jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (27 posts)

If Hillary Goes to Jail, Should Bush and Cheney Join Her?

  1. Sychophantastic profile image83
    Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago

    If this private email server is such a big deal, worthy of prosecution and jail time, then shouldn't the FBI pursue charges against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?

    http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/geor … 97373.html

    Why was there no outrage about private emails servers when this happened?

    Are they the same or different?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      They are the same as far as deleting official emails goes.  But Clinton isn't being investigated (by the FBI) for that offense: she is being investigated for putting classified information on private servers.  There is a tremendous difference.

      1. Sychophantastic profile image83
        Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        Just wondering, did you bother to read the article? The Bush White House makes Hillary look like Snow White. They used a private email server, lost millions of emails, and refused to comply with the law. The reason Comey will not prosecute Hillary is because she was following a long practice that, if criminalized, will subject everyone in the Bush administration to prosecution.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          Yes, I read it.  Did you?  Not one word about classified information on private servers, and that is the ONLY thing the FBI was concerned about.

          Nor is the reason Comey did not recommend prosecution that others have done it: in fact he stated that if done again it could be prosecutable.  The biggest reason he gave was that he found no evidence proving that she intended to put classified material on her private server, and that intent was all important.

          The rule is not to ever delete official emails, but I am not aware of any law that requires that.  Rules, yes, but no law that could result in incarceration.

          1. Sychophantastic profile image83
            Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            Are you actually telling me that you don't believe that, given that this was the Bush administration's almost exclusive method of email communication, and that email communication was stored on a private email server controlled by the Republican National Committee, that those didn't contained classified communications, particularly considering those communications included communications concerning the Iraq war? The administration lost 22 million emails beginning in 2003. This violates the Presidential Records Act. Congress couldn't investigate because the emails were "lost". Karl Rove and Joshua Bolton were found to be in contempt of Congress for not complying with subpoenas. Laws were broken on multiple fronts. The Bush administration simply delayed turning over the emails until they were out of office. Ironically, it was Obama who chose not to pursue prosecution.

            My points and questions are many:

            1. If James Comey decides to prosecute or Congress decides to do something to Hillary Clinton, then there is an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and possibly jail most of the officials of the Bush administration, who undoubtedly put classified information on a private email server, violated the law, and were in contempt of Congress.
            2. The odds that James Comey does not realize the implications of indicting Clinton are remote.
            3. Clinton was following precedent that went all the way back to Reagan by using a private email server.
            4. Why is the GOP so hot to go after Clinton when the Bush Administration clearly did the same thing, only by a much greater factor? Should we go after the Bush Administration with the same zeal as we're going after Hillary?

            1. Sychophantastic profile image83
              Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              My conclusion is this:

              Either this use of a private email server is a non-issue or a lot more people need to go to jail, including a former President.

              Another conclusion:

              Hillary Clinton is being held to a standard that other officials are not.

              Another conclusion:

              Comey concluded that the case for prosecution against Clinton was "not even close" because she didn't knowingly receive or transmit any classified material (nothing she received or sent was obviously marked "classified" or had the appropriate head indicating it was "classified".

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              1)  That you have decided Bush did illegal activities with his servers is not a reason to investigate any more than if you decided your neighbor was doing coke.  You may not understand this, but evidence is necessary to have an investigation, not mere insinuations or opinions from someone that doesn't have a clue what happened.

              2)  Whether Comey recognizes the implications of his announcement has exactly zero to do with investigating Bush.  That you hate anything with a (D) after their name is insufficient reason to investigate.

              3) That Clinton followed precedent that was later changed by law does not give her a "bye" for illegal activities she may want to do.  By the same reasoning we can all keep slaves because Washington did so.

              4)  Again, your opinion that Bush did something does not make it so.  It takes more than your personal opinion to alert the justice system.  Prove wrongdoing, rather than simply making a claim based on dislike for Democrats and you might find an investigation happening.

              We can always say that someone in the past did something bad and didn't do time, so that means no one in the future will be charged, either.  Fortunately, the justice system does not work that way. 

              Finally, Comey did not say that she didn't knowingly do wrong (only a fool would think that); he said the he could not prove it in a court of law "beyond any reasonable doubt".  Given that no one with your political bent would vote to convict her, a randomly picked jury of 12 people will never be found that is honest enough to vote the evidence rather than political wishes.

              1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                The article explains quite clearly how the Bush administration violated the law.  They violated the Presidential Records Act (which says the people own those records, not the officials). They did not comply with subpoenas. Officials were held in contempt of Congress, but were never forced to answer.

                And of course we don't know what is in those records. The investigation couldn't proceed because they "lost" them, which turned out to be untrue because then they turned up again.

                So shouldn't we now investigate those 22 million emails, stored on a private server, and determine what's in them and why they were "lost" given that they could establish the basis for entering the Iraq War?

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Sure.  An investigation is warranted (if the statue of limitations has not run out).  And IF wrongdoing is found, criminals should go to jail.

                  But Clinton didn't, did she?  Wrongdoing was absolutely found, but she is still walking the streets...because intent can seldom be proven.  Comey's remarks amount to saying that because we cannot read her mind and know beyond any doubt that she did it, not only knowing that she did it but with the intent to violate the law (as opposed to not caring if she did or not) she shall not be prosecuted.  Is that how we want our justice system to work?

                  I'm all for prosecuting anyone found doing wrong, but somehow it just doesn't work when the perp has either lots of money or lots of power and Clinton has both in spades.

                  1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                    Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Very little was found in her emails. Comey said it "wasn't even close" in terms of pursuing a criminal prosecution and 100% of his agents who worked on the case agreed.

                    Precedent is a huge deal with presidential administrations. Does it mean that those decisions are right? No. However, the use of private servers goes back to Reagan. Frankly, I'm more concerned with the stupidity of it all then any criminal intent. I think she had the same intent as every politician before her who used a private email server.

    2. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      Bush and Cheney should be jailed for many things. Their email use is probably not one of them.

      1. Sychophantastic profile image83
        Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        Read the article. The Bush administration lost 22 million emails. They broke the law. The refused subpoenas. 95% of the administration used private emails servers. The Obama administration could have prosecuted them, but chose not to because the economy was in the tank. Nobody seems to care. Hillary's actions will her emails are nothing compared to Bush and if Comey prosecutes her, he opens up a Pandora's box that will set off litigation of every administration official since the Reagan administration.

        1. Sychophantastic profile image83
          Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          And here's Trump's approach to turning over legal documents:

          http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/dona … 15120.html

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 weeks ago

    Yes, LtL.  And nobody died from emails.  Add to that list, Nixon, Reagan and Bush I.  Look at that list.  They are all Republicans.

    1. Live to Learn profile image82
      Live to Learnposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      Lol. Then there's Clinton (Bill), Johnson and Kennedy with their transgressions also. All democrats.

    2. Sychophantastic profile image83
      Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      Chris Hayes had a good comment about the election, basically saying that one way to decide on who to vote for is to look at the candidate being supported by Nazis and Klansmen and vote for the other person.

 
working