Posted on Oct 16, 2015
Is this Undue Command Influence? President Obama's comments about Hillary Clinton's email left 'a foul taste in the FBI's mouth'.
9K
152
64
10
10
0
What do you think? UCI?
In an interview with "60 Minutes" last Sunday, President Barack Obama said that though it was probably a "mistake" for Hillary Clinton to use a private email server during her time as secretary of state, it “is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”.....
“Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,”
Is this her big break?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-comments-hillary-clintons-email-143500810.html
In an interview with "60 Minutes" last Sunday, President Barack Obