Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet there were no investigations into the 87 deaths that occurred on their watch.
http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187
This is a "both sides do it" false equivalency. Both sides do not do this. When Democrats abuse the power of government to undermine a presidential candidate from the opposing party, I will gladly criticize them for it. As it is, this is a discussion about the FBI investigation in the private server and email use of Clinton, not "I-know-Republicans-are-behaving-badly-but-what-about-Democrats?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/30/us/1992-campaign-democrats-gore-says-bush-s-efforts-befriend-iraqi-leader-led-gulf.html
I mean I guess this isn't the same in terms of the candidate already being president, but it's pretty damn similar. And we ARE discussing the FBI investigation, yet you decided to go the defensive route and mention Powell and Rice's Benghazi that was never criticized (allegedly). So which is it? What are we discussing? Or are you throwing darts at a board to see what sticks?
In other words, it is completely acceptable for Republicans to abuse the House oversight powers for partisan political purposes, so long as the effects are negligible? Got it.
In the case of Clinton, her private server and email use is itself the scandal. There is no evidence of malfeasance, and she has not broken any laws. Yet, the coverage and interest is completely lopsided. [/B]
The very fact that there's an FBI investigate implies that she may have broken privacy/confidential laws. It's not all a "smear" campaign simply because you want it to be just that.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Source this because up to this point the only thing they have verified is that nothing was MARKED. If emails are deemed to have sensitive material on them they don't appear spontaneously, they have to be sent and or received. Before the FBI stepped in it was all word smithing to dance around the subject."In January, the State Department said it had come across 22 emails from Clinton's private account that had to be upgraded to "Top Secret," which means the emails were completely withheld from being publicly released along with the rest of her emails."
"The Office of the Inspector General for the State Department recently confirmed in a Memo that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent emails with classified information in them through her private email account without marking them as classified."
Just Google:
OIG confirms Clinton sent classified emails through private account
When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if another agency believes its public release could be potentially harmful.
The Inspectors General have proffered that a small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings or dissemination controls, should now be classified.
While the State Department disagrees with that assessment, the Inspectors General have made a security referral, which is not criminal in nature, and the the Department of Justice is investigating the storage of materials related to her email account only.
😂
More bad news for your gal, Adam.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
The deaths aren't in question. Or at least not in my question. It's the use of personal emails. And it's not the same thing that Powell and Rice did. This helps explain the difference.http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187
It is not the same thing, it is worse.
Powell used an AOL email address hosted on a unsecured third party server to conduct official White House business and then deleted emails of which he is required by federal law to keep a record.
Clinton emailed government officials at their government email addresses, ensuring that her work emails would be immediately captured and preserved by the State Department email system, which is why they already had a record of more than 90% of her emails before she submitted the hard copies to them.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/30/us/1992-campaign-democrats-gore-says-bush-s-efforts-befriend-iraqi-leader-led-gulf.htmlI mean I guess this isn't the same in terms of the candidate already being president, but it's pretty damn similar. And we ARE discussing the FBI investigation, yet you decided to go the defensive route and mention Powell and Rice's Benghazi that was never criticized (allegedly). So which is it? What are we discussing? Or are you throwing darts at a board to see what sticks?
The subject of this thread is the use of a private server and email by Clinton as Secretary of State. Germain to that discussion is the fact that both of her predecessors did the same thing and neither was investigated. Tangentially, Clinton was also investigated for deaths that resulted from an embassy attack while she was Secretary of State, even though neither of her predecessors were, despite there being many more attacks resulting in many more deaths during their respective terms. Do you see a pattern developing here? Are you living a conscious life?
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
I appreciate the strawman, really. But lets not discuss the abuse of powers because it's not like the Republicans have the Democrats beat. You're free to argue your leftist point but if you want to point out the abuse on the right, I'll match you with abuse on the left, *** for tat.
You cannot even match it now.
Originally posted by Pwn N00bs
The very fact that there's an FBI investigate implies that she may have broken privacy/confidential laws. It's not all a "smear" campaign simply because you want it to be just that.
That there is an FBI investigation is to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety since she served in the sitting administration.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not the same thing, it is worse.Powell used an AOL email address hosted on a unsecured third party server to conduct official White House business and then deleted emails of which he is required by federal law to keep a record.
Clinton emailed government officials at their government email addresses, ensuring that her work emails would be immediately captured and preserved by the State Department email system, which is why they already had a record of more than 90% of her emails before she submitted the hard copies to them.
