Dennis Hastert child sex abuse charges.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

OK, I got it

The justice system failed and got it wrong with Cheney and Hasert because they are guilty even though it wasn't proven in a court of law but Hilary isn't until its proven. Typical liberal double standard. Let me guess, Lois Lerner (or Bill Clinton) isn't guilty of Perjury. Glad you're not partisan (LOL). You believe enough in the justice system to ignore the part about statute of limitation, enough to ignore the part about innocent until proven guilty (which neither Hasert or Cheney was in relation to the crimes you accuse them of) but you sure want those standards to apply to Hilary. Well that's mighty American of you.

You claimed Hasert was convicted of child abuse. He wasn't. Its a simple fact for whatever reason. He has not admitted to child molestion however I'm fairly sure he did but I'm MORE SURE that Hilary violate the law AND the statutes of limitation has not expired on her crimes. Now if the justice system worked like is was suppose to and does with "normal" citizens, her fat ass would have been arrested a long time ago and put in a cell next to Chelsea / Bradley Manning, and she would likely be seen in the same light as Edward Snowden.... because what she did has exactly the same potential to result in exactly what they did.

Actually, you don't "got it".

I didn't say the justice system failed with Hastert. He was convicted. I said it's a shame that statute of limitations ran out to punish the lowest of criminals in Hastert with the harshest penalty, but at least he was able to be brought to some justice. I NEVER said he was convicted of child molestation. I said he was convicted AND an admitted child molester and is recognized by the court as one and that satisfies my standard of guilt. Unproven accusations do not satisfy my standard for guilt, as where it stands with Hillary today.

I totally support all investigations into any supposed criminal activities she may have done. I totally support any charges that may be brought upon her. The problem is that even though she may be the most investigated person in the history of the US, nothing ever sticks, and I personally feel that this will go down the same path. I have yet to see how these investigations aren't politically motivated, but I say let them happen.

I also didn't say that the justice system failed with Cheney, I said that it got it wrong, which it sometimes does. Justice served wrong isn't necessarily a failure, IMO. If someone is wrongly imprisoned, that's when it fails. Maybe you could make a case that Scooter Libby was failed by the justice system, but that's a whole other debate. The fact that I do support all of this, I'm not sure how that makes me partisan on these issues.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a privilege of speaking my words for me, basically dodging the subject. I hear nothing of your commentary on the inability of Republican leadership to call Hastert what he is. No thoughts on that?

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Good list.

That's my point, and I didn't mean to hijack. But the truth is that corruption exists throughout politics, and always has, and the only way to fight it is to never give into the party excuses made by "your side" when it happens. We should call everyone out and demand better whether they otherwise support our political views or not.

Re Hillary if you think she's guilty of any of this and is basicaly dishonest, you shouldn't vote for her whether she mouths support for things you support or not. Same for a GOP candidate.

That's the only way to get better candidates.

That's one way to look at it, the other way is that if you think she may be guilty of a crime, but was it intentional, or does it impact her ability to lead. You have a different standard. Whether or not she is guilty, I feel that you don't think she has the ability to lead our nation. I disagree. So, then it falls down to the question whether she was knowingly and intending to commit a crime. So far, the investigation has proven that NOT to be the case.

I don't see her doing anything any different from her predecessors today. If the investigation says otherwise, then I'll reconsider then.

We have plenty of good candidates, that offer a distinct choice for people, that run for President. That's not an issue.

[CitizenBBN]

That's one way to look at it, the other way is that if you think she may be guilty of a crime, but was it intentional, or does it impact her ability to lead. You have a different standard. Whether or not she is guilty, I feel that you don't think she has the ability to lead our nation. I disagree.

she intentionally set up a separate server and repeatedly worked to skirt the established rules for information security. That's documented, from her request to use her Blackberry in wirelessly secure facilities where NO ONE is allowed to use such devices to several other such incidents that are known.

