By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - FBI's decision on hillary Clinton is a joke

hershel_layton on 07 July 2016
Jumpin said:
hershel_layton said:

https://www.rt.com/usa/349600-clinton-treatment-fbi-emails/

 

Now look, I don't want to jump to any assumptions(or name calling). However, after reading this article, this is what I learned:

 

Hillary clinton mishandled government secrets. However, even though others were severely punished for doing the same, she ONLY GETS A WARNING.

 

Absolutely ridiculous. This is the person who wants to be the president of the United States. This only makes my hatred for Clinton grow even more. 

 

Imagine if Edward Snowden or Assange did this. They'd probably be killed and never seen ever again. 

 

To think that someone who is considered "extremely careless" by the FBI may run the most powerful country in the world...it's frightening. Truly frightening. 

 

"The similarity of such case to the Clinton controversy doesn’t seem to be lost on Comey. The FBI chief strongly stated that others who behaved as Clinton did wouldn’t necessarily get off the hook like the former secretary did."

 

The FBI can go fuck off for all I care. Why is this not talked about by the media? They're literally saying that you can be given a penalty for the same crime Hillary got off the hook for. Where's CNN to talk about this? 

 

Hillary talks shit about Edward Snowden exposing government secrets. Only approves it for when she benefits. What a hypocrite. Shows the person she truly is

So, you want Donald Trump in charge of nuclear weapons?

Hillary Clinton is the US's only chance from stopping that right now. And I am sure the FBI knows more than some angry forum poster who has zero knowledge or experience in with the law. You didn't even know that not only did Assange and Snowden mishandle government info, but they leaked TONS of it, and neither one of them is dead.

But regardless, as long as you don't have some insane demigog maniac in charge of nukes, then that is all that matters. Otherwise, it's irrelevant who is president of the United States, it doesn't effect anything important.

No, I don't like trump one bit. 

 

Also, I guess you do have a point. Sure, the president is the head of the executive branch, but congress is where ideas are established and decided upon.



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network
Lawlight on 07 July 2016
JWeinCom said:
hershel_layton said:

 

Hillary talks shit about Edward Snowden exposing government secrets. Only approves it for when she benefits. What a hypocrite. Shows the person she truly is

The reason the FBI didn't press charges is because they couldn't determine that she did so intentionally.  The law is a person has to knowingly expose government information.  Snowden clearly did.  With Hilary it's unlikely.

Even if you don't agree with the decision, that's a stupid comparison.

A better comparison may be Colin Powell.  Another secretary of state who used a private server and did not suffer any consequences.

Someone please tell me this post is a joke.



Machiavellian on 07 July 2016
MTZehvor said:
Machiavellian said:

Why would this report stop you from voting for Clinton.  If you did not vote for someone because they made stupid mistakes then you would elect no one.  Instead you look at the body of work from each canidate then make a decision.  The problem with this whole email thing is that its something that done probably way to offten within the goverment but only really shined a light when one party or another want to use something to gain an advantage.  I am not a Hillary or Trump supporter but I will make my decision on which one I believe can do the Job and actually do something positive.  This whole email thing is more political smoke screen then anything of real merit.

The magnitude of the mistake is the reason why. People shouldn't lose votes simply for any silly mistake, but if you screw up badly enough, then it becomes very reasonable to doubt that person's ability to be responsible with far more at stake. Clinton was irresponsible in following basic security protocals and put US National Security at risk. If she's been shown to be careless with important in the positions she's held (and careless enough to the point where the FBI director basically said she would have been fired if not for her prestige), then there's reason to suspect that she will be careless as president.

Its probably good that a person have their major screw up before getting into office then during their time in office.  Pretty much every president makes small to large mistake no matter how popular they are viewed.  I believe this one counts as a learning situation for the goverment more than just HC.  As has been mentioned many times, this incident is not isolated to just HC, this has been going on for quite some time with goverment officials.



Machiavellian on 07 July 2016
outlawauron said:

Wasn't the last investigation made up of 5 GOP/4 Dems? Obviously Republicans are trying to get Hillary, but to act as if it's just a giant witch hunt is hilarious. She's guilty, but the FBI isn't charging her because she didn't mean to break the law several times.

I believe we need to be clear here.  HC did not break any laws, she broke administrative protocals.  There is a big differece.  Its like saying if your employer has a policy that state you cannot use the internet at work to log into your bank account and you do.  You will not go to jail of course but you can be fired or put under administration.  This is why when people talk about some type of legal issue its silly.