The subject of this thread is the use of a private server and email by Clinton as Secretary of State. Germain to that discussion is the fact that both of her predecessors did the same thing and neither was investigated. Tangentially, Clinton was also investigated for deaths that resulted from an embassy attack while she was Secretary of State, even though neither of her predecessors were, despite there being many more attacks resulting in many more deaths during their respective terms. Do you see a pattern developing here? Are you living a conscious life?
You cannot even match it now.
That there is an FBI investigation is to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety since she served in the sitting administration.
Read the law and just shut up
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3105.pdf
"§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
The head of each Federal agency shall notify
the Archivist of any actual, impending, or
threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alter
ation, or destruction of records in the custody of
the agency of which he is the head that shall
come to his attention, and with the assistance of
the Archivist shall initiate action through the
Attorney General for the recovery of records he
knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully
removed from his agency, or from another
Federal agency whose records have been transferred
to his legal custody. In any case in which
the head of the agency does not initiate an action
for such recovery or other redress within a
reasonable period of time after being notified of
any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request
the Attorney General to initiate such an
action, and shall notify the Congress when such
a request has been made.
(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1298; Pub.
L. 98–497, title I, §107(b)(21), title II, §2
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
😂More bad news for your gal, Adam.
You really need to learn to read the article before you post:
"A department spokesman said it is standard practice to allow a law enforcement agency to first complete its work before any parallel investigation is done. Trudeau called the move announced today a prudent 'procedural matter.'
In March the FBI responded to a formal inquiry from the State Department about how it should proceed with its internal review. It recommended that the State Department follow standard practice and put its investigation on hold."
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Read the law and just shut uphttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3105.pdf
"§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
The head of each Federal agency shall notify
the Archivist of any actual, impending, or
threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alter
ation, or destruction of records in the custody of
the agency of which he is the head that shall
come to his attention, and with the assistance of
the Archivist shall initiate action through the
Attorney General for the recovery of records he
knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully
removed from his agency, or from another
Federal agency whose records have been transferred
to his legal custody. In any case in which
the head of the agency does not initiate an action
for such recovery or other redress within a
reasonable period of time after being notified of
any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request
the Attorney General to initiate such an
action, and shall notify the Congress when such
a request has been made.
(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1298; Pub.
L. 98–497, title I, §107(b)(21), title II, §2
You need to shut up until you are better informed. She did not destroy any records. There are both hard and soft copies. You would know that if had bothered to research before forming an opinion.
The subject of this thread is the use of a private server and email by Clinton as Secretary of State. Germain to that discussion is the fact that both of her predecessors did the same thing and neither was investigated. Tangentially, Clinton was also investigated for deaths that resulted from an embassy attack while she was Secretary of State, even though neither of her predecessors were, despite there being many more attacks resulting in many more deaths during their respective terms. Do you see a pattern developing here? Are you living a conscious life?
You cannot even match it now.
That there is an FBI investigation is to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety since she served in the sitting administration.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You need to shut up until you are better informed. She did not destroy any records. There are both hard and soft copies. You would know that if had bothered to research before forming an opinion.
You really don't get it, when she gets indicted, then it will sink in to your thick skull.
How about I let Rudy read you what she did. Maybe you can listen to some reason from someone else besides this forum.
YouTube video
You engage in double standards when it suits your right wing ideology, Adam does the same with his left wing ideology, and we get a pissing match until the thread is closed.
Seriously, who cares if she gets indicted or not? If she does it's because of the merits of the case, not some right wing smear campaign or conspiracy. If she doesn't, it's because there was no case, not because she's in bed with anyone.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This coming from the guy who said he does not care if politicians flip flop. Quit acting like some self righteous person Smith.👆
Nope, I don't care if politicians flip flop. Otherwise you get a moron like Cruz who's "sticking to his guns" with his outdated philosophies. The same goes for Sanders to a lesser extent. What I call changing your mind about a particular subject as time goes on, you call flip flopping. That's funny. And this isn't about self righteous, it's about the amusement of the majority looking dumb trying to vigorously defend their political ideology.
What she did was wrong, and its about time she paid for her sins.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Where does it say you are allowed to conduct state business on a un secured, non government private server in a un secured location, and send and receive top secret and Special access program information on it?
Where does it say there's ample proof of what she's being accused of. Until the investigation is complete, it's conjecture.