|
mugrim posted:The FBI investigation concluded she didn't purposefully store classified material on a private server, I never saw anything about evading FOIA, simply classified materials. Feel free to correct me with a source. Feel free to support your wild assertions with a source. I also never saw anything clearing Clinton of mail fraud or grand theft auto. What's your point?
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
Hubis posted:Feel free to support your wild assertions with a source. The entire text of Comey's announcement as well as the rest of the FBI's announcements never even brings up FOIA (outside of how a request was made) and focuses exclusively on the content of the emails in relation to the mishandling of classified documents. The OIG did bring it up however and laid out the FOIA case against her pretty plainly. The S/ES memo in 2004 as well as 2009 expressly tells staff that they are to submit all records whether personal or not if an email account is used. She failed to do that. The BEST case scenario is she could claim general recklessness without intent, but I think Trump would love nothing more than to have her have to publicly say "I'm an idiot" and it's not like he's footing the bill. That's assuming he wants the hassle which is a whole other story. Seriously read the OIG report if you haven't, it's basically an entire descriptor of how awful both the Bush and Obama administration have been about ignoring FOIA and shows the dozens of times the OIG and others have tried to get them into compliance and failed. There's not even solid caselaw because it is almost never brought up in court despite a wide array of tests that often have zero reflection on what the law actually requires and has required and so many people are held to such different standards. Hubis posted:I also never saw anything clearing Clinton of mail fraud or grand theft auto. What's your point? There's zero evidence she did either of those things. She did however use a private email serve, repeatedly send out emails to the entire state department telling them the importance of using work emails since FOIA requires it for disclosure, and have staff repeatedly tell her whenever it was down to be careful about what she said because if it was through her State Department server it'd be subject to FOIA. The basic punishment for evading FOIA at this point is kind of up in the air as few people are ever even attempted with it, especially on the federal level, and it's effectively a civil law not criminal. However, failure to turn over the records as required initially could still be prosecuted, though nothing real would ever come of it. The best case scenario is they'd lose and pay some lovely fine or something but it's basically uncharted territories because eventually you get the material, but in theory you can still go for it if you prove intent. mugrim fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
mugrim posted:in theory you can still go for it if you prove intent. This is the key point, using a private mail server isn't a crime but intentionally avoiding FoI requests or disclosing classified material is. Without some email or conversation record with Hillary or her staff saying they should discuss X on the private server to avoid getting questioned about it it's very, very unlikely there would be anything to prosecute. The fact that it was pretty much in line with how previous administrations handled this kind of stuff also makes it pretty questionable as circumstantial evidence (i.e. she wasn't doing anything new or different so either you are arguing that she was doing the same thing for different reasons or Powell, Rice and other previous SoS's were all intentionally avoiding FoI requests and you need to start getting more FBI investigations going). Obama isn't going to pardon Hillary because she didn't break any laws. Granting a blanket pardon would require an admission of guilt on her part, he doesn't think she committed any crimes. Really the only way I could see Hillary getting a pardon would be Trump trying to have his cake and eat it with regards to 'Crooked Hillary'. I could see him making his first act granting her a pardon to show his magnanimity and avoiding having to hold press conferences about the fact that the FBI has found nothing and lol, turns out he was full of poo poo. The only reason I don't think it'll happen is because anyone can see Hillary would fight the pardon and make it more of an issue. Now that she's not running for office I think you're going to see the whole issue just never be mentioned again. The US press should be hammering it though, asking Trump for comments or developments on this and Obama's birth certificate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 10:36
|
|
mugrim posted:The basic punishment for evading FOIA at this point is kind of up in the air as few people are ever even attempted with it, especially on the federal level, and it's effectively a civil law not criminal. However, failure to turn over the records as required initially could still be prosecuted, though nothing real would ever come of it. The best case scenario is they'd lose and pay some lovely fine or something but it's basically uncharted territories because eventually you get the material, but in theory you can still go for it if you prove intent. So it's irrelevant by your own admission. Got it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:So it's irrelevant by your own admission. Got it. I don't think being prosecuted would mean irrelevant, especially to Trumps supporters. Merely having a trial and hearings might sate them. MrNemo posted:This is the key point, using a private mail server isn't a crime but intentionally avoiding FoI requests or disclosing classified material is. Without some email or conversation record with Hillary or her staff saying they should discuss X on the private server to avoid getting questioned about it That email exists without the intent to avoid questioning part but if you questioned the recipients you could potentially get someone to flip as to why they stated that at all (several emails are out there where people point out to her that while her server is down all her emails are subject to FOIA). The standard for FOIA isn't trying to evade a single question, but rather trying to purposefully evade or obstruct current or future requests which anyone who's not an idiot knows that's exactly why she did it. She wanted to run for president and didn't want her office emails public. Not only did Clinton send out multiple emails to her employees telling them it's a crime to state department work with a private email address in part to FOIA (showing she understood the law) her staff sent multiple emails to her reminding her whenever she used a state department email (because her private server crashed a few times) to not forget it'd be subject to FOIA. This ENTIRE bullshit scandal happened because she was sent a FOIA request over the Benghazi nonsense and she couldn't produce anything within a reasonable timeframe. There's emails where people casually remind her that she's subject to FOIA when she uses her state department email. The idea she didn't know what she was doing is absurd, and while she'd probably not have any kind of actual punishment the trial alone would be awful for her. Personally, killing private emails for the SoS (or any government official) as a practice would be stellar in my eyes. I agree that no pardon will be given, but without a pardon it leaves this whole thing on the table. I mean, name one reason it's not in Trump's interest to do it? He doesn't have to pay for it. I doubt the Democrats give a gently caress about her enough anymore to throw hissy fits. What does he lose? He definitely gains a lot. mugrim fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 16:26