She also was briefed and signed an agreement saying she understood that she has an AFFIRMATIVE obligation to protect sensitive information regardless of how it is labelled.

If she just doesn't know that recordings of a Yemeni informant that reveals identities or information on foreign troop movements or nuclear programs etc. is sensitive, then yes she's disqualified to lead the country b/c she's apparently a moron.

But we both know she's not which means she just didn't think it was a big deal to put those things on an unsecure server in her basement, and was and is so full of herself she thinks she's above the law and even the threat of foreign intelligence gathering.

her hubris in these actions is beyond shocking, and that level of irresponsibility and lack of understanding is utterly disqualifying for holding high office.

BTW that's not just my opinion, it's actually the law. What she did was legally wanton, which is an even higher level of breach than that which makes her a felon (which only requires negligence), and legally that disqualifies her.

Will the system work? I don't know, i seriously doubt it, but you can claim Cheney's outcome was "wrong" with certainty when there isn't 1/100th the evidence we have against Hillary, yet she's innocent if the system is just too corrupt to take proper action.

Yeah, no partisanship there.

[Doc]

Actually, you don't "got it".

I didn't say the justice system failed with Hastert. He was convicted. I said it's a shame that statute of limitations ran out to punish the lowest of criminals in Hastert with the harshest penalty, but at least he was able to be brought to some justice. I NEVER said he was convicted of child molestation. I said he was convicted AND an admitted child molester and is recognized by the court as one and that satisfies my standard of guilt. Unproven accusations do not satisfy my standard for guilt, as where it stands with Hillary today.

I totally support all investigations into any supposed criminal activities she may have done. I totally support any charges that may be brought upon her. The problem is that even though she may be the most investigated person in the history of the US, nothing ever sticks, and I personally feel that this will go down the same path. I have yet to see how these investigations aren't politically motivated, but I say let them happen.

I also didn't say that the justice system failed with Cheney, I said that it got it wrong, which it sometimes does. Justice served wrong isn't necessarily a failure, IMO. If someone is wrongly imprisoned, that's when it fails. Maybe you could make a case that Scooter Libby was failed by the justice system, but that's a whole other debate. The fact that I do support all of this, I'm not sure how that makes me partisan on these issues.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a privilege of speaking my words for me, basically dodging the subject. I hear nothing of your commentary on the inability of Republican leadership to call Hastert what he is. No thoughts on that?

TO QUOTE YOU "Hastert is a convicted, admitted child predator and barely apologetic, the lowest of the lowest." He is not a convicted or admitted child predator. He might be in YOUR mind but that and $3.50 will buy you a grande latte at Starbucks.

Personally I don't think Chaney violated the law, or at least any more than any other politician. I'd say anything against him was politically motivated by the left. See how that works? Its interesting that the Obama led administration with an Eric Holder led justice department that was hell bent on bringing charges against him couldn't find anything on him. When GOP folks are not even charged its a failure of the system.

As for Hillary, you claim she may be the most investigated person in the history of the US. Likely a reason for that. Might be because she is one of the most corrupt!

As for Hasert, why would the GOP speak out on him? The guy is out of politics and ready to die. He is a non-issue politically speaking and the GOP would want to distance themselves for him. Its like asking how come Hilary and the democrats aren't talking about Rod Blagojevich.

[Doc]

That's one way to look at it, the other way is that if you think she may be guilty of a crime, but was it intentional, or does it impact her ability to lead. You have a different standard. Whether or not she is guilty, I feel that you don't think she has the ability to lead our nation. I disagree. So, then it falls down to the question whether she was knowingly and intending to commit a crime. So far, the investigation has proven that NOT to be the case.

I don't see her doing anything any different from her predecessors today. If the investigation says otherwise, then I'll reconsider then.

We have plenty of good candidates, that offer a distinct choice for people, that run for President. That's not an issue.

