When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Are you suggesting you have a new value? Why not try axiology rather than your own value system?

Washington (AFP) - The FBI has unexpectedly released documents concerning ex-president Bill Clinton's pardon of the husband of a wealthy Democratic donor, in a surprise move just days before the election in which his wife is seeking to become America's first female president.
The release of the heavily redacted 129-page report over the pardon of trader Marc Rich -- an investigation that closed in 2005 without charges -- triggered questions from Democrats already angered by the FBI's probe into hundreds of thousands of newly uncovered emails possibly linked to Hillary Clinton.
While the Rich documents were published online Monday, they received little notice until they were posted on Tuesday on a Twitter account for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's division managing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that had had no posts since a year ago, except for a small handful released simultaneously on Sunday.
"Absent a FOIA litigation deadline, this is odd," said Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon.
"Will FBI be posting docs on Trump's housing discrimination in '70s?" he added, referring to Clinton's Republican rival Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate magnate.
The FBI said the documents were posted shortly after they were processed, as with FOIA materials requested three or more times.
"Per the standard procedure for FOIA, these materials became available for release and were posted automatically and electronically to the FBI's public reading room in accordance with the law and established procedures," the statement said.
The FBI indicated that this was only a "preliminary" release that could therefore be followed by more.
Rich was indicted on federal charges of tax evasion in the United States. He was a fugitive from the Department of Justice -- at a time one of the FBI's most wanted -- living in exile in Switzerland at the time of his indictment. He died there in 2013.
In a controversial move, Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office on January 20, 2001. The FBI opened its investigation into the pardon later that year.
Rich's ex-wife Denise Eisenberg Rich, whose name was redacted from the FBI files, "has been a major political donor to the Democratic Party, and these donations may have been intended to influence the fugitive's pardon," reads a bureau note requesting that a preliminary investigation be opened.
Some of the donations went to the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, the predecessor to the Clinton Foundation, according to the document.
"It appears that the required pardon standards and procedures were not followed," reads the FBI document dated February 15, 2001

WOW!

You are the one suggesting that people be prosecuted when they haven't broken laws as written by arguing that I shouldn't rely on the law as written.

You suggested I am the one that is ethically challenged?

Hmmm.... Let me think on this...

Yep, you do value your stupidity.

When someone keeps posting the same debunked crap over and over again, it's time to put them on ignore.

If there were something to prosecute, the FBI would have found it and no armchair agent is going to do better than a professional law enforcement team.

You forget DD, we aren't supposed to respect those law enforcement officers.

I've already pointed out to you that the proper place of custody for her government business emails was a secure state site. She failed to place them there. I've pointed out the ridiculousness of your argument. You believe that since she failed to place them in the proper place, she is immune to being called out for having them in an improper place. There is no way that you don't understand what I'm saying here. But I realize that you're desperate to clear Clinton of any wrong doing. Good luck with that.

The code doesn't have to say anything about keeping records for the National
Archives. Maybe this will help you come to terms with the fact that Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records, and that Clinton and her aides failed to do so.

But according to this:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

. . . Clinton is guilty of gross negligence. And if you are going to insist that "intent" is a qualification, then I should remind you that even Comey knows that intent is not one of the qualifications.

Remember this from Comey:

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

Comey contradicted himself by first drawing a distinction between an intentional act and gross negligence, and then later claiming that there was no evidence of intention on Clinton's part, and so no charges of gross negligence can be filed.

From the New York Times:

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

I don't see a rebuttal to anything in this comment.

And here you go again with trying to excuse Clinton on a technicality that makes sense to only you. I'll try to put it in even more simple terms for your edification. The emails were supposed to be in their proper place. But they were not. They were in Clinton's possession. And why were they in Clinton's possession? Because Clinton failed to deliver them to their proper place of custody. Therefore, Clinton is guilty of not placing them in their proper place of custody, which means that Clinton is responsible for the emails not being in their proper place.

Like I said, your silly argument boils down to my example whereas if I drive the delivery truck for Walmart, and I bypass the warehouse and deliver it to my garage instead, according to your flawed logic, I can't be charged for illegally having Walmart's stuff because I never removed it from the warehouse. Silly, huh?
_____________________________________

Oh, and this just in:

Hillary’s email scandal is a gift that keeps on giving for political opponents. On October 31, Judicial Watch (JW) released new State Department documents – revealing email exchanges of classified information between her and top aide Huma Abedin on an unsecure server, saying:


“Judicial Watch today released 323 pages of new Department of State documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin sent classified information over Clinton’s clintonemail.com unsecure email system.”

