2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton did not break any laws...
Laws have changed since the private emailer dustup... but she did not break any laws.. some may think the whole idea of having a private email system is sketchy.. but at that point in time .. it was not illegal..
BlueNoMatterWho
(880 posts)Native
(5,943 posts)When this first broke, it was mentioned that Secretaries before her had home set-ups. But by virtue of media magic, that little tidbit went unmentioned for like forever.
karynnj
(59,511 posts)Powell used a personal email account very openly. The SD put in the line for him to connect to his computer.
What is true is that there was likely no law against doing that for the non classified email that otherwise would have been on .gov.
The problem was it was not properly archived, but that may violate guidelines and practices, but not laws. It was a terrible idea, but likely not illegal.
It did make FOIA requests impossible to do correctly, but that apparently is not a criminal action
scscholar
(2,902 posts)and, she was definitely head of the department! By definition, she could do no wrong.
bonemachine
(757 posts)Remind me, who was it that said "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."?
scscholar
(2,902 posts)Department heads now have the authority to set retention rules.
Response to Peacetrain (Original post)
Post removed
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Posting privileges before principles.
Sid
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Peacetrain
(22,881 posts)Response to SidDithers (Reply #4)
Post removed
babylonsister
(171,111 posts)mcar
(42,474 posts)Time for all to move on.
Cha
(298,087 posts)Peacetrain
(22,881 posts)Hope all is well in your part of this big beautiful universe!
quickesst
(6,283 posts).... Hillary Clinton would have launched a presidential campaign had there been any doubt. That's the reason I've been laughing my ass off ever since this and the Benghazi shit began knowing that there would be much sadness and bitter tears, deservedly, when all was said and done. The Rolling Stones were wrong. You can get some satisfaction.
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)that Clinton was a highly successful and well-respected attorney in private practice herself before moving into government.
There is no way that she would knowingly do something that is illegal.
quickesst
(6,283 posts)Only a fool would put themselves in that position. Hillary Clinton is no fool.
bonemachine
(757 posts)Nixon was a lawyer too, ya know...
Response to bonemachine (Reply #21)
BlueMTexpat This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And the resolution is in court, in the form of a lawsuit, not through the FBI.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)a law. It was certainly voilated.
Let's celebrate Hillary not getting indicted, but let's not pretend no laws were broken.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Until a court finds a willful violation of FOIA, I'll reserve judgement.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)that the FOIA would be what gets her.
From the rumors and leaks though, it sounds like she's clear.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)civil FOIA fights judging from the court orders.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)touched on a bit really is overlooked. Given that Hillary Clinton is herself an attorney, I don't see where she would've done this in a way to break laws. Something else that is almost never touched on, is the antiquated tech in government. If her tech was/is better, than what does that say? It says that budget needs aren't being met. Why? Just look at the obstructionism for the last several years from the Rethugs. Why would they approve budget reqs that could help the opposing party, even though the department in question needs it?
bonemachine
(757 posts)A law degree is hardly a guarantee that the bearer will behave legally...
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)this thread?
It appears so.
bonemachine
(757 posts)But perhaps your definition of spamming is one that encompasses giving a similar response to two people who are making the same fallacious argument?
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)is if you can prove that Hillary is an attorney who has knowingly done something illegally.
We both said that her training as an attorney would have made her more mindful of NOT doing something illegally.
We were speaking specifically about Hillary Clinton. You were either speaking about Richard Nixon or a generic unethical lawyer.
But please proceed.
bonemachine
(757 posts)Sure, I've got a couple minutes...
[blockquote
There is no way that she would knowingly do something that is illegal
Not "make her more mindful"... A categorical statement that she would not knowingly break a law (and this is not to dive down the further rabbit hole of potential ignorance of the law). She was a successful lawer, so there is no way she would break the law.
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)don't give up your day job to be one.
If you are a lawyer who has passed the bar and is actually practicing, I wish your clients good luck. They will need it.
In either event, I'm done with you.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)you know, it's so damn obvious, all of this. You're not getting the indictment fairy.
bonemachine
(757 posts)I don't pretend to know enough to say that a crime was or wasn't committed, unlike some folks here.
That doesn't mean I have to fall for a line like 'she was the boss, so she couldn't have broken the rules' or 'she was a lawyer, so she would never have broken the law'...
underpants
(183,043 posts)You could even go into the Wikileaks and Manning stories.
Technology in the Federal Governmant is horrible. Due directly to a lack of funding.
jimw81
(111 posts)People here are unreal
Gothmog
(145,968 posts)Response to Peacetrain (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Peacetrain (Original post)
Post removed
Peacetrain
(22,881 posts)deaniac21
(6,747 posts)but good her entire life. Incapable of anything bad or wrong.