NYT, MSNBC, CNN: Hillary broke the law
#41
(03-05-2015, 12:24 PM)Snail Wrote:
(03-05-2015, 11:59 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Gen. David Petraeus just pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor on Tuesday to one federal charge of removing and retaining classified information as part of a plea deal. Hillary did the exact same thing by conducting all her official business on a private email account and using her own private server. Her server is just that, a private server, it is not a government server. So will too be charged as Petraeus? Now if you believe the state dept, in all her time as Sec of State Hillary never once sent or received any classified material on her email account. Anyone believe that? How could she do her job if that is true? She had the highest security clearance as you can get.

She has had all her emails subpenaed by the House select committee on Benghazi. It is a felony that as prohibits from ever holding pubic office if convicted, if a person "willfully and unlawfully conceals or destroys such records". Seven different Congressional committees have subpenaed her emails and none have received her emails as requested. Pretty sure that falls under conceals and if she deletes emails from her server or the server "fails" like they tried to claim at the IRS she is destroying.

So will Hillary be held accountable?

Did Hillary give sensitive and classified information to anyone not authorized to have it? That is what Petraeus did. You are comparing two very different things SFL. Even you must know that there is a big difference between using a private email account and giving classified information, including the identity of field agents and covert activities to your mistress right?

I see you have a hard time sticking to facts and prefer innuendo and smears when you discuss politics. Your attempt to pre-convict Hillary of a crime is more of the same old bullshit from people on the far right.

Petraeus plead guilty to retaining classified information, not giving information to anyone. The same thing Hillary has done by using her own personal server to store sensitive government emails and documents.

You are ignoring the fact that not only did Hillary use a private email account to conduct all her official business, she used her own server to store these emails..

There was been several Freedom of Information Act requests regarding Hillary and the State Dept. The way it is supposed to work when getting those requests is the government then goes to the servers and recovers the emails and documents, weeds out the ones that don't apply, and then hands over the pertinent ones over to the person(s) submitting the FOIA requests. Now in Hilliary's case. They are on her personal server. In Hilliary's case she would go on to her server, decide on her own what applies and what doesn't, and then theoretically hand what she deems appropriate to those with the FOIA requests. That's not how it is supposed to work. There is no accountability and in her case a judge had ordered some of those emails be handed and the deadline passed months ago and she has failed to produce the emails. And if she holds back, conceals or destroys incriminating emails or documents she is committing a felony and can not hold public office. But who would know because only she has control of the server with the emails and documents?
Reply
#42
(03-05-2015, 12:31 PM)Scrapper Wrote:
(03-05-2015, 10:28 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: I am not registered with either party.

That means nothing. Many people aren't. The difference is that you spew all of the right wing's bullshit.

And all you spew is far left wing bullshit. Your point?

[Image: 2a3859066b486279a007e46e10f8a777c9ca9d8e...ef3c01.jpg]
Reply
#43
Current law allows authorities to search emails that are more than 180 days old without a warrant. This includes any backup that may be at the severs not just the ones in your mail box. If the server backs up their files and you delete an e-mail afterwards. after 180 days they can get the info from the back up (you don't have the ability to delete the backed up files)

So I'm sure they can get Hillary's e-mail , without a warrant.
Reply
#44
(03-05-2015, 12:31 PM)Scrapper Wrote:
(03-05-2015, 10:28 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: I am not registered with either party.

That means nothing. Many people aren't. The difference is that you spew all of the right wing's bullshit.

Exhibit #1 your honor
Reply
#45
(03-05-2015, 04:03 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(03-05-2015, 12:31 PM)Scrapper Wrote:
(03-05-2015, 10:28 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: I am not registered with either party.

That means nothing. Many people aren't. The difference is that you spew all of the right wing's bullshit.

And all you spew is far left wing bullshit. Your point?

[Image: 2a3859066b486279a007e46e10f8a777c9ca9d8e...ef3c01.jpg]
Not true. I totally believe in my husband's right to responsibly bear arms.
Reply
#46
Quote:18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 101 - RECORDS AND REPORTS
Sec. 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, §552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§234, 235 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§128, 129, 35 Stat. 1111, 1112).

Section consolidates sections 234 and 235 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

Reference in subsection (a) to intent to steal was omitted as covered by section 641 of this title.

Minor changes were made in phraseology.
Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $2,000” in subsecs. (a) and (b).

1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–510 inserted at end “As used in this subsection, the term ‘office’ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Section 552(b) of Pub. L. 101–510 provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall be effective as of January 1, 1989.”
Reply
#47
This is pure Clinton. They might be the most corrupt family in America.

