No agent working on the case agreed with Comey. Wrong or the way things work?

[Lighthouse]

Ok cause you had brought up a bunch stuff that presumably Clinton did when I had first only responded to the email thing.

Yes. Negligent email. Voting on Iraq war. Arming terrorists that are in opposition to Turkey(a fellow NATO country) and that would fight Russia. The creation of Isis. Allowing in potential terrorists. The first is direct, the second had a hand, the third is her strong consideration, the fourth had a hand. The fifth would be done. I still do not see how anyone can say that Hillary hasn't or won't pose a risk of national security whether Trump is hated or not. The negligent email alone is a national risk. That wasn't an attack on Hillary, it was bringing up her substance and it all being a threat to national security that many keep trying to phantomly justify as not.

 

[idav]

Yes. Negligent email. Voting on Iraq war. Arming terrorists that are in opposition to Turkey(a fellow NATO country) and that would fight Russia. The creation of Isis. Allowing in potential terrorists. The first is direct, the second had a hand, the third is her strong consideration, the fourth had a hand. The fifth would be done. I still do not see how anyone can say that Hillary hasn't or won't pose a risk of national security whether Trump is hated or not. The negligent email alone is a national risk. That wasn't an attack on Hillary, it was bringing up her substance and it all being a threat to national security that many keep trying to phantomly justify as not.

Don't know what all this Hillary slander is about. You still didn't even respond to my actual email response in which I stated that the server was not unencrypted, but instead you spout off stuff thats misleading misinformation, all of which have their own threads. As you pointed out this is about emails but that doesn't stop you from spouting a bunch of irrelevant things again.

Trump was for the war in Iraq. Arming terrorists, Creating ISIS, and Allowing terrorists all unverified slander.

You keep saying this phantom thing. People don't "phantomly" justify things that have little to no substance. People just think Trump is far worse than some dumb email thing. However I've always been with Sanders, always not a Trump fan, and most any of the Republican candidates would be a far cry better even Pence, and thats saying a lot.

As many point out, we have no choice but to elect Clinton, and not because of the mere 9% of the population that actually wanted Hillary in the first place. At least the Dems were honed in on two candidates. Trump made it because the Repubs split there ticket so badly but they were all anti-trump themselves, very much so.

 

[Lighthouse]

Don't know what all this Hillary slander is about. You still didn't even respond to my actual email response in which I stated that the server was not unencrypted, but instead you spout off stuff thats misleading misinformation, all of which have their own threads. As you pointed out this is about emails but that doesn't stop you from spouting a bunch of irrelevant things again.

Trump was for the war in Iraq. Arming terrorists, Creating ISIS, and Allowing terrorists all unverified slander.

You keep saying this phantom thing. People don't "phantomly" justify things that have little to no substance. People just think Trump is far worse than some dumb email thing. However I've always been with Sanders, always not a Trump fan, and most any of the Republican candidates would be a far cry better even Pence, and thats saying a lot.

As many point out, we have no choice but to elect Clinton, and not because of the mere 9% of the population that actually wanted Hillary in the first place. At least the Dems were honed in on two candidates. Trump made it because the Repubs split there ticket so badly but they were all anti-trump themselves, very much so.

The unencryption is irrelevant to the fact of negligence. Blaming the Russian's or anyone else does make the root of the problem go away, the root was negligent email.

Why are many making every excuse in the book for Hillary that this was not negligence? Phantom justification. It is precisely so with the fact that you're saying it isn't a national threat because it's the hackers fault and that it had some encryption. The root cause is negligence.

It is okay to admit Hillary's email blunder was negligent and posed/poses a national security risk while simultaneously thinking she's the far better candidate.

I wonder how many are contemplating moving to Canada knowing the likelihood of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will likely be the next president.

 

[idav]

The unencryption is irrelevant to the fact of negligence. Blaming the Russian's or anyone else does make the root of the problem go away, the root was negligent email.

Why are many making every excuse in the book for Hillary that this was not negligence? Phantom justification. It is precisely so with the fact that you're saying it isn't a national threat because it's the hackers fault and that it had some encryption. The root cause is negligence.

It is okay to admit Hillary's email blunder was negligent and posed/poses a national security risk while simultaneously thinking she's the far better candidate.

I wonder how many are contemplating moving to Canada knowing the likelihood of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will likely be the next president.

If you don't understand why encryption is relevant then I doubt you can really fully understand the scope of the email issue or even why it's an issue in the first place.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you don't understand why encryption is relevant then I doubt you can really fully understand the scope of the email issue or even why it's an issue in the first place.

True or false, what Hillary did was negligent?

Just about everything is encrypted. We are talking about US security matters, not an everyday Joe's encrypted home internet usage.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you don't understand why encryption is relevant then I doubt you can really fully understand the scope of the email issue or even why it's an issue in the first place.

