No they didn't. They said she was negligent. There is no "crime" without "criminal intent" (mens rea).
That is why everyone who has a car wreck is not charged with the crime of vandalism for property damage or assault for personal injury. Negligence is not a crime.
Originally posted by rinselberg: A fair summary of the two current federal cases against Donald Trump is that Donald Trump committed felony federal crimes, and that the DOJ, in the person of Special Counsel Jack Smith, seeks to convict Donald Trump because the DOJ is confident that Jack Smith has the evidence and the arguments to convince a jury in each case that Donald Trump's criminal intent is beyond any reasonable doubt.
Do you ever proof read ? Read what you said again.
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: Signing an agreement to not do something then doing it is not negligence. Being stupid is not a crime but you still have to face the consequences.
Many would argue that one consequence for Hillary Clinton was losing a presidential election which many pollsters predicted her winning right up until Election Day, and an election in which she received more popular votes for president than her opponent, and an election which went against her by a relatively few number of popular votes in certain key "electoral" districts... the Electoral College "thing."
Many would connect that with FBI Director James Comey's decision to go public with a new "Clinton emails" investigation just days before Election Day.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Do you ever proof read? Read what you said again.
It was a reaction to 82-T/A, when he said "intent", when he was talking about Hillary Clinton's emails and why (or how) there was not a decision to indict her.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]
It was a reaction to 82-T/A, when he said "intent", when he was talking about Hillary Clinton's emails and why (or how) there was not a decision to indict her.
It is a single sentence consisting of 68 words and three commas, which includes Jack Smith twice and Donald Trump no less than three times.
We should have a contest to see who can say the same thing with the fewest words.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 08-28-2023).]
It was a reaction to 82-T/A, when he said "intent", when he was talking about Hillary Clinton's emails and why (or how) there was not a decision to indict her.
We know what the intent was... and it was illicit (intentionally subvert security protocols for personal benefit)... but they chose not to recognize it.
We know what the intent was... and it was illicit (intentionally subvert security protocols for personal benefit)... but they chose not to recognize it.
You're not speaking for me. I don't know that Hillary Clinton intentionally subverted any security protocols. There was a history of laxness about this at the State Department that predates Hillary Clinton's first day in office as the Secretary of State.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-28-2023).]
Many would argue that one consequence for Hillary Clinton was losing a presidential election which many pollsters predicted her winning right up until Election Day, and an election in which she received more popular votes for president than her opponent, and an election which went against her by a relatively few number of popular votes in certain key "electoral" districts... the Electoral College "thing."
If our country is to be ruled by social media instead of in front of a judge and 12 peers then we are truly lost. I want her to have her day in court then to face the consequences of the law not Karen over on face book. For the alphabet departments to do their job without prejudice and follow the law.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Many would connect that with FBI Director James Comey's decision to go public with a new "Clinton emails" investigation just days before Election Day.
Would have been nice if they would have done the same thing for a certain birth certificate and laptop...
Originally posted by rinselberg: Many would argue that one consequence for Hillary Clinton was losing a presidential election which many pollsters predicted her winning right up until Election Day, and an election in which she received more popular votes for president than her opponent, and an election which went against her by a relatively few number of popular votes in certain key "electoral" districts... the Electoral College "thing."
You can sure pack a lot into a single sentence.
Who gives a zhit about the popular votes of the entire nation. The Electoral College "thing" ? Inserted for a reason. To prevent mob rule.
You're not speaking for me. I don't know that Hillary Clinton intentionally subverted any security protocols. There was a history of laxness about this at the State Department that predates Hillary Clinton's first day in office as the Secretary of State.
Nope. Every employee with a clearance is required to go through at least ~10 security and safety training classes, most of which are an hour each. There's a test at the end, and all of this is so that legal (OIG) has your confirmation that you understand your requirements.
Having lived in the White House under the Clinton administration, Hillary clearly understands how classified documents are to be handled. Hillary asked Abedeen (sp?) and her other aides to routinely take pictures, and / or print off classified documents and re-scan them into her own personal server where they were e-mailed to her PRIVATE smart phone.
During that time, she already had access to a classified smart phone that was provided to her by the state department. Hillary stated that she didn't want to have to carry two phones, so she had her own personal phone and had Huma send her classified documents to it.
The allegation is that Hillary did not want her communications monitored. Every government device has a banner at the top that says, "USE OF THIS IS CONSTITUTES A CONSENT TO MONITORING." This banner has been on government devices since as far back as the late 80s... but seemed to really spook the Obama administration (and Hillary).
Serious answer, "yes". There are very few strict liability criminal laws. An overwhelming majority require mens rea.
I have tried multiple murder cases, and every single one of them was about the level of intent. I never tried to argue in any of them that my client did not kill someone. The entire defense was based on "intent".
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-29-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: We know what the intent was... and it was illicit (intentionally subvert security protocols for personal benefit)... but they chose not to recognize it.
PROBLEM --> EMOTION --> JUDGMENT --> REASON
Actually, by disagreeing with the results of the official investigation you are proving that you are ruled by emotion instead of reason.
So please tell us exactly what personal benefits Hilary got from handling this information they way she did. The fact that she did NOT benefit from it is one of the main reasons they determined there was no criminal intent.
Are you claiming to be omniscient? If so how would you prove it in a court of law?
