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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Hillary Clinton is being held to a standard that other officials are not.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
That is your priviledge - to think she had the same intent as Reagan did, before rules and laws were in place.
I choose to believe that her entire intent was to save herself a few seconds of delay, which is what she said. That she didn't give a rat's a$$ what the law was even though she knew full well what it said. That she put herself above any such mundane things as being inapplicable to the great and might Hillary Clinton. You will not convince me that a Secretary of State did not know proper procedures for handling classified documents, however much you believe it to be so.
Nor will you convince me that 100+ examples of wrongdoing, over 50 email threads, qualifies as "very little".
The rules and the law (not the same as Clinton) were in place under Reagan. It's called the Presidential Records Act. Reagan did not follow it.
Most of those classified emails were done so after they were on her server.
https://medium.com/the-curious-civilian … .keuwsn6f2
That's what I said: you will make excuses that the Secretary of State didn't know what was classified and what was not. I disagree - I think she just didn't give a flip because it was irritating to actually care about it at all.
They were classified after the fact. The classification process is obviously very convoluted. Off topic, but here's some audio of Trump praising Hillary:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016 … rig-cm.cnn
I must admit, I am frequently disgusted by the incestuous cess pool that is DC politics and would like to see a competent, honorable outsider come in from either party and clean things up.
Ah, therein is the answer. Clean up the cesspool. Only problem is how, and electing another of the same ilk is NOT going to do it.
Our "leadership" has deteriorated to the point where hardly any of them would be invited to a gathering of honest, caring people. We either change that or accept that it will remain the way it is and pay the price for our unwillingness to act. We have a chance to make a statement this year - a "demonstration" if you will - we can either do that or encourage more of the same.
They were not marked classified in the header of the email, which is the traditional way to mark a document so that it's clear to the reader that it's classified. There was a "c" in parentheses within the body of the document. It was made clear in the hearing by the FBI director that Clinton had no way of knowing the emails were classified when she received them.
Oh, I don't think we can blame Hillary too much for receiving classified information on her private server. She obviously didn't know what would be sent.
Except, of course, that had she not used that server, and given the address to the sender that she knew might be sending classified stuff, it would not have been there. And when that classified information IS received, over and over and over, she just might have realized that it was happening and taken steps to stop it - instead she kept right on using that private server for all her emails.
Bush and Cheney should be jailed for many things. Their email use is probably not one of them.
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.
And here's Trump's approach to turning over legal documents:
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/dona … 15120.html
Yes, LtL. And nobody died from emails. Add to that list, Nixon, Reagan and Bush I. Look at that list. They are all Republicans.
Lol. Then there's Clinton (Bill), Johnson and Kennedy with their transgressions also. All democrats.
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.
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
The FBI just re-opened the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal - will it tip the election against her?In a letter to Congress, FBI Director James Comey revealed that the bureau has learned of more e-mails connected to the investigation being discovered. The rumors are that e-mails from the illegal...
by Marcy Goodfleisch 2 years ago
Is the current FBI flap over emails worse than Watergate?One candidate claims the emails currently under question are worse than the Watergate incident decades ago. Do you remember that incident? What is your opinion?
by Scott S Bateman 19 months ago
It was allegedly because of the Clinton email investigation, which Trump had previously let go. We'll see if it ends the FBI investigation into Flynn and other Trump campaign connections with Russia.http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/ … index.htmlFrom CNN:CNN's Senior Legal Analyst...
by Jack Lee 7 months ago
I am just curious about the media and some on the left who bought into this investigation by Mueller.Now, with all the recent revelations and crimes commited by top FBI officials and the Comey book...How many are now convinced that this was a witch hunt? Concocted by the DOJ and FBI high ranking...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
What do you think about Hillary told FBI that Colin Powell adviced her to use private email?Does this new revelation change your opinion of Hillary and Colin Powell?
by Louis Earl Hubbard 2 years ago
Will the FBI Investigation of her emails, hurt Hillary Clinton?With eleven days until the election, I question the integrity of the FBI. The head of the FBI needs to step down. He is not giving any information that is supportive of the investigation. The FBI is covering their ass. They...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|