Will Hillary still get Secret Service protection while in Jail?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2016 8:05 PM GMT
    Just curious??
    Here are the most critical parts of the State Department inspector general report on Clinton’s email use

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/25/here-are-the-most-critical-parts-of-the-state-dept-inspector-general-report-on-clintons-email-use/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2016 8:21 PM GMT
    This is the security review she mentioned, separate from the FBI criminal investigation. It officially shows she lied when she said she did nothing wrong. But everyone knew that anyway.

    If she doesn't get a pardon, she could be where Martha Stewart was housed. I suspect the Secret Service will off-load some of the protection to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

    Even if she gets a pardon, she will probably have big problems with the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2016 8:25 PM GMT
    What's manifest is that nowhere in this report is there any particularized allegation or conclusion that Clinton violated any law. I understand that some people are self-lubricating waiting for a statement from somewhere or someone that Clinton committed a punishable crime. Let's not imagine what's not there. There's no there there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2016 8:32 PM GMT
    DOMINUS saidWhat's manifest is that nowhere in this report is there any particularized allegation or conclusion that Clinton violated any law. I understand that some people are self-lubricating waiting for a statement from somewhere or someone that Clinton committed a punishable crime. Let's not imagine what's not there. There's no there there.


    Exactly. Besides, she has already admitted she was wrong in using a private server.

    If Clinton is going to jail on the basis of this report, presumably Colin Powell - who has acknowledged publicly that he used his personal laptop to write emails - will be in the next cell:

    The report also criticizes Colin Powell’s handling of official emails during his tenure as secretary of state, saying it was also “not an appropriate method” for preserving emails that are part of the federal record.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2016 8:38 PM GMT
    DOMINUS saidWhat's manifest is that nowhere in this report is there any particularized allegation or conclusion that Clinton violated any law. I understand that some people are self-lubricating waiting for a statement from somewhere or someone that Clinton committed a punishable crime. Let's not imagine what's not there. There's no there there.

    This review does not address violations of the law. That is the purview of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation. She did say she violated no policies and this report clearly shows that to be untrue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2016 9:08 PM GMT
    CjVMZmeWkAIX5DX.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 1:18 AM GMT
    Hillary Clinton sidesteps email questions at rally


    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-sidesteps-email-questions-at-rally/ar-BBtu2HE?li=BBnb7Kz
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 3:10 AM GMT
    DOMINUS saidWhat's manifest is that nowhere in this report is there any particularized allegation or conclusion that Clinton violated any law. I understand that some people are self-lubricating waiting for a statement from somewhere or someone that Clinton committed a punishable crime. Let's not imagine what's not there. There's no there there.


    Here ya go... The criminal law pages at Cornell are a good place to get a look at the statutes:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law

    18 U.S. Code § 798 - "Disclosure of classified information" of the federal code would be a good place to start.

    Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States....

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both....

    18 U.S. Code §1924 also applies. That section makes it a crime, punishable by up to one year in prison, to remove documents or materials containing classified information without authority from a classified location. Ask Patraeus about that one.

    Hillary took mandatory training on these statutes and was aware of them.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 4:50 PM GMT
    Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

    “There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. “This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-hillary-clinton-is-unlikely-to-be-indicted-over-her-private-email-server/2016/03/08/341c3786-e557-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

    Did Clinton screw up? Almost certainly. For most floating voters, however, their fear of a Trump presidency is far greater than their disappointment in Clinton as a candidate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 6:52 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    All,

    This UK member, who just so happens to have an unhealthy obsession with our politics and with Hillary, posted this exact thing in the linked thread. The Post article was shown to be biased and dishonest as it quoted only one participant from a debate previously published in the NY Times. The other participant made very valid points countering the points made by the one participant but the other participant was not quoted or referred to in the Post article.

    Whatever you opinion on the issue, this Post article was dishonest. The UK member might not have known this when he posted it originally in the linked thread. But unless he forgot it, he is also dishonest posting it again.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4207823/


    All

    Socalfitness happens to have an unhealthy obsession with my interest in US politics . The Post article is what it is and I'm sure any RJers who care to read it (and any thread in which I cite the same article) are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions, without deceptive "guidance" from Socalfitness .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 7:58 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    What is deceptive about pointing out both sides to a debate when you and your source just pointed out one side? Difficult one. Ponder that. LOL


    "Deceptive", because you implied I was concealing the existence of contrary expert opinion. An expert on prosecutions involving classified information gave a direct opinion to the author of the WP opinion piece and that is what I quoted.

    The NYT article you cited was incidental to the WP article I cited. If you want to point out the same expert debated with another expert elsewhere and they didn't agree, that's fine, but don't call me "dishonest" simply because I happen to quote (and agree with) a particular expert opinion.

    This is typical of your slimy right-wing smear tactics, which longer-established RJers will be all too familiar with. I suppose I should be grateful you're not threatening me with blackmail or with calling the FBI, this time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 9:41 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Pure bullshit. The NY Times article was hardly incidental to the Washington Post article. The author quoted one side of a debate in the Times and deliberately failed to mention the counter points in the same article. You may not have known that when you first posted it in the other thread, but you knew about it when you posted in this thread. When you knowingly disseminate incomplete or biased information and fail to mention it, then you are complicit and share in the dishonesty of the Post author.