|
|
mugrim posted:I don't think being prosecuted would mean irrelevant, especially to Trumps supporters. Merely having a trial and hearings might sate them. You can say poo poo like "anyone who's not an idiot knows that's exactly why she did it" but the problem is that you have to prove it. Do you really think the FBI didn't think of any of this poo poo already? Do you really think everyone who had a hand in this investigation, every single one of them, was that much stupider than you? They can't do anything about it because hand wringing about what she knew is a good way to waste everyone's time and not prove poo poo. Once you're in hearings the thing is out of your hands and now you have to actually prove the poo poo you're accusing someone of, and no one in the GOP actually wants to bother with that because they already got what they wanted out of it. Better to look magnanimous in victory than open that pandora's box. This is what it means when people say it's irrelevant. Whether she did it or not and what she really understood is moot, and if you think Trump wants to prosecute over it, remember how hard he turned from "Hillary is a criminal" to "Hillary has done a lot of work for this country and should be applauded for that." It was a campaign strategy that worked, nothing more. Although, after all of this, I think the more prudent people in Washington will move their poo poo back to government servers so they can avoid this happening to them when it's time for them to run for office again. No matter what happens with Hillary, the message is pretty clear that doing the private server thing is a good way to lose an election.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:You can say poo poo like "anyone who's not an idiot knows that's exactly why she did it" but the problem is that you have to prove it. Do you really think the FBI didn't think of any of this poo poo already? Do you really think everyone who had a hand in this investigation, every single one of them, was that much stupider than you? The FBI was explicitly looking through for violations of criminal law (and even then their scope was infosec), not civil, and even then their scope was in relation to the storage and mishandling of the server irt the storage and transmission of classified information. The FBI's scope wouldn't have included simply violating FOIA, the few comments they basically had on FOIA was that she blatantly violated it but more as an afterthought meant to credit the OIGs work and earn political point. The OIG 100% looked at it and came to the conclusion I, and anyone else who's worked FOIA intensive fields has done and it's not really that special. Seriously, read the OIG report I linked earlier, it comes through everything I basically said that there would be grounds for termination if she was still working there due to violating FOIA and there's clearly a pattern as well as emails showing a desire to evade FOIA. This means there's going to be standing but the real question is wtf do you do if you succeed? There's no office to raid with an LEO, there's no evidence to overturn, really the closest you could have is a fine. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:They can't do anything about it because hand wringing about what she knew is a good way to waste everyone's time and not prove poo poo. There's actual standing for a FOIA case here, it'd just be a first since normally you just fire whoever rather than really trying to determine the scope of punishment. An investigation into her FOIA evasion could go either way depending on a variety of factors. The real question is what you would actually do if something came of it. While there's a violation of the civil code, there's literally no listed remedy other than the implication of retrieving stuff. So if you can't retrieve something or if someone purposefully hides it until it no longer matters, what remedy could there possibly be? LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Once you're in hearings the thing is out of your hands and now you have to actually prove the poo poo you're accusing someone of, and no one in the GOP actually wants to bother with that because they already got what they wanted out of it. Better to look magnanimous in victory than open that pandora's box. As she's no longer a cabinet official, I have no idea why you think this entire thing would hinge on hearings. She'd have a real rear end judge in a civil court. There could be hearings due to the nature of it, but it could be a straight up investigation. Again, almost no one ever violates FOIA like this and has it this much in the private eye after the fact. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:This is what it means when people say it's irrelevant. Whether she did it or not and what she really understood is moot, and if you think Trump wants to prosecute over it, remember how hard he turned from "Hillary is a criminal" to "Hillary has done a lot of work for this country and should be applauded for that." It was a campaign strategy that worked, nothing more. You're probably right, but there's no double jeopardy in waiting. He has nothing to gain starting this early. If we get 6 months past his first day and he still hasn't done anything, then he'll never do it. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Although, after all of this, I think the more prudent people in Washington will move their poo poo back to government servers so they can avoid this happening to them when it's time for them to run for office again. No matter what happens with Hillary, the message is pretty clear that doing the private server thing is a good way to lose an election. I doubt that's the lesson anyone will take, but I hope they do. In my fairy world we'd make a new law making FOIA evasion done through private servers a strict liability crime and prescribing prison time for it to prevent this nonsense in the future. mugrim fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:48
|
|