NDL Forum

Does intent matter in this instance?

Well, the FBI director told us it did, but to better word it, should it matter?

I think intent matters in all situations.

Well when I say matters, I mean if you don't have any criminal intent, is breaking this specific law not actually breaking the law?

With no criminal intent it is more a matter of protocol or procedure. There is a way these things are intended to be handled to minimize risk of loss. They weren't handled that way (by numerous people). Not because they wanted to get away with something, which is where the intent comes in. If the investigation found that they used the private server in order to secretly send the information to an uncleared party, it's a whole different story.

Then why lie about it? You can go to all the scandals in her and her husband's past (and there are a bunch of them) and ask the same question. If you did nothing wrong, then why lie about it?

What was the lie?

She lied about having classified emails on her server. You say there was no criminal intent, ergo she didn't know she wasn't supposed to have a private server. Okay. That makes her incompetent. Which is it? Is she incompetent or did she know she wasn't supposed to have the private server and did she lie about it?

Again. This decision by the FBI not to pursue a criminal case comes within a week of Bill meeting with Loretta Lynch in a private meeting on a tarmac. That is just a little bit fishy isn't it? Of course all they talked about was his golf game and grand kids.

I question If we know all the facts. Did the emails with the classified information originated from her or were sent to her? There was some indication that her staff used the server as well. Is it 100% clear they were her emails. It's easy for her to claim the were no classified emails if she wasn't on them. Alternatively, she could have been incompetent enough to not be able to recognize classified info on an unmarked emai.

It's pretty clear that communications about classified material wasn't a common occurrence for her if the only email server she used for four years had fewer than 100 emails that should have been marked out of 30,000+. Would it surprise me if she simply didn't understand what was classified and what wasn't? Nope.

So you're saying she is incompetent? The Secretary of State doesn't understand what is classified and what isn't? Really? That's what you're going with? The third highest official of the executive branch doesn't understand what is classified?

I'm saying most likely we know very little about the facts. 52 emails in four years. How many did Clinton herself read or write? We don't know. Maybe all, maybe none, maybe seven (pick your favorite number from 1 to 52). Some very innocuous things can make an email classified. What if the review showed she had sent or read only five of those emails, and they were ones that should have been marked confidential (lowest marking) because she mentioned one word that took the email from nothing to "confidential"? It takes hardly anything to cause that, so would someone automatically know that or could they miss it?

When we know every detail, then let's pass judgment. We know 1% of 1% of what really happened yet we pass judgment as if we're omnipotent. I'm just throwing out scenarios that show that...

I really can't believe someone is trying to defend this situation as acceptable. Wow.

All I know is that we are fucked this presidential election. No third party will win and that leaves one who is crazy and one who is a criminal.

ReignOnU wrote:I really can't believe someone is trying to defend this situation as acceptable. Wow.

I said it's acceptable?

dakshdar wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:I really can't believe someone is trying to defend this situation as acceptable. Wow.

I said it's acceptable?

Not outright. But the defending her actions says otherwise.

I have seen people lose their security clearance for far less. I have seen people lose rank, money and had to do 45 days of extra duty (work your 8 hour day and then get to work another 8-12 hours on top of that because the Army only has to give you 4 hours of sleep) for far less than what she has done.

Why is it okay that she can be reckless with our nations secrets and blind democrats are fully okay with it?

I don't assume to know that what she did was even on par with what would result in repercussions that you're mentioning. As I said, I think we're barely in the know. The only thing the report said was that she'd normally be subject to administrative or security reprimand. Didn't it also say, or at least most articles said, an indictment wouldn't be something sought because it wasn't a potential outcome regardless? That's why the whole Bill secret meeting doesn't really sounds like much. Do people think that really saved Hillary from jail time? That's a pretty big stretch.

I've taken more of a stance lately with a lot of things like this that it's OK to feel like something is a little not right (which this case/result admittedly seems suspect in at least the fact that there should be some discipline as previously discussed), but that it isn't right to jump to a conclusion without complete knowledge of the facts and the scenario. We should ask for and want those details as members of this country/society, but I think in this case, and in many others, there is a rush to judgment that is unjustified.

Honestly, I don't think Slick Willy had any leverage on this situation.

OracleHCR wrote:All I know is that we are fucked this presidential election. No third party will win and that leaves one who is crazy and one who is a criminal.

Blame everyone, all the millions, who vote for a democrat or republican religiously and blindly.

GeorgesGoons wrote:

dakshdar wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:I really can't believe someone is trying to defend this situation as acceptable. Wow.

I said it's acceptable?

Not outright. But the defending her actions says otherwise.

I have seen people lose their security clearance for far less. I have seen people lose rank, money and had to do 45 days of extra duty (work your 8 hour day and then get to work another 8-12 hours on top of that because the Army only has to give you 4 hours of sleep) for far less than what she has done.

Why is it okay that she can be reckless with our nations secrets and blind democrats are fully okay with it?

He isnt defending her he's putting it into perspective that her intent means she shouldnt have gone to jail but that she's more than likely incompetent and the whole system is fucked like everyone already knew it was. And she's gonna be the next president since the knuckle draggers couldn't do any better then the retarded circus monkey that is Trump. Man are we fucked come November......

shel311 wrote:

OracleHCR wrote:All I know is that we are fucked this presidential election. No third party will win and that leaves one who is crazy and one who is a criminal.

Blame everyone, all the millions, who vote for a democrat or republican religiously and blindly.

And blame them all for re-electing these crooked politicians.

It's going to be scary but I'd rather have Trump in there over Hillary.

In a perfect world Gary Johnson would win.

In an even more perfect world Mad Dog General James Mattis would be president!

Crowes wrote:

GeorgesGoons wrote:

dakshdar wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:I really can't believe someone is trying to defend this situation as acceptable. Wow.

I said it's acceptable?

Not outright. But the defending her actions says otherwise.

I have seen people lose their security clearance for far less. I have seen people lose rank, money and had to do 45 days of extra duty (work your 8 hour day and then get to work another 8-12 hours on top of that because the Army only has to give you 4 hours of sleep) for far less than what she has done.

Why is it okay that she can be reckless with our nations secrets and blind democrats are fully okay with it?

He isnt defending her he's putting it into perspective that her intent means she shouldnt have gone to jail but that she's more than likely incompetent and the whole system is fucked like everyone already knew it was. And she's gonna be the next president since the knuckle draggers couldn't do any better then the retarded circus monkey that is Trump. Man are we fucked come November......

I believe her intent was to circumvent the normal protocols for her convenience. If she knew there was a possibility of classified information being sent from her email or to her email account then she knew she shouldn't have had a private server. She did it for her own personal convenience. That shows intent and incompetence, but incompetence isn't an alibi when safeguarding our national secrets. Just my opinion of course so take that with a grain of salt.