Quote:Hillary Clinton’s Brother Landed Lucrative Gold-Mining Permit in Haiti After Bill Clinton Helped Country Recover From Earthquake Devastation

Book due out in May describes alleged sweetheart deal that netted VCS Mining a gold concession that hadn't been issued to anyone in 50 years
Tony Rodham, Mrs. Clinton's brother, sat on the company's board
Another board member co-chaired a relief effort with former President Bill Clinton following a devastating 2010 earthquake
'Clinton Cash' is the latest from Peter Schweizer, who turned heads in 2011 with an expose about insider trading by members of Congress

By David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com

Published: 13:02 EST, 6 March 2015 | Updated: 15:09 EST, 6 March 2015


An unusual nexus of mining interests, relief work in Haiti, and a former U.S. first family is raising new ethics questions that could affect Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions.

Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, was a board member of a North Carolina mining company that enjoyed prime access to Haitian gold deposits in the wake of post-earthquake relief work organized in part by former president Bill Clinton through the Clinton Foundation.

Another board member of the firm, VCS Mining, was former Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive, who co-chaired the charitable Interim Haiti Recovery Commission with Mr. Clinton.

The revelation, smacking of cronyism and back-room government dealing, is part of a forthcoming book by Government Accountability Institute founder Peter Schweizer, whose work exposing the investment 'insider trading' habits of members of Congress caused national outrage in 2011 even though the practice was legal.



Tony Rodham, brother of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, sat on the board of a company that landed a gold mining deal in Haiti after Bill and Hillary Clinton directed millions into post-earthquake relief

Breitbart News first reported on the investigative nonfiction book's coming release.

The January 2010 Haiti earthquake killed more than 100,000 people and affected more than 3 million. That disaster was followed nine months later by a cholera epidemic of historic proportions.

The Clinton Foundation raised at least $36 million to help, according to its website.

The Obama administration pledged $3.6 billion. 'Much of the U.S. assistance is provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development,' a department of the State Department that Mrs. Clinton led at the time, according to the department's website.

Rodham's company got its gold mining rights in December 2012, according to the VCS press release.

Schweizer's publisher, HarperCollins, said in a press release Thursday that it 'reveals how the Clintons went from "dead broke" on leaving the White House to being millionaires, describing in detail the way in which the Clintons habitually blur the lines between politics, philanthropy, and business.'

The Clintons' family philanthropy came under fire in February for admitting it had accepted money directly from foreign governments including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

Some of those donations came while Mrs. Clinton was the U.S. secretary of state.

Breitbart reported that the terms of Rodham's gold windfall upset members of Haiti's senate: The government's royalties under the deal were pegged at just 2.5 per cent, half the customary rate. And VCS mining has an option to renew the terms for 25 years.


HarperCollins executive editor Adam Bellow, son of the famed novelist Saul Bellow, said in a statement that in Schweizer's book, he 'coins a new term to describe the unique way in which Bill and Hillary tend to mingle their political, personal and philanthropic interests.'

He calls it 'the Clinton Blur.'

'Schweizer’s exhaustively researched book raises serious questions about the sources of the Clintons' sudden wealth, their ethical judgment, and Hillary's fitness for high public office,' Bellow added.

Mrs. Clinton was America's first lady and a U.S. shuhenator before losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama in 2008 and joining his administration the following year.

In addition to howls from the political right about her foundation's role in attracting donors from among countries with whom she negotiated – $500,000 of the Clinton Foundation's Haiti donations came from the Algerian government, for example – she is under fire for using a private email address run on her own server, during her years at the State Department.