And for the record, I do not know if she even was aware of the negligence, whether it was willful or not williful. But negligence is negligence and I do believe that she is sorry for it. I also don't see how anyone can call that not negligence even if she wasn't aware of what she was doing or if people hate Trump.

 

[idav]

True or false, what Hillary did was negligent?

Just about everything is encrypted. We are talking about US security matters, not an everyday Joe's encrypted home internet usage.

What was the crime? That's the question. Negligent of what if the servers encrypted? The main reason there was even an investigation was to prove that a server was set up to hide actual criminal activity. Which none were found. She wasn't hacked so the answer is no, and even if she was, being hacked isn't a crime.

 

[idav]

And for the record, I do not know if she even was aware of the negligence, whether it was willful or not williful. But negligence is negligence and I do believe that she is sorry for it. I also don't see how anyone can call that not negligence even if she wasn't aware of what she was doing or if people hate Trump.

The whole issue is why the FBI would not see a crime. Hillary is not the person who set up the server, that would be an information technology issue, the IT would be the negligent ones if there was any.

 

[Lighthouse]

What was the crime? That's the question. Negligent of what if the servers encrypted? The main reason there was even an investigation was to prove that a server was set up to hide actual criminal activity. Which none were found. She wasn't hacked so the answer is no, and even if she was, being hacked isn't a crime.

That is what I've been saying, there has been no criminal activity found regardless of it was covered up or there was none to begin with.
The only charge then would be negligence.

You keep phantomly trying to justify this at all costs, I don't know why.

Comey himself stated "extremely careless." This is negligence.

 

[idav]

The only charge then would be negligence.

Comey himself stated "extremely careless." This is negligence.

Cool and Comey didn't say criminal negligence which is the crime your insinuating.

 

[Lighthouse]

Cool and Comey didn't say criminal negligence which is the crime your insinuating.

Negligence is negligence.

Phantom justification continues. "Hillary was not negligent(careless or extremely careless in any way." "I do not believe what Comey said."

 

[idav]

Negligence is negligence.

Phantom justification continues. "Hillary was not negligent(careless or extremely careless in any way." "I do not believe what Comey said."

Not phantom justification. You just don't believe what the FBI says.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not phantom justification. You just don't believe what the FBI says.

After all of this, you still cannot admit she was negligent?

It is fine to admit she was negligent but you don't "believe" criminal charges should have been made.

 

[idav]

After all of this, you still cannot admit she was negligent?

It is fine to admit she was negligent but you don't "believe" criminal charges should have been made.

Those are different things. Criminal negligence means reasonable precautions were not taken, i.e. The encryption stuff I brought up earlier. Being stupid and careless isn't a crime. Setting up the server in the first place for example.

 

[Lighthouse]

Those are different things. Criminal negligence means reasonable precautions were not taken, i.e. The encryption stuff I brought up earlier. Being stupid and careless isn't a crime. Setting up the server in the first place for example.

Then we both can agree it was extremely careless/negligent and a threat to national security.
Whether charges can be made on that is debatable based on intent and where we reach a conclusion. Many believe charges can be made and many believe charges shouldn't be made. I can't say that I know neither is right or wrong.

 

[idav]

Then we both can agree it was extremely careless/negligent and a threat to national security.
Whether charges can be made on that is debatable based on intent and where we reach a conclusion. Many believe charges can be made and many believe charges shouldn't be made. I can't say that I know neither is right or wrong.

You can't conflate the words. It's debatable as to what "reasonable" precautions should be. However that's what the whole investigation would have been about. The real question we should be asking is why the department of justice chose to agree to not to pursue the email thing but didn't agree when the FBI recommended investigating the Clinton foundation.

 

[Lighthouse]

You can't conflate the words. It's debatable as to what "reasonable" precautions should be. However that's what the whole investigation would have been about. The real question we should be asking is why the department of justice chose to agree to not to pursue the email thing but didn't agree when the FBI recommended investigating the Clinton foundation.

Good question .

 

[Acim]

My understanding is all the agents (that disagree with Comey letting her off) fully, or unanimously, think she should have been stripped of her security clearance. Thought Comey would for sure recommend that. That he didn't is really what set them off. They knew he couldn't prosecute her, but only make the case that she ought to be, but the security clearance thing for them was the biggest deal.

 

[tytlyf]

This thread is on Hillary and her emails and lack of any charges.
What Donald does or says has no relevance to this.

I agree with your point, however.

What about the emails? The FBI conducted their investigation and found no wrong doing.

 

[Lighthouse]

What about the emails? The FBI conducted their investigation and found no wrong doing.

I know that no wrong doing was found outside of extreme carelessness(negligence.)