“According to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions cited in the documents obtained by Judicial Watch, three of the Clinton-Abedin email exchanges contained material ‘classified to protect national security.’ “

“Also included in the newly obtained documents is an additional instance of the State Department doing special favors for a high-dollar Clinton Foundation donor.”

“And the documents include instances of the distribution by State Department officials of Clinton’s government schedule to members of the Clinton Foundation staff.”

“The documents contain not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date of such emails uncovered by Judicial Watch to 238 new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).”

“These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, ‘as far as she knew,’ all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.”

“The new records include three separate Clinton-Abedin email exchanges withheld in part from Judicial Watch under the State Department’s ‘B1’ FOIA exemption, applying to ‘Information that is classified to protect national security.’ “

_______________________________________

All else is speculation and/or wishful thinking.

Well, if we are going to address old grievances, I want Gerald Ford and Nixon dug up so they can face charges of malfeasance. I don't care all that much but Mr. G'bag is still angry Nixon was pardoned (he was drafted out of grad school by RMN) and (he's my husband so he's a man, ergo) and he knows best, so let's dig their asses up and convict them of something.

Dont forget Ronny Raygun and Contra.

I was working during that time, we hate Ollie North who lied his ass off got pardoned and left people in his wake to face the music

If you feel that is a crime then point out the specific part of the US Code.


No, I have pointed out the law specifically requires they be removed from their proper place before it is a crime.

But we are attempting to determine if your claim that it was a fact Clinton violated US Code is really a fact. Why do you keep bringing up regulations that are not US Code? So far, you have presented no argument other then deflection and changing the subject. In a court of law, the judge at this point would be threatening to sanction you for contempt if you continue with your current line of arguments.

If you insist on claiming things I never said then you have resorted to the straw man fallacy.

I very specifically highlighted the parts in the code that are those 4 items. If you want to argue those 4 items are not part of the US 18 section 793, then make that argument. Ignoring that they exist is not an argument.

Yes, it is silly because theft laws do not state something has to be removed from a warehouse before it is theft. Theft laws only require you take someone's property without their consent. In your example, you would not have consent of Walmart so it would be theft. This is simple stuff, Glenn. The parts of the law need to be met. Here is the theft code from Arkansas where Walmart is headquartered.
You will notice that theft requires someone do it knowingly. You can't charge theft if someone is negligent.

Unless they're killing black people, of course. Give 'em the benefit of every doubt then.




(Just to be clear, that was sarcasm.....)

Isn't it a shame you have to clarify that you're joking?

BRAVO!

Sure.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally . . .

(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.

Please take note that a distinction is made between concealing and removing.

I believe the above shows your assumption to be incorrect. Besides, I've already shown how foolish your attempt to excuse Clinton for possessing material that was not hers to possess. You believe that if she negligently failed to fulfill her legal obligation to follow proper procedure by placing those emails in their proper place, that it cannot be said that she removed it from its proper place. If you really believe that to be the case, then show me the law which states that you can possess what is not yours as long as you keep it from reaching its rightful owner in the first place. Your insistence that the law is that stupid is a symptom of someone trying to save face by holding on to a stupid idea, and hoping that the one calling you on it will go away.

No, we don't have to attempt to determine whether of not she violated U.S. Code. We only have to acknowledge it to be so, which I did above.

Oh good! So you understand Comey when he said, "Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way," thereby drawing a distinction between an intentional act and gross negligence. So you agree that "intent" is irrelevant when it comes to gross negligence.

Therefore:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

. . . exposes Clinton for transmitting classified information on her own personal email server.

That's exactly right. However, you are pushing the theory that if Clinton never delivered someone else's property to its rightful place to begin with, then it cannot be said that she is in violation of possessing what is not hers.

Very good! You've finally come to the place where you acknowledge that Clinton was negligent.

Now, what does this:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

. . . say about that?

This code has been shown here before. They all know. They're just enjoying the Clintonesque obfuscation. Weird.

The good news is - thanks to Wikileaks - they can't really hide from it anymore.

Even if she's elected, they have enough on her to nail her to the wall. The Clinton family is going down, where they belong. Finally.

She should be kicked on her way out the door for leaving Tim Kaine in place. She could have chosen a liberal.

The. Period. Worst. Period. Prognosticator. Period. On Earth. Period.

Doesn't the Donald know he's already lost?

Hilarious.

I was right about Bernie's popularity; right about the sea change in American politics; right about the level of rage of the average American voter...

Right about the Clinton campaign's collusion with the media re shutting Bernie out; right about the general collusion between the DNC, Clinton campaign, and MSM.

Right about the Clinton Foundation slush fund; right that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick and got away with it.

Hey, I was right that America was ready for a black president when many members here argued that was wrong.

Hmmm. I have a good track record of being right.

She'll be indicted, president or not.

Bank it.