She never had a 'state.gov' address. Instead she ran her professional and personal emails through her own Internet domain, 'clintonemails.com,' creating ethical and possibly legal issues because of the possibility that the State Department has not archived all her messages.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z3Tj3A88ck
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Reply
#48
Quote:Democrats are worried. And liberal pundits, perhaps guilty about ignoring that race card that Obama shoved down Hillary's throat in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, are rushing to her defense and blaming Republicans.
Yet outside Washington, some Americans, even Democrats, think that the public should know what's going on in their government.
Obama, himself a Democrat, even campaigned on this idea in 2008, telling Americans that transparency in government was vital to defeat the cynicism born in the broken politics of our past.
But then that business of the IRS squeezing political groups that didn't agree with Obama got in the way, and that transparency stuff was forgotten.
While troublesome for government, this "people's right to know" meme is quite radical but consistent with the law as it's commonly understood.
It follows then, naturally, that the Clintons will have to change the common understanding. They've done it before.
There are plenty of egg suckers to wag their tails and pound their keyboards and tweet that it's not really a scandal after all. It just happened. Email is like sex. Everybody does it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum...olumn.html
Reply
#49
Quote:The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt reported that, as secretary of state, Hillary did not preserve her official correspondence on a government server and exclusively used a private email account. She used a private server linked to her Chappaqua home, only turning over cherry-picked messages in December at the State Department’s request.
Given the paranoid/legalese perspective that permeates Clintonland, this made sense: It’s hard to request emails from an account you don’t know exists. And your own server can shield you from subpoenas and other requests. If you want records from the Clinton server, you have to fight for them. Clinton Inc. can tough it out and even make stuff disappear.
Schmidt’s scoop followed The Wall Street Journal revelation that at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department when Hillary was in charge had funneled more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Certainly, Hillary wants a lot of control. She has spent a lifetime cleaning up messes sparked by her overweening desire for control and her often out-of-control mate. She always feared that her emails could become fodder for critics, and now they have.
Everyone is looking for signs in how Hillary approaches 2016 to see if she’s learned lessons from past trouble. But the minute this story broke, she went back to the bunker, even though she had known for months that the Republicans knew about the account. The usual hatchets — Philippe Reines, David Brock, Lanny Davis and Sidney Blumenthal — got busy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinio....html?_r=0
Reply
#50
The idiot is a pathological liar who thinks the American people are stupid. Where have we head this before?

Quote:“The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports,” Obama told CBS’ Bill Plante, in response to a question of when the president learned of Clinton’s use of a private email account for conducting government business.
Reply
#51
So now there have been some 50 responses to this thread about Hillary.

SF Lib, it makes me wonder? You post the faults of those you don't support, and seldom if ever post in praise of those you champion.

So why not go positive for a change and see if you can convert some of the commie pink liberal progressives to your cause?

'Cause this stuff gets tedious.
Reply
#52
(03-08-2015, 05:28 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: So now there have been some 50 responses to this thread about Hillary.

SF Lib, it makes me wonder? You post the faults of those you don't support, and seldom if ever post in praise of those you champion.

So why not go positive for a change and see if you can convert some of the commie pink liberal progressives to your cause?

'Cause this stuff gets tedious.

There is nothing positive about to say about what s/he "champions". The only thing s/he can do is post bullsh*t and lies about those s/he doesn't support.
Reply
#53
(03-08-2015, 05:28 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: So now there have been some 50 responses to this thread about Hillary.

SF Lib, it makes me wonder? You post the faults of those you don't support, and seldom if ever post in praise of those you champion.

So why not go positive for a change and see if you can convert some of the commie pink liberal progressives to your cause?

'Cause this stuff gets tedious.

I know the truth hurts Wonky. It's sometimes tedious and painful, but it needs to be revealed.

Don't you get tired of Obama looking you directly in the face and flat out lying? Don't you get sick of the Clinton's lying, concealing, and flat out breaking the law to line their pockets with cash? You want the truth? Don't you think that you deserve better? The follow the money..... the Clinton Foundation money and who gave it and when. The answers are more than likely on Hillary's email server at he New York home. That's is if the server backup tapes haven't suffered an IRS-like failure.

I'm glad that reporter asked Obama when he first discovered Hillary was using a personal email account for ALL her state dept correspondence. Unfortunately he didn't follow up with an even more important question. "How did you and Hillary communicate during her four years as Sec of State?" I'd like to know he would have answered that question.
Reply
#54
(03-08-2015, 05:42 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(03-08-2015, 05:28 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: So now there have been some 50 responses to this thread about Hillary.

SF Lib, it makes me wonder? You post the faults of those you don't support, and seldom if ever post in praise of those you champion.

So why not go positive for a change and see if you can convert some of the commie pink liberal progressives to your cause?

'Cause this stuff gets tedious.

I know the truth hurts Wonky. It's sometimes tedious and painful, but it needs to be revealed.

Don't you get tired of Obama looking you directly in the face and flat out lying? Don't you get sick of the Clinton's lying, concealing, and flat out breaking the law to line their pockets with cash? You want the truth? Don't you think that you deserve better? The follow the money..... the Clinton Foundation money and who gave it and when. The answers are more than likely on Hillary's email server at he New York home. That's is if the server backup tapes haven't suffered an IRS-like failure.