She set up the server and that act in and of itself is one of two things. Its either illegal and/or incredibly dumb. IMO dumb enough to tell the nation she is too stupid to lead the nation. Its a MAJOR breach of secrurity. Even the lowest level of government employee knows not to do what she did yet in her mind apparently she believes she is above the laws. Can't say I'm shocked though.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

she intentionally set up a separate server and repeatedly worked to skirt the established rules for information security. That's documented, from her request to use her Blackberry in wirelessly secure facilities where NO ONE is allowed to use such devices to several other such incidents that are known.

She also was briefed and signed an agreement saying she understood that she has an AFFIRMATIVE obligation to protect sensitive information regardless of how it is labelled.

If she just doesn't know that recordings of a Yemeni informant that reveals identities or information on foreign troop movements or nuclear programs etc. is sensitive, then yes she's disqualified to lead the country b/c she's apparently a moron.

But we both know she's not which means she just didn't think it was a big deal to put those things on an unsecure server in her basement, and was and is so full of herself she thinks she's above the law and even the threat of foreign intelligence gathering.

her hubris in these actions is beyond shocking, and that level of irresponsibility and lack of understanding is utterly disqualifying for holding high office.

BTW that's not just my opinion, it's actually the law. What she did was legally wanton, which is an even higher level of breach than that which makes her a felon (which only requires negligence), and legally that disqualifies her.

Will the system work? I don't know, i seriously doubt it, but you can claim Cheney's outcome was "wrong" with certainty when there isn't 1/100th the evidence we have against Hillary, yet she's innocent if the system is just too corrupt to take proper action.

Yeah, no partisanship there.

That's exactly your partisanship, biased opinion. So far, the FBI has not found the evidence to even submit to the DOJ, and the tricky thing here is that there really is no precedent. I'm certainly willing to let the process play out, but I'm not going to simply "convict" someone on speculation(which is all anything is right now).

Let's just say for a minute, before I try once again to stay on topic, let's just assume that Hillary is guilty, part of the problem that the FBI is having is proving intent(all completely speculative). If the FBI can't do it, YOU can't do it either, without bias. That intent is key, because it really comes down to this being the speeding violation equivalent of national security laws and to me is much less severe than the consequences of outing a CIA agent out of political spite.

Back to the real topic here is it seems to me that your response to my claim as to trying to figure out why GOP leaders in the highest positions have trouble calling Hastert what he is, a convicted felon, admitted child molester that deserves to be imprisoned. Why is that so hard? I can't even get a flimsy on topic response. All that I get is that Hillary is a criminal.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

She set up the server and that act in and of itself is one of two things. Its either illegal and/or incredibly dumb. IMO dumb enough to tell the nation she is too stupid to lead the nation. Its a MAJOR breach of secrurity. Even the lowest level of government employee knows not to do what she did yet in her mind apparently she believes she is above the laws. Can't say I'm shocked though.

OK, well at least we can find some common ground. Politicians at the highest levels do INCREDIBLY DUMB things. That we can agree. EVERY President has done dumb things. Most politicians also act like they believe they are above certain laws. That's not going to change either, although that's not an admission by me as to that's how she approached this.

Does doing something dumb, without an intent to do harm warrant prosecution? I don't know that answer. Does doing something incredibly dumb deserve to be scrutinized? Of course. That's why I support the investigation, because we deserve to know.

We don't agree, but I respect your opinion and your vote for who you want to lead our nation and that this is one thing of many that disqualifies Hillary in your opinion. I also have my opinion where one act of stupidity doesn't trump the years of quality service that she has given to our nation, and I don't want to turn this into a "what good has she done" debate.

If you're looking for a candidate that does NOT or has NOT done something incredibly dumb or thinks they're a little above the law, then that's going to be a very long search. Those seem to be almost two requirements to run for the highest offices. Trump, being the other choice, embodies those two qualities like no other.

