Huh? Is it a requirement to understand the law as well as a lawyer could before coming to an opinion on whether a law was broken?
Because plenty of people more knowledgeable than I am have weighed in and agreed that she should have been charged.
All I was trying to say, and the opinion I agree with more.
HeweyLogan, what do you think should happen to Karl Rove for deleting all of the Bush administration emails?
He should be charged and prosecuted.
She is being held accountable for her actions. The investigators investigated her actions and found that they didn’t reach criminal levels of misconduct.
Sorry to ruin your daydream, but you can’t actually indict somebody for wrongdoing that doesn’t actually constitute an indictable offense.
When your opinion disagrees with the findings of the actual lawyers who actually investigated the question of whether a law was broken and found that it was not, then yes. In that case, you do need to have lawyer-level comprehension of the subject to make your dissent amount to anything more than a childishly petulant rejection of facts you don’t happen to like because your wishful thinking tells you they ought to be different.
I’m not seeing it. I’ve heard any number of people (on these boards and elsewhere) say they have government experience and that this level of security breach gets nothing but a slap on the wrist. I’ve read that the result of the FBI investigation was a conclusion that there wasn’t sufficient to lay charges. So who are the knowledgeable people who say she should have been charged?
Don’t tell me let me guess:
“Top men.”
“Who?!”
“Top…men”
But that’s his thing. His supporters tell us time and time again that the appeal of Trump is that he “tells it like it is”, that he’s a straight-shooter who says exactly what he’s thinking. He’s not like those other politicians (we are assured) who don’t mean what they say; with Trump what he says is exactly what he means, with no spin.
Unless he and his supporters were all lying about that, of course.
This is a Warning that you are not to attempt to make your point by launching personal insults at your opponent.
[ /Moderating ]
This is a Warning that you are not to attempt to make your point by launching personal insults at your opponent.
[ /Moderating ]
Everyone, calm down and back away from the snide comments.
[ /Moderating ]
That was a reference to Trump.
That’s how I read it, considering that Trump had done exactly that and used exactly those words to mock a disabled reporter.
Well, the important thing to remember is that both sides do it.
I read it that way too.
My office, deep in the Federal bureaucracy, now periodically reviews its compliance with these laws and regulations, thanks. So I’m familiar with them. (We didn’t used to, so I’m also familiar with what happens when you find you’re not in compliance.)
You know what happens when you’re out of compliance with these laws? They lean on you to get back in compliance, to the best of your ability given what’s already happened, and keep after you until you can say you’re either compliant, or as close to compliant as past lapses in document handling will allow for.
In our office, for instance, we’d gotten rid of a lot of old documents when moving between buildings because the new building didn’t have nearly as much document storage space. Theoretically we scanned everything into PDF form, but due to time constraints, on multiple occasions we scanned thousands of individual paper documents onto a single PDF document. Maybe it’s all still there or maybe not, but none of it can really be located in any meaningful way. But at the time, we were unfamiliar with the laws and regs pertaining to record-keeping, and the first priority was keeping on top of our work while preparing for the move.
Nobody got tossed in prison, nobody got fined, nobody lost their jobs, nobody even got reprimanded over this.
As I admitted, I’m hardly an expert on classified documents, but iiandyiiii has spoken to that subject already, so we have the benefit of his experience.
“I think.” But those of us with experience with such things say you have no idea what you’re talking about - that if some grunt had made the same sorts of mistakes, that grunt would likely not even lose his/her job, let alone face prison.
Trump said she’d be in jail. You can pretend he said something else if you want, but don’t expect the rest of us to play along.
Also, the FBI concluded that Hilary didn’t “knowingly” remove or house classified information.
My point would be, and I think others would agree, is that she’s been in politics almost her entire life. How could she not know the rules?
I get that you and your office have made mistakes that might/could have been gone after, or at least been a pain to explain or make up for, but those to me sound like honest mistakes. I don’t have a problem with leniency or a pass when it comes to what you describe.
Again what I have a problem with is she should have known better given her experience and time served in office. How could she be so dumb? And if she’s dumb and misinformed why vote for her for president?
Following your link iiandyiiii states “carelessness and boneheaded mistakes are never prosecuted.”
I find that hard to believe, but ok, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
When I’m told I should vote for Hillary because of her temperament, experience, and knowledge of the system of government, I have a hard time turning around and ignoring her “careless and boneheaded mistakes”. They completely contradict each other.
Bryan H. Nishimura
She’d be in jail if he were in charge of the justice department at the time. And I assume after a proper trial.
Not that she’d be tossed in jail regardless of anything but him being in office. He’s saying he’d hold her to the standards other have been held to. I agree.
N0-You are saying that. We have on record what he said, and if you wish we could quote it for you for the umpteenth time…if that would do any good, that is.
Because there are a lot of damned rules, and oddly enough, the Secretary of State has other things on her mind. It’s not exactly a make-work job.
As Secretary of State, I expected her to do the best job possible of managing the role of the U.S. in the world. I suppose we could put her recordkeeping at the top of the list of things to judge a Cabinet official by, but it would be as stupid as judging my work product by whether or not I kept a clean desk.
In case you’re wondering, no, I’m not going to take a wingnut website’s description of a case, written when it had the Hillary axe to grind, as gospel.
If you can find a similar description of his case from a more neutral website, I’ll read it.
No, he’s saying she’d be in jail. I agree that he’s saying he’d have her prosecuted first, but he’s clear about the outcome.
I think Hillary’s carelessness is a mark against her. But a thousand such marks against her wouldn’t get her close to as bad as Trump is, by my measure, so with regards to my vote in this election, it’s meaningless.