Leftists gotta Leftist ....especially when they're trying to dance the "Mens Rea Macarena"
I see that you do not understand how a trial works. the jury is asked to deduce the accused intent based on the actions he took. There are no mind readers involved.
Always glad to educate you all on how the system works.
Yes it can absolutely can be negligence. It happens all the time.
if your business accidently ships out a case of #6 nails instead of #8 nails there has been no crime committed. It is simply negligence.
You can not "accidently" use a private email to send protected information. That is a decision you make. Its not an accident.
And if we are going there, what the **** IT management company does not keep backups. That's bull **** . Alphabet department is not doing the job they were hired/sworn in for.
Actually, by disagreeing with the results of the official investigation you are proving that you are ruled by emotion instead of reason.
So please tell us exactly what personal benefits Hilary got from handling this information they way she did. The fact that she did NOT benefit from it is one of the main reasons they determined there was no criminal intent.
Are you claiming to be omniscient? If so how would you prove it in a court of law?
If I brought even a SINGLE classified document home, it would show up in my polygraph (which she was not required to take), where I would then have to spend a long weekend in interrogation by a special agent for the organization I'd be working for, and finally ... I'd end up in jail at the end of the weekend. Even just a... "oh man, sorry..." and I didn't immediately self-report it (let alone get BUSTED for it), would lead to me losing my job.
quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
You can not "accidently" use a private email to send protected information. That is a decision you make. Its not an accident.
This is the problem with narrative-political news. None of these people have any idea how any of this works, so people look to the news (of which is majority left-leaning) to seek their opinions. It's like the blind leading the blind... and the administration (whatever political ideology it is at the time) understands this... and uses it to their advantage.
You can not "accidently" use a private email to send protected information. That is a decision you make. Its not an accident.
You can if it is not marked "classified"
Also you can accidently use the wrong email. I have different phone numbers and emails for personal and business use. there have been times when I meant o send something from my business email but used my personal one instead.
Information that's classified... is still classified, regardless of whether or not you properly mark a document or not. It doesn't become unclassified because you don't tell someone it is... it just means you're mishandling classified information.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast: Also you can accidently use the wrong email. I have different phone numbers and emails for personal and business use. there have been times when I meant o send something from my business email but used my personal one instead.
Classified systems, and internet connected systems, do not share the same network. As part of security policy, these systems are kept separate... intentionally. To have a classified document on an unclassified system, is called a "spillage." They are rare, and there's a very drawn-out process for doing this.
The way classified documents ended up on Hillary's unclassified phone and e-mail server is because she demanded her aides read classified documents on a classified system, and then hand-transcribe them onto unclassified e-mail so she could get them on her phone. In some cases, they took screen shots of classified documents which were texted and e-mailed. And in some really eggregious cases... they printed out classified documents and then scanned them into an unclassified (personal) scanner.
Classification portion-marking is something that happens BY the user... it's not automatic.
(U) This is an example of an unclassified sentence.
Classification headers though ARE automated... the e-mail system looks at the portion marking, and then applies the portion mark at the header and footer and asks the user to confirm. This is for all office documents, and e-mail documents.
Getting classified information on an unclassified environment happens only in extreme accidental cases. But more than once or twice is absolutely VERY intentional.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-29-2023).]
Getting classified information on an unclassified environment happens only in extreme accidental cases. But more than once or twice is absolutely VERY intentional.
Well it only happened 3 times, and here is how Comey explained it.
In fact, he said, three emails on Clinton's server had a paragraph "summariz[ing] something" and included a C in parentheses at the beginning of it, indicating the paragraph contained information "classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification."
But those paragraphs were "down in the body" of the emails, and "none of the emails had headers at the top of the document that said it's classified," Comey said. Because of the improper absence of such headers, it "would be ... reasonable" for Clinton to think the emails did not contain classified information, or she may have missed the C markings buried in the tens of thousands of other emails exchanged, he acknowledged.
Well it only happened 3 times, and here is how Comey explained it.
In fact, he said, three emails on Clinton's server had a paragraph "summariz[ing] something" and included a C in parentheses at the beginning of it, indicating the paragraph contained information "classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification."
But those paragraphs were "down in the body" of the emails, and "none of the emails had headers at the top of the document that said it's classified," Comey said. Because of the improper absence of such headers, it "would be ... reasonable" for Clinton to think the emails did not contain classified information, or she may have missed the C markings buried in the tens of thousands of other emails exchanged, he acknowledged.
As someone that has been handling PHI, required to do yearly training, keep an active security clearance and sign more NDAs than I care for. I'm going to go with BULL ****
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ....Hillary asked Abedeen (sp?) and her other aides to routinely take pictures, and / or print off classified documents and re-scan them into her own personal server where they were e-mailed to her PRIVATE smart phone.
YUP..and THAT, as we both know, is the act of someone that clearly understands classified documents handling and storage procedures and is acting in an obvious manner to circumvent those procedures.
In 2003 ANOTHER CLINTONITE, Sandy Berger, removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector who discovered them to try to retrieve them.
There is a very long and sordid history of this sort of criminal behavior on the Left.
Leftists gotta Leftist
A certain hillbilly "lawyer" will be here very soon to tell everyone about mens rea again.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-29-2023).]
