Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 11:07
    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-aide-has-rebuffed-fbi-and-state-department-128271848515.html

    Apparently a Clinton aide that helped Hillary set up and maintain her private e-mail account has pleaded the 5th amendment.

    Should the aide be given immunity like John Dean was with Nixon?
  2. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    04 Sep '15 11:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/clinton-aide-has-rebuffed-fbi-and-state-department-128271848515.html

    Apparently a Clinton aide that helped Hillary set up and maintain her private e-mail account has pleaded the 5th amendment.

    Should the aide be given immunity like John Dean was with Nixon?
    To be clear whodey, Not a "private email account".
    But rather a private server.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 14:25
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    To be clear whodey, Not a "private email account".
    But rather a private server.
    OK then.

    Should the aide be given immunity so they will talk?
  4. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    04 Sep '15 15:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    OK then.

    Should the aide be given immunity so they will talk?
    I would give him immunity for sure.
    But then again we are dealing w/the Clintons.
    It might be better to offer him the witness protection program.
  5. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    04 Sep '15 18:402 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I would give him immunity for sure.
    But then again we are dealing w/the Clintons.
    It might be better to offer him the witness protection program.
    Before we go down the "witness protection program" path, it might be wise to consider that Hillary's practice of using her private e mail (while clearly not very smart) was not technically illegal, in addition, laws regarding this type of action are not as clear cut as you might think. Folks such as Huckabee have accused her of breaking the law, but I don't think Mr. Pastor has a law degree, nor do I think he's qualified to make this accusation. The GOP has every right here to accuse Hillary of making a bad choice, and I agree with this, but of breaking the law?? I don't think so ( and neither does the legal community)

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/234487-hillarys-emails-not-technically-illegal
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 21:22
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I would give him immunity for sure.
    But then again we are dealing w/the Clintons.
    It might be better to offer him the witness protection program.
    True. It would not be as easy as to rat out Nixon. Even if she were given immunity, her life might be made a living hell by the mighty DNC establishment that runs the country.
  7. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    04 Sep '15 21:28
    Originally posted by bill718
    Before we go down the "witness protection program" path, it might be wise to consider that Hillary's practice of using her private e mail (while clearly not very smart) was not technically illegal, in addition, laws regarding this type of action are not as clear cut as you might think. Folks such as Huckabee have accused her of breaking the law, but I don't ...[text shortened]... l-rules/

    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/234487-hillarys-emails-not-technically-illegal
    I read the links you provided and no where did I find that the "legal community" does not think she broke any laws as you claim.

    Some in the "legal community" think she may very well have broken federal national security laws. Specifically the mishandling of classified information on unsecured networks.
    18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
    (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.


    And as I pointed out in another thread (is Hillary guilty ?)

    18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
    subsection (f)

    (f) 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—

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


    So inclosing I hope you will see that many in the "legal community" do think she may very well have broke the law. Notice I said "may" have. Nothing is proven but there is a FBI investigation going on currently . And then maybe we will no for sure.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 21:372 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I read the links you provided and no where did I find that the "legal community" does not think she broke any laws as you claim.

    Some in the "legal community" think she may very well have broken federal national security laws. Specifically the mishandling of classified information on unsecured networks.
    [quote][b] 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorize ...[text shortened]... proven but there is a FBI investigation going on currently . And then maybe we will no for sure.
    Very true. The only things that have been proven is that man made carbon emissions are destroying the world and abortion is not murder and Trump needs a new hair piece.

    Everything else is open for debate. 😛
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 21:57
    This is the latest from Hildabeast.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday her use of a private email system at the State Department wasn't the "best choice" and acknowledged she didn't "stop and think" about her email set-up when she became President Barack Obama's secretary of state in 2009.

    "You know, I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world," Clinton said.

    "I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be?"The Democratic presidential front-runner said in an interview with NBC News that she was immediately confronted by a number of global hotspots after joining the new Obama administration as its top diplomat and didn't think much about her email after arriving at her new job.

    But Clinton did not apologize for her decision when asked directly, "Are you sorry?" Instead, she again said she wishes she had "made a different choice" and that she takes responsibility for the decision to use a private email account and server based at her home in suburban New York.

    She added it was a choice that should not raise questions about her judgment
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 21:58
    She did not stop and think?

    She is that much closer to turning into Sarah Palin.
  11. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    04 Sep '15 22:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    True. It would not be as easy as to rat out Nixon. Even if she were given immunity, her life might be made a living hell by the mighty DNC establishment that runs the country.
    I wasn't talking about the DNC.
    Dont you remember Susan Coleman, John Wilson, Vince Foster, Jon parnell Walker, to name a few ?
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 22:091 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I wasn't talking about the DNC.
    Dont you remember Susan Coleman, John Wilson, Vince Foster, Jon parnell Walker, to name a few ?
    Yes, I know.

    Always remember, "What does it matter"!!!???
  13. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    04 Sep '15 22:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes, I know.

    Always remember, "What does it matter"!!!???
    That's what I meant by witness protection program.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    04 Sep '15 22:44
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I read the links you provided and no where did I find that the "legal community" does not think she broke any laws as you claim.

    Some in the "legal community" think she may very well have broken federal national security laws. Specifically the mishandling of classified information on unsecured networks.
    [quote][b] 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorize ...[text shortened]... proven but there is a FBI investigation going on currently . And then maybe we will no for sure.
    As to the first, the Secretary of State is not a person "without authority" to remove documents, so the statute is inapplicable.

    As to the second, yes you pointed it out in the other thread, but never answered this rather relevant question:

    no1: Who is it alleged received such material?
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    04 Sep '15 23:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As to the first, the Secretary of State is not a person "without authority" to remove documents, so the statute is inapplicable.

    As to the second, yes you pointed it out in the other thread, but never answered this rather relevant question:

    no1: Who is it alleged received such material?
    There are two reasons I can think of for taking the 5th.

    1. You have engaged in criminal conduct and don't want to incriminate yourself.

    2. You know of criminal conduct and don't want to commit inadvertent perjury.

    In both scenarios, you know of some criminal act, that you say never happened.
Back to Top