Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[lilpixieofterror]

Comey listed several things that he said Hillary could be indicted for before bizarrely concluding that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

[lilpixieofterror]

A good example of why it does no good at all to cite the criminal code when making a determination whether or not a person actually broke the law or can be successfully prosecuted. In Clinton's case, the inadvertent or retroactive classification issues would have failed, not least of which because (as I keep reminding folks) Clinton didn't do anything more than Powell before her at State ... and certainly did a lot less than the Bush administration did running WH comms through a RNC server that lost some 20 million emails.

But, again, not the point at issue. Folks who were all gabby about how Clinton or Obama were breaking laws weren't demanding the criminal code section number or a legal treatise on why prosecution would be successful.

--Sam

[Sam]

1) There is not evidence or testimony that Clinton directed her staff to send secret emails on her private server.

2) We don't have any information regarding the security of the Bush-era RNC servers.

3) We don't know whether anyone directed that classified information be sent on those servers, nor what classified information might have been transferred.

4) We know that the deletion of such records was a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

5) We know that the WH deputy actually advised at least one person to intentionally avoid the official WH comm system because it would leave a record.

But here you are, trying to find a way to argue that using the domain georgewbush.com/gb43.com for multiple WH staff was somehow cool and that Clinton's server was something way different and beyond the pale.

--Sam

[Catholicity]

That's what liberals keep saying, but it's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution makes it clear that impeachment is reserved exclusively for cases where the president is guilty of a serious crime.

So how serious is soliciting a foreign government for aid?

[Mountain Man]

Even worse, Hillary instructed her staff on how to remove certain markings and keywords to avoid detection, which shows willful intent to break the law.

[seer]

So how serious is soliciting a foreign government for aid?

As far as I know it is not a crime. Clinton did it to help Gore and no one seemed to mind: https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-c...trump-campaign

[Mountain Man]

So how serious is soliciting a foreign government for aid?

It depends on who you're asking and what you're asking for.

[lilpixieofterror]

1) There is not evidence or testimony that Clinton directed her staff to send secret emails on her private server.

2) We don't have any information regarding the security of the Bush-era RNC servers.

3) We don't know whether anyone directed that classified information be sent on those servers, nor what classified information might have been transferred.

The systems are not connected together. Someone, in violation of their security training, transferred it over.

4) We know that the deletion of such records was a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

5) We know that the WH deputy actually advised at least one person to intentionally avoid the official WH comm system because it would leave a record.

But here you are, trying to find a way to argue that using the domain georgewbush.com/gb43.com for multiple WH staff was somehow cool and that Clinton's server was something way different and beyond the pale.

[lilpixieofterror]

Even worse, Hillary instructed her staff on how to remove certain markings and keywords to avoid detection, which shows willful intent to break the law.

[Sam]

You, unfortunately, simply don't know what you're talking about here. Both the Clinton and RNC servers were email servers. People weren't "transferring" classified or secret information over, like Trump staff putting his calls into the NSC code word server. People were sending emails.

Clinton's server had security and a firewall. As far as anyone can tell, it was never breached. You're thinking of something else.

Clinton didn't transfer classified material. She received, by memory, a small number of emails that contained confidential - but not classified - information. Other information was retroactively classified.

My argument was that prosecuting Clinton for something that appears to have been habitual behavior among senior Washington staff was not going to work. I'm not defending the behavior. You were arguing that the cases were different, implying that Clinton's server merited prosecution whereas the Bush administration's use of the RNC server would not (because you argued that Clinton put secret info on her server and the Bush admin did not).

"Clinton did what her predecessors did and you have to start prosecuting people for this sometime" might be a decent argument. But it's a lot harder one for a prosecutor to make than the false canard a number of you throw around here.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

You, unfortunately, simply don't know what you're talking about here. Both the Clinton and RNC servers were email servers. People weren't "transferring" classified or secret information over, like Trump staff putting his calls into the NSC code word server. People were sending emails.

Clinton's server had security and a firewall. As far as anyone can tell, it was never breached. You're thinking of something else.

Clinton didn't transfer classified material. She received, by memory, a small number of emails that contained confidential - but not classified - information. Other information was retroactively classified.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...email-defense/

BTW, the intentional part was made up to protect Clinton. She and her staff had the training, they knew better. So who told you this lie?

My argument was that prosecuting Clinton for something that appears to have been habitual behavior among senior Washington staff was not going to work. I'm not defending the behavior. You were arguing that the cases were different, implying that Clinton's server merited prosecution whereas the Bush administration's use of the RNC server would not (because you argued that Clinton put secret info on her server and the Bush admin did not).

Sorry Sam, but you want to pretend her and her staff were ignorant of the law when they were not. Read for yourself or go as Bill the Cat, he works on classified material on a regular bases and knows the rules, laws, and training far better than I do. He has said, several times, that Hillary and her staff broke the law willingly.

"Clinton did what her predecessors did and you have to start prosecuting people for this sometime" might be a decent argument. But it's a lot harder one for a prosecutor to make than the false canard a number of you throw around here.

--Sam

[Sam]

Your argument was that Clinton had classified information placed on her server. That's untrue; the classified information on her server was retroactively classified, as the Politifact link you used makes clear, and wouldn't have been on a classified-use server when it was sent. Nor does the article support, in any way, your contention that Clinton directed that classified information be sent to her. The "very small number" of confidential ("C") emails that were sent to Clinton did not, by memory, originate on a secure server. But even if they had, they were received by Clinton through email, not directed by her to be stored on the server.

You just make up things.

--Sam

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...email-defense/

[lilpixieofterror]

Your argument was that Clinton had classified information placed on her server. That's untrue; the classified information on her server was retroactively classified, as the Politifact link you used makes clear, and wouldn't have been on a classified-use server when it was sent. Nor does the article support, in any way, your contention that Clinton directed that classified information be sent to her. The "very small number" of confidential ("C") emails that were sent to Clinton did not, by memory, originate on a secure server. But even if they had, they were received by Clinton through email, not directed by her to be stored on the server.

You just make up things.

--Sam

And yet, the article I cited, says the opposite. Yeah she did, denial will not make it go away. Clinton sent and stored e mails that were classified at the time they were sent. Again, ask Bill. He works on classified material and knows all about it. See if he says I am wrong.

[Teallaura]

Clearing data from any computer so well that the forensic teams can't find anything isn't something that can be done accidentally - unless you're using a Commodore 64...

[Sam]

Clearing data from any computer so well that the forensic teams can't find anything isn't something that can be done accidentally - unless you're using a Commodore 64...

This misrepresents what Bleachbit is and how it works, as well as the capabilities for forensic software to recover wiped data.

I've installed a Bleachbit-like program in hundreds of computers and insist to everyone who comes to me for a computer swap that the old HDD be either wiped or smashed as a matter of basic security protocol.

--Sam