Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    29 Aug '15 12:44 / 1 edit
    As most of us know, Hillary Clinton's e mails have been the source of one investigation after another for over 2 years now. The right wing has been insisting she's guilty, while the left wing has been saying "guilty of what?" I'd like some opinions from the folks like sh76 who have better legal knowledge than I on this. Is sending government information on one's private e mail address a crime? Frankly, I don't know.
  2. 29 Aug '15 15:04
    18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
    subsection (f)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Aug '15 15:22
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
    subsection (f)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
    Nothing there seems relevant.
  4. 29 Aug '15 15:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Nothing there seems relevant.
    We shall see.
    Its not looking good for her but then again the Clintons always seem to weasel there way out of crimes.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Aug '15 15:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    We shall see.
    Its not looking good for her but then again the Clintons always seem to weasel there way out of crimes.
    What subsection in that law do you think is remotely related to what Hilary did?

    Politically it has certainly hurt her, but right wingers dreaming of prison time are deluding themselves.
  6. 29 Aug '15 16:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What subsection in that law do you think is remotely related to what Hilary did?

    Politically it has certainly hurt her, but right wingers dreaming of prison time are deluding themselves.
    (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.


    If you are referring to me as "right winger" I do not think for a minute she will go to jail. She very likely could lose the nomination that she feels she so justly deserves.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Aug '15 16:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [quote] (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 i ...[text shortened]... ill go to jail. She very likely could lose the nomination that she feels she so justly deserves.
    Who is it alleged received such material?

    I certainly hope Hilary doesn't get the Democratic nomination; she's too cozy with Wall Street and too much of a foreign interventionist for my taste. But this e-mail non-scandal is just that.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    29 Aug '15 23:30
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Who is it alleged received such material?

    I certainly hope Hilary doesn't get the Democratic nomination; she's too cozy with Wall Street and too much of a foreign interventionist for my taste. But this e-mail non-scandal is just that.
    She violated the rules of the State Department because she did not have a seperate State Department e-mail account for government business. However, since she was the head of the State Department at that time, maybe the rule did not apply to her.
  9. 29 Aug '15 23:37
    Originally posted by bill718
    As most of us know, Hillary Clinton's e mails have been the source of one investigation after another for over 2 years now. The right wing has been insisting she's guilty, while the left wing has been saying "guilty of what?" I'd like some opinions from the folks like sh76 who have better legal knowledge than I on this. Is sending government information on one's private e mail address a crime? Frankly, I don't know.
    I believe the point is that like other high ranking government officials, Hillary Clinton was supplied with a secure government owned and operated server, for her official communications. That process assured that anything she said or wrote as our representative would be saved, and appropriately available for either commendation or accusation, for example regarding Benghazi. the danger of her private server is that of personal and official communications being blended, and perhaps intentionally or accidentally being deleted.

    At the very least, it carries an implication of intent to hide, and a degree of irresponsibility on the security of her communications. As a Presidential candidate, one has to wonder if she would do the same thing in that role.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    31 Aug '15 01:55
    The simple answer is YES.
  11. 31 Aug '15 11:00 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by bill718
    As most of us know, Hillary Clinton's e mails have been the source of one investigation after another for over 2 years now. The right wing has been insisting she's guilty, while the left wing has been saying "guilty of what?" I'd like some opinions from the folks like sh76 who have better legal knowledge than I on this. Is sending government information on one's private e mail address a crime? Frankly, I don't know.
    Is Hillary guilty?

    Does anyone seriously care? I mean, it's not like someone with as much money and power as Hillary will ever be held accountable for anything.

    Even Progs like Marauder concede that Obama has also broken the law. Specifically, he admitted that Obama defied the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress about the war after so many days engaged at war. Obama simply said all the fighting was not a war to side step the law.

    But the most aggravating aspect of that exchange was that Marauder had no inclination of holding Obama accountable. The standard reaction is that everyone at the top breaks laws. So what?

    And so even though Marauder might possibly have agreed that this was "illegal", he would not have agreed that she be held accountable in any substantive way. After all, we must maintain the status quo.
  12. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    01 Sep '15 09:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is Hillary guilty?

    Does anyone seriously care? I mean, it's not like someone with as much money and power as Hillary will ever be held accountable for anything.

    Even Progs like Marauder concede that Obama has also broken the law. Specifically, he admitted that Obama defied the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress about the war after so many days e ...[text shortened]... hat she be held accountable in any substantive way. After all, we must maintain the status quo.
    Well Whodey, it looks like the legal experts feel Hillary is not guilty here. You might want to read this. This might be a lot of controversy about very little.

    http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/hillary-clinton-won-t-see-charges-in-email-scandal-experts-say-1.10793118
  13. 01 Sep '15 10:55
    Originally posted by bill718
    Well Whodey, it looks like the legal experts feel Hillary is not guilty here. You might want to read this. This might be a lot of controversy about very little.

    http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/hillary-clinton-won-t-see-charges-in-email-scandal-experts-say-1.10793118
    I think you will find legal experts continually grabbing their ankles to do the bidding of those in power, just like they did for Obama.

    I remember when those that questioned the Constitutionality of Obamacare were scorned and ridiculed for doing so. Next thing you know, justice Roberts is doing legal gymnastics to try and make it somewhat Constitutional.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Sep '15 14:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is Hillary guilty?

    Does anyone seriously care? I mean, it's not like someone with as much money and power as Hillary will ever be held accountable for anything.

    Even Progs like Marauder concede that Obama has also broken the law. Specifically, he admitted that Obama defied the War Powers Act by not notifying Congress about the war after so many days e ...[text shortened]... hat she be held accountable in any substantive way. After all, we must maintain the status quo.
    You must be the most unapologetic liar I have ever dealt with.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Sep '15 20:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    As most of us know, Hillary Clinton's e mails have been the source of one investigation after another for over 2 years now. The right wing has been insisting she's guilty, while the left wing has been saying "guilty of what?" I'd like some opinions from the folks like sh76 who have better legal knowledge than I on this. Is sending government information on one's private e mail address a crime? Frankly, I don't know.
    It's possible that she committed some violation of some obscure section of federal law. Federal law is so broad and encompassing that we're all probably criminals in the broadest sense of the term (have you ever lied in an email during a financial transaction? wire fraud!)

    The odds of Hillary actually being convicted of a federal crime over email-gate are roughly the same, in my view, of her being struck by lightning while sitting in the oval office on a clear day.