Low78wagon on 07 July 2016

Hillary is a snake that slithers anywhere she can find shade. Atleast we know Trump is an asshole. Hillary is a flat out lier.



Around the Network
0815user on 07 July 2016

clinton haters = SJW 2.0 ???



Aielyn on 07 July 2016
hershel_layton said:
"The similarity of such case to the Clinton controversy doesn’t seem to be lost on Comey. The FBI chief strongly stated that others who behaved as Clinton did wouldn’t necessarily get off the hook like the former secretary did."

This is why you shouldn't just listen to a media site with an agenda and trust their claim. He didn't say that Clinton got off the hook, or that others would be punished by the FBI where Clinton wasn't.

What he said (and you can find it in the official statement, here) is "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

What he's saying is that the things that Clinton did, and shouldn't have done, don't fall under FBI jurisdiction. She hasn't broken laws, she hasn't done something that she can be indicted for. If someone else did the same things, and the FBI were told to investigate, they would not charge them, either.

But what she did *could* be subject to various sanctions by the government, if they determined such sanctions to be appropriate. And similarly, an individual who does these things *could* have their security clearance downgraded, to ensure that they don't have access to confidential/classified information.

 

In other words, the FBI did exactly what they were supposed to do - they investigated whether Clinton had broken laws, found that no such laws were broken, and made a statement to that extent.



Machiavellian on 07 July 2016
Low78wagon said:
Hillary is a snake that slithers anywhere she can find shade. Atleast we know Trump is an asshole. Hillary is a flat out lier.

Actually Trump is also a flat out lier.  Not sure why people believe Trump doesn't lie every time he makes a speach.  Its been proven every time he speaks he just goes up there and say things off the top of his head with no shread of truth. I could list a full page of things Trump has said that have been flat out lies or stuff he just says to support whatever position he is trying to support that are totally false.  Its one of the bigger issues I have about Trump.  He will pretty much say anything see what sticks and then go from there.  He already knows that the people who listen to his speaches are not concerned if what he is saying is the truth so he is never called on what he says.



DonFerrari on 07 July 2016
Aielyn said:
hershel_layton said:
"The similarity of such case to the Clinton controversy doesn’t seem to be lost on Comey. The FBI chief strongly stated that others who behaved as Clinton did wouldn’t necessarily get off the hook like the former secretary did."

This is why you shouldn't just listen to a media site with an agenda and trust their claim. He didn't say that Clinton got off the hook, or that others would be punished by the FBI where Clinton wasn't.

What he said (and you can find it in the official statement, here) is "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

What he's saying is that the things that Clinton did, and shouldn't have done, don't fall under FBI jurisdiction. She hasn't broken laws, she hasn't done something that she can be indicted for. If someone else did the same things, and the FBI were told to investigate, they would not charge them, either.

But what she did *could* be subject to various sanctions by the government, if they determined such sanctions to be appropriate. And similarly, an individual who does these things *could* have their security clearance downgraded, to ensure that they don't have access to confidential/classified information.

 

In other words, the FBI did exactly what they were supposed to do - they investigated whether Clinton had broken laws, found that no such laws were broken, and made a statement to that extent.

You have done some mental gymnastics to go almost to the other side of the spectrum.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Aielyn on 07 July 2016
DonFerrari said:
Aielyn said:

This is why you shouldn't just listen to a media site with an agenda and trust their claim. He didn't say that Clinton got off the hook, or that others would be punished by the FBI where Clinton wasn't.

What he said (and you can find it in the official statement, here) is "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

What he's saying is that the things that Clinton did, and shouldn't have done, don't fall under FBI jurisdiction. She hasn't broken laws, she hasn't done something that she can be indicted for. If someone else did the same things, and the FBI were told to investigate, they would not charge them, either.

But what she did *could* be subject to various sanctions by the government, if they determined such sanctions to be appropriate. And similarly, an individual who does these things *could* have their security clearance downgraded, to ensure that they don't have access to confidential/classified information.

 

In other words, the FBI did exactly what they were supposed to do - they investigated whether Clinton had broken laws, found that no such laws were broken, and made a statement to that extent.

You have done some mental gymnastics to go almost to the other side of the spectrum.

I'd respond meaningfully to your statement, but I'm not even clear on what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that my direct interpretation of the FBI comments, which clearly state that those who do what Clinton did might be subject to sanctions, but that the FBI weren't tasked with determining sanctions, was "mental gymnastics"? And what "spectrum" are you referring to?

I'm seriously at a loss to understand what you're trying to say.