    You are a piece of work. Just for the benefit of others:

    This guy has a mental disorder that is manifest in an obsessive compulsive malady. He directs his obsession to leftist US politics in a futile attempt to hide from a failed and empty life in the UK. The love of Hillary and fear of Trump is obvious.

    I didn't call the FBI before. I spoke with a retired FBI agent who headed security for the Romney campaign. That was in response to your claim to have infiltrated the Romney telephone program. Go ahead and link the thread again. That's fine. And if you try that or similar bullshit again with the Trump campaign, I will not hesitate to contact them.


    Nonsense. The WP author clearly spoke with and quoted the expert, hence, "American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me". The NYT article is therefore incidental.

    As for your history of slimy tactics, explain how this line - which was among your barrage of increasingly bizarre threats and rants - had any relevance to my "infiltration" of the Romney telephone program (i.e. my objection to your using these forums as a Romney/Ryan telephone campaign recruiting tool):

    "BTW - I happened to see photos of you on a UK web site. Interesting background. You've been holding back on us. icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif"

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2596356?forumpage=1

    You're a right-wing windbag, who is more than happy to resort to dirty tricks when you're not getting your own way. Little wonder you've embraced Trump so fanatically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 10:08 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    If Trump wins do they have a suicide prevention hotline for you in the UK, loser?


    If Trump wins, I'll come over to NYC and show my ass in Macys window.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2016 8:05 PM GMT
    Clinton email headache is about to get worse

    http://www.thehill.com/policy/national-security/281554-clinton-email-headache-is-about-to-get-worse
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2016 8:29 PM GMT
    As I said before, for most floating voters, their fear of a Trump presidency is far greater than their disappointment in Clinton as a candidate.

    Six Numbers That Show Why Clinton Is Still the Favorite in 2016

    The advantage for a generic Democratic candidate over a generic Republican is 4 percentage points.

    The Democratic Party is nearly breaking even on favorability, while the GOP is under water.

    Barack Obama's approval rating is 51 percent.

    Trump is under-performing with white women by 10 points.

    Trump's showing a nine-point drop in the suburbs.

    Clinton has a 10-point advantage on the commander-in-chief test.


    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/six-numbers-show-why-clinton-still-favorite-2016-n581691
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2016 9:11 PM GMT
    2Bnaked saidClinton email headache is about to get worse

    http://www.thehill.com/policy/national-security/281554-clinton-email-headache-is-about-to-get-worse

    The Washington Post and New York Times have written articles criticizing Clinton based on the IG report. Although they were somewhat restrained in their comments, the fact that they reported it at all is interesting. Maybe they have some inside information about events in the next few weeks and are preparing for a Biden entrance into the race.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2016 4:57 AM GMT
    After latest email revelations and endless dishonesty, time for Hillary Clinton to head for the hills


    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-latest-email-disaster-time-clinton-drop-article-1.2653391
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2016 11:37 AM GMT
    bayguy said Maybe they have some inside information about events in the next few weeks and are preparing for a Biden entrance into the race.


    And maybe not. The scrutiny can only get harder for Trump, while Clinton may have been through the toughest phase already. The worst things that could happen are largely behind her. If the justice department was going to charge her, it would probably have done so by now. After all, how could they justify charges against Clinton when Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice haven't even been investigated by the FBI (other than as witnesses) for essentially doing the same thing she did?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2016 12:01 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    bayguy said Maybe they have some inside information about events in the next few weeks and are preparing for a Biden entrance into the race.


    And maybe not. The scrutiny can only get harder for Trump, while Clinton may have been through the toughest phase already. The worst things that could happen are largely behind her. If the justice department was going to charge her, it would probably have done so by now. After all, how could they justify charges against Clinton when Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice haven't even been investigated by the FBI (other than as witnesses) for essentially doing the same thing she did?

    As far as DOJ timing the fact that they only recently interviewed her top aides indicates the investigation is still ongoing and moving towards a conclusion. If you think the others did "essentially" the same thing then you are completely misinformed. They only occasionally used a personal email account while she maintained a private server and used that exclusively despite having been repeatedly advised not to based on IG report. The number of classified messages regardless of markings or lack thereof is also significantly different as is the obstruction of justice by trying to wipe the server clean. Completely different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2016 1:03 PM GMT
    I've read about more than one conservative intelligence type who basically said, "I think Clinton should be in jail for what she did, and I still think she's a better choice than Trump for the presidency."
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 29, 2016 2:48 PM GMT
    If Hillary gets indicted it's probably going to happen before the convention so the Dems can slip Joe Biden into the mix. I don't believe Even if Hillary were found guilty -- which I'm not convinced would happen anyway -- she will never spend a day in jail. Obama would likely pardon her before he let that happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 29, 2016 5:15 PM GMT
    there will always be some small spot on a conservative sun for a Democrat. Likely not hinder the president elect. They still talk about Obama's citizenship but its just that; talk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2016 3:41 AM GMT
    Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges

    http://k1nsey6.com/2016/05/hillary-clinton-to-be-indicted-on-federal-racketeering-charges/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2016 9:22 PM GMT
    dR72Tl.jpg
  • Brock700xChar...

    Posts: 397

    Jun 02, 2016 9:35 PM GMT
    2Bnaked saidHillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges

    http://k1nsey6.com/2016/05/hillary-clinton-to-be-indicted-on-federal-racketeering-charges/


    Hillary Clinton is going to beat Bernie Sanders, become the democratic nominee, and become the first female president, it's time for you to accept that. Seriously.