she probably won't see that until January 2019 at least
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Who was the Congressman who said he'd file articles of impeachment her very first day?
Probably a dude in the house
A southern dude in the house... Mo Brooks of... Alabama (of fucking course).
While it's obvious that what she did was wrong, and that she knew it was wrong at the time, I don't think it's possible to compare the people in the article with her.
There are three cases here, each with different laws governing them:
1. Government employee, chooses not to follow procedure but doesn't intentionally leak (to our knowledge)
2. Government employee, chooses to intentionally leak
3. Military personnel, chooses not to follow procedure but doesn't intentionally leak
Hillary is case #1, and the laws do not provide for criminal prosecution in her case. It was wrong, we know it's wrong, she knows it's wrong, she knew it was wrong at the time she did it, but the law does not provide criminal penalty for it. I expect that will change because she's essentially proven to every government official and employee that they don't have to follow the security policy and procedure.
In case #2, intentional leaks are clearly covered under other similar laws and have criminal consequences.
In case #3 military personnel are under a completely different, and more strict set of security laws which have military justice rules that would apply which have criminal consequences. In short, military personnel are held to a higher standard than government employees.
I think the FBI did as much as they could to essentially say, "She's a crook" while stopping distinctly short of saying, "...and she should be prosecuted as such." The AG will not bring charges against her. It's not only possible, but likely, that there's more to this that could make it criminal, but she's deleted enough evidence that about the only thing they might be able to find against her is obstruction. I doubt they'd be able to successfully charge perjury. There may be other laws which could apply, but I doubt it. She's destroyed enough evidence that she's able to skirt most of the really bad consequences, and while she's not coming out if it smelling like a rose, she's not going to face any worse consequences than her husband did when he was impeached.
Was GWBush and Karl Rove prosecuted? Hell they deleted millions of emails about an illegal firing of lawyers. And the communications were handled on private email servers.
GasBandit
Staff member
That was not illegal. US Attorneys are fired by the president all the time for any or no reason. That W was politically motivated to fire the ones he did didn't make it a criminal act. Most presidents traditionally fire many or all of the US Attorneys right as they begin their administration. But yes, a special prosecutor DID present evidence to a grand jury in that case, and finally in 2010 the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias." Which is just a teeensy bit different than the FBI director saying "Anybody else who did this would get prosecuted, but because it's Hillary Clinton, we're not going to even bother."
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes. Comey actually did.
The FBI director said, before congress, that Secretary of State Clinton "wasn't sophisticated enough" (read: "was too stupid") to understand that the markings on her e-mails meant the subject matter was classified.
Like I said, incompetent, not negligent.
Yes. Comey actually did.
The FBI director said, before congress, that Secretary of State Clinton "wasn't sophisticated enough" (read: "was too stupid") to understand that the markings on her e-mails meant the subject matter was classified.
Arguably worse, though one's technically illegal and the other isn't.
He's retired. I think he had an e-mail for about the last two years he was a state employee - and he never returned one of my e-mails that I sent him through the network...
I've tried talking to my grandparents about this and that was a failure. They didn't understand the concept of having multiple email accounts at all.
That being said, the POTUS should be more tech-savy than that.
Hillary must thank God every day that she had no serious democratic rivals and the republicans went batshit crazy.
That being said, the POTUS should be more tech-savy than that.
Hillary must thank God every day that she had no serious democratic rivals and the republicans went batshit crazy.
Dave
Staff member
Sure she is, if there's money and power in it.
She's actually pretty authentically faithful, there have been a couple longform articles about it sourcing stuff back to before Bill was president.
Dave
Staff member
During campaigning where being religious helps to pander to the weak and stupid? Those times?
I judge religious people by their actions, politicians more than most. And she's been responsible for too much war, death, & misery to really think she's christ-like.
Did you know deeply religious and faithful people can do horrible shit?
Dave
Staff member
Yup. And at that moment I no longer consider them religious.
Must've missed that lecture when I took comparative religion.
Dave
Staff member
Interesting. I didn't know my personal views were part of a curriculum. I must have missed those royalty checks.
That would have royalty checks, right?
You'll have to get them all approved by the Texas Board of Education before you'll be able to sell them. I hope you're ready.
--Patrick
Is education in your country not based on patiently listening to your village's elders? What a farce.
In lighter news... Movie About U.S. Constitution Shut Down After Student Crew Joins IATSE, Walks Off Job. This would be the Tea Party run/financed film, starring Bobby Dean.
Now the art students can be yelled at and paid lousy wages by restaurants like most other art students, rather than getting the same treatment from a low budget film production.
I can see the humor in the situation, but it really just looks like everyone got screwed, and the only people happy about the outcome are the union reps.
I can see the humor in the situation, but it really just looks like everyone got screwed, and the only people happy about the outcome are the union reps.
EpiPens have increased in cost over 600% over ten years due to lack of competition and intense marketing. Doctors have started suggesting their patients use normal syringes filled with adrenaline due to the rising cost, despite the inexact method and the risk of death if injected into a vein. A dose of epinephrine still only costs about a dollar but the delivery device now costs six times as much for unknown and unstated reasons.
Just a reminder that Big Pharma is willing to raises prices because it can, not because it needs to, and that medical monopolies are the worst of all.
Just a reminder that Big Pharma is willing to raises prices because it can, not because it needs to, and that medical monopolies are the worst of all.
GasBandit
Staff member
Found the crux:
Anticompetitive practices always hurt the market, and therefor, the consumer.