To stay on topic, though, GOP leaders failing to acknowledge Hastert is a convicted felon, a child molester and deserves prison time is an INCREDIBLY DUMB stance. IMO, when combined with the full array of positions validates their lack of qualifications to be in the positions that they are in.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people think this denial position is not a dumb one.

[Doc]

That's exactly your partisanship, biased opinion. So far, the FBI has not found the evidence to even submit to the DOJ, and the tricky thing here is that there really is no precedent. I'm certainly willing to let the process play out, but I'm not going to simply "convict" someone on speculation(which is all anything is right now).

Let's just say for a minute, before I try once again to stay on topic, let's just assume that Hillary is guilty, part of the problem that the FBI is having is proving intent(all completely speculative). If the FBI can't do it, YOU can't do it either, without bias. That intent is key, because it really comes down to this being the speeding violation equivalent of national security laws and to me is much less severe than the consequences of outing a CIA agent out of political spite.

Back to the real topic here is it seems to me that your response to my claim as to trying to figure out why GOP leaders in the highest positions have trouble calling Hastert what he is, a convicted felon, admitted child molester that deserves to be imprisoned. Why is that so hard? I can't even get a flimsy on topic response. All that I get is that Hillary is a criminal.

Intent has nothing to do with it. Try pleading not guilty to a speeding ticket because you didn't intend to speed and see where that gets you. Lets ask Suncat or Darrell if that works.

You're willing to let the process play out with Hillary but not the GOP. Sorry but that pretty much is the definition of partisanship in my book. You keep referring to Hasert as a convicted or admitted child molester, which while it is likely he is, he is neither admitted to or convicted of. You have given Hilary the benefit of the doubt concerning her legal transgressions but when it comes to Chaney, you have summarily convicted him despite there being no charges ever brought forth. You were certainly willing to convicted him on speculation but with Hilary you wan't the process to play out and not convict on speculation despite her admission that she had a private server upon which she did government business..... but you're not partisan (LOL).

For me, I freely admit a partisan bias. I'm partisan simply because I disagree with the very principles upon which the liberal idealolgy is based and thus find the hypocrisy so unpalatable that I can't find a trait in any of them that I can defend. And I can also understand why a republican would want to distance themselves from and not want to discuss another republican who is likely a child molestor. I guess it no different than wondering why Democrats are not attacking Hilary for the server? Why did they circle the wagons round her? Or why did they do it around Lois Lerner? Or why did they do it around Eric Holder? Why are the Democrats not talking about the tax cheat Charlie Rangle? Are those questions really that hard to answer?

[CitizenBBN]

That's exactly your partisanship, biased opinion. So far, the FBI has not found the evidence to even submit to the DOJ, and the tricky thing here is that there really is no precedent. I'm certainly willing to let the process play out, but I'm not going to simply "convict" someone on speculation(which is all anything is right now).

Let's just say for a minute, before I try once again to stay on topic, let's just assume that Hillary is guilty, part of the problem that the FBI is having is proving intent(all completely speculative). If the FBI can't do it, YOU can't do it either, without bias. That intent is key, because it really comes down to this being the speeding violation equivalent of national security laws and to me is much less severe than the consequences of outing a CIA agent out of political spite.

Back to the real topic here is it seems to me that your response to my claim as to trying to figure out why GOP leaders in the highest positions have trouble calling Hastert what he is, a convicted felon, admitted child molester that deserves to be imprisoned. Why is that so hard? I can't even get a flimsy on topic response. All that I get is that Hillary is a criminal.

Hate to break it to you, but negligence doesn't require intent. Intent has nothing to do with this case at all.

As for the FBI, they have yet to conclude anything one way or the other, but no doubt when they are shot down by the DOJ you'll claim it's all on the up and up. Yet you'll call anyone dismissing the Halliburton stuff as naive. It's OK, that level of hypocrisy doesn't upset me, I just find it funny.