I'm glad that reporter asked Obama when he first discovered Hillary was using a personal email account for ALL her state dept correspondence. Unfortunately he didn't follow up with an even more important question. "How did you and Hillary communicate during her four years as Sec of State?" I'd like to know he would have answered that question.

You just flat out ignored my post.
I'm used to be marginalized but this is beyond the pale.
All I ask was that you start a thread touting the achievements of the those you admire rather than CONSTANTLY blasting the "other side".
Your conduct here is reactionary, and that doesn't get us anywhere.
So, spread the good news about the values you see in the leaders of the things you admire.
Who knows...I may become a convert.
Reply
#55
(03-08-2015, 10:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: You just flat out ignored my post.

I ignored it too. I hope that helps.
Reply
#56
(03-09-2015, 12:06 AM)Big Rock Wrote:
(03-08-2015, 10:03 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: You just flat out ignored my post.

I ignored it too. I hope that helps.

It does!

When folks here only post reactionary content, I, at last, fully understand that dialog is impossible.
Reply
#57
Wonky, these myopic zealots don't want dialogue. They want a bully pulpit on which to spread their ideological bullshit.
They stand for and promote nothing positive. They get their jollies by receiving attention for the mostly nonsensical bullshit they post on here.
By trying to engage them in dialogue of most any sort, you are simply facilitating their narcissistic drive for attention.
Meh....
Reply
#58
(03-09-2015, 08:26 AM)gapper Wrote: Wonky, these myopic zealots don't want dialogue. They want a bully pulpit on which to spread their ideological bullshit.
They stand for and promote nothing positive. They get their jollies by receiving attention for the mostly nonsensical bullshit they post on here.
By trying to engage them in dialogue of most any sort, you are simply facilitating their narcissistic drive for attention.
Meh....

Amen brother!
Reply
#59
(03-09-2015, 08:26 AM)gapper Wrote: Wonky, these myopic zealots don't want dialogue. They want a bully pulpit on which to spread their ideological bullshit.
They stand for and promote nothing positive. They get their jollies by receiving attention for the mostly nonsensical bullshit they post on here.
By trying to engage them in dialogue of most any sort, you are simply facilitating their narcissistic drive for attention.
Meh....

Let me translate Gapper's comments

Quote:Wonky, these conservative free thinkers refuse to conform to our progressive mindset. They want to opine an opposing opinion and we can have none of that.
They believe in the Constitution and the rule of law; how dare they. They must be squashed for shedding light on statism and the corruption of Obama and his minions and must be stopped.
We can not engage in a dialogue with them because the only speech that should be allowed is speech that we agree with.


and with that here a blurb from Democrat pollster Pat Caddell who was once on Richard Nixon enemies list about Hillary and Obama. He made this comment yesterday:

Quote:One of the things we should look at … the polling that shows the president’s numbers on dishonesty are record numbers and Hillary’s flipped negative from positive from a year ago,, and that is because everybody is corrupt. The Menendez thing – I want to say something, he has stood up for the country and the scandal that a year ago wasn’t going anywhere and suddenly we get this leak. If you don’t think, let me tell you – this White House is Nixon on steroids. I was watching ‘All the President’s Men’ last week. And I haven’t seen it in 25 years. I was the youngest person on Nixon’s enemies list. And I want to tell you, they went after him. They are going after [David] Petraeus. Anybody who leads the fold they are going after. It is corruption and it’s Nixon on steroids. Somebody – where is somebody in my party to say they are not going to be threatened and are going to stand up for America starting with Chuck Schumer.”
Reply
#60
(03-09-2015, 09:39 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: [quote='gapper' pid='353516' dateline='1425914785']
Wonky, these myopic zealots don't want dialogue. They want a bully pulpit on which to spread their ideological bullshit.
They stand for and promote nothing positive. They get their jollies by receiving attention for the mostly nonsensical bullshit they post on here.
By trying to engage them in dialogue of most any sort, you are simply facilitating their narcissistic drive for attention.
Meh....

Let me translate Gapper's comments

Quote:Wonky, these conservative free thinkers refuse to conform to our progressive mindset. They want to opine an opposing opinion and we can have none of that.
They believe in the Constitution and the rule of law; how dare they. They must be squashed for shedding light on statism and the corruption of Obama and his minions and must be stopped.
We can not engage in a dialogue with them because the only speech that should be allowed is speech that we agree with.

Bad try, SFl. You are being ignored, by the majority of people that look at this forum.
Irrelevant R U.
Cool
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)