-
Please read the new forum rules! REQUIRED!
Click Here: https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/general-forum-rules-code-of-conduct.70770/
-
New Reloading Sticky Thread for Trading, Swapping Gear, etc.
https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/reloading-components-for-trade-item-value-and-photo.104847/
No Charges Recommended!
- Thread starter HughJoergan
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Deersniper270
Master
Please elaborate good sir....
You talkin about Hitlery?
You talkin about Hitlery?
Snake-Eyes
Master
FBI gave a press statement. Despite a mountain of evidence showing CHRONIC piss-poor handling of classified information, they recommend for the DOJ to NOT pursue criminal charges against the "presumptive Democratic candidate".
Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. Hopefully her sense of smell still works and the DOJ disregard the BS "recommendation" and focus on the evidence.
Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. Hopefully her sense of smell still works and the DOJ disregard the BS "recommendation" and focus on the evidence.
fishingjean
Master
We did see this coming !!!!!! This will be interesting !!!
Viking1204
Master
Hopefully Anonymous can do something to get the attention of the idiots out there who think the FBI not recommending charges means she did nothing wrong. Presidents have been impeached for less than what she's done, never mind the damn emails, she got Americans killed due to her inaction.
John B.
Master
Actor interpretation of Hillary Clinton interview with the FBI...
https://youtu.be/ERm_WNxGs1U
https://youtu.be/ERm_WNxGs1U
Viking1204
Master
That's more the interpretation of Hilary's IT guy who managed the server when they interviewed him.
intention or intent has nothing to do with this case, they do not have to prove intent, just that it was mis-handled....
the fix is in..get ready to say heil hitlery...
I thought she would get a slap on the wrist at least....hell, they just gave the bitch the election...
The original transgression, in which Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, kept classified State Department emails on a private home email server for the sake of “convenience,” against the government’s protocol, has morphed into an affair where it seems that just about every statement out of Hillary’s mouth is a lie.
First, she claimed that there were no classified emails on her server. Later, she said she had never sent or received anything that was classified at the time it was transmitted.
Still later, she acknowledged that there was material that she hadn’t turned over to the Department of State, despite swearing under oath that all her non-personal emails had been supplied to investigators. Ultimately, it was discovered that many of these emails did, in fact, contain classified information.
Political commentators always argued that the reason Clinton wanted her emails on a private server was so that they would not be subject to disclosure in the face of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which is common for members of the press or researchers to file when they’re working on stories or reports.
A FOIA request compels the government to make public any non-classified information from any governmental branch, department or source; it cannot be refused or unreasonably delayed.
It’s common for reporters and other journalists to make FOIA requests in the wake of someone’s departure from a high government office (or even while they’re still occupying it) — for instance, Clinton’s when she stepped down from her position as secretary of state.
What’s now come out is that while she was serving as secretary, Clinton sent a specific email to one of her deputies that outlined her intent in keeping a private email server at home — to keep her messages from being publicly “accessible,” to use Clinton’s own word.
This caused the government’s Inspector General (IG) office to issue a scathing report that stated Clinton had violated government regulations. But even worse than the IG report is the prospect that this proves that Clinton intended to violate the U.S. Espionage Act.
The Act mandates that government officials are not allowed to permit national defense data to be “lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed” via gross negligence — which is exactly what Clinton did by storing her emails privately.
First, she claimed that there were no classified emails on her server. Later, she said she had never sent or received anything that was classified at the time it was transmitted.
Still later, she acknowledged that there was material that she hadn’t turned over to the Department of State, despite swearing under oath that all her non-personal emails had been supplied to investigators. Ultimately, it was discovered that many of these emails did, in fact, contain classified information.
Political commentators always argued that the reason Clinton wanted her emails on a private server was so that they would not be subject to disclosure in the face of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which is common for members of the press or researchers to file when they’re working on stories or reports.
A FOIA request compels the government to make public any non-classified information from any governmental branch, department or source; it cannot be refused or unreasonably delayed.
It’s common for reporters and other journalists to make FOIA requests in the wake of someone’s departure from a high government office (or even while they’re still occupying it) — for instance, Clinton’s when she stepped down from her position as secretary of state.
What’s now come out is that while she was serving as secretary, Clinton sent a specific email to one of her deputies that outlined her intent in keeping a private email server at home — to keep her messages from being publicly “accessible,” to use Clinton’s own word.
This caused the government’s Inspector General (IG) office to issue a scathing report that stated Clinton had violated government regulations. But even worse than the IG report is the prospect that this proves that Clinton intended to violate the U.S. Espionage Act.
The Act mandates that government officials are not allowed to permit national defense data to be “lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed” via gross negligence — which is exactly what Clinton did by storing her emails privately.
Snake-Eyes
Master
Since you quoted me, I feel semi-obligated to clarify: "I" never mentioned intent.
The FBI press statement was riddled with references to intent.
I merely relayed a factual synopsis of the events this morning, since the 2nd post requested such clarification.
Any further "personal opinion" is between me and people I trust.
understood, I meant to just post, not to quote you, and my post was meant to refute the FBI statement of no intentional mishandling...the law does not state it has to be intentional, merely that it happened.
Pompnewbie
Master
yup.. just "happened" to run into her at the airport.. so what ya think couple million to her favorite charity, or the next supreme court justice slot..
Freaking just gets me torqued up the amount of crap she has gotten away with, if it was us they would bury us so deep we wouldnt see daylight ever again.
the entire system needs a ctrl+alt+del in my opinion