And dismissing this as a speeding ticket is the height of partisanship. 30,000 emails deleted from FOIA review without any third party review, we're just supposed to trust Hillary none of it was government business, thousands of emails with classified information or higher on a private server run in a residential basement serving as the information clearinghouse for the #2 person in american foreign policy, yeah, that's a speeding ticket.

It's a straight up violation of the law to remove and store any sensitive information outside of approved government run systems, period. No question of intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Though that's not a problem here b/c she was briefed that this was a crime when she took the office and signed off that she was briefed.

As to the last part you answer your own question by showing your blindness and subjectivity. Cheney is guilty despite no conviction, Hastert is guilty of more than he was convicted of being, and you know those things, but we're biased for seeing clear evidence with Hillary, indisputable facts that would land any lesser person in jail for sure, and we're the biased ones. lol.

[CitizenBBN]

Not that I recommend using wiki as a source for legal understanding, but it's quick:

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.^[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

See, by definition negligence does not require intent. In fact if you have intent you aren't negligent, b/c you didn't do it from carelessness but you meant to do it. Hillary was negligent, she didn't intend to give our enemies our secrets, but she was negligent in her handling of said information and that's a crime b/c it risks giving that information to enemies.

If I fire a gun over a hill and I don't check to see what's on the other side, and we find out it was a school playground, then I am guilty of endangerment even if no one was hurt. I was negligent.

If I KNEW there was a playground there but I didn't intend to hurt anyone but I fired anyway, then I'm guilty of at least wanton endangerment. My actions were wanton, which is higher than negligence in that I wasn't just careless but had reason to know I was risking harm and did it anyway.

If I INTENDED to hurt someone on that playground then that's a whole other class of crimes.

So you can be guilty without intent to have done harm, or in this case intent to give information to our enemies, and a bunch of people have been convicted of exactly that negligence regarding national security.

Of course every lawyer, officer, businessman and really about everyone else on this entire board knows this is the case. We all see legal cases in the news regularly that distinguish between negligence and intentional harm all the time.

Only people who so desperately want to believe she did nothing wrong actually believe intent has anything to do with this case. it's utterly irrelevant to whether she violated the law. The only thing intent would establish is that she should be shot for treason versus just imprisoned for negligent handling of US national security.

[CitizenBBN]

Does doing something dumb, without an intent to do harm warrant prosecution? I don't know that answer. Does doing something incredibly dumb deserve to be scrutinized? Of course. That's why I support the investigation, because we deserve to know.

Yes, it very well can. Not always, but there is a bevy of laws both criminal in civil where negligence is actionable in a court of law.

People are convicted and fined and lose lawsuits every day simply for being dumb in their decisions, and this is a classic example with Hillary. People in the government with a security clearance have an AFFIRMATIVE requirement to safeguard that information. They have signed agreements that they will take positive steps to avoid being careless. it's an even higher standard than general negligence, and she was briefed to that effect as is every single government employee or contractor with that clearance.

FWIW, Obama himself just said she was guilty last week when he said she was 'careless' but didn't intend to do wrong. Carelessness is all that is required by the statute. I think he was trying to do just what Hillary has done and and just what you are doing, which is to get away from the actual law and talk about intent, b/c "i didn't mean to do anything wrong" sells better in sound bytes, but it has nothing to do with the law.

[CitizenBBN]

Re Hastert btw I agree I see no reason for anyone in the GOP to defend him in any way. I imagine he is guilty of molestation, but likewise I see no reason for them to call him one. I see no reason for them to comment on him at all. He's gone, and certainly doesn't deserve a defense on their part, but legally they're in a touchy area to call him a molester when he wasn't convicted of it and didn't admit it. They could be liable for that kind of claim.

So their best option is to say nothing and move on, which is always wise politically anyway.

But then again I see no reason for Obama to defend Hillary. She exposed his administration to possible release of secrets, if I were her boss I'd want her head on a spit.

Not to mention how the Clinton Foundation has called into question numerous decisions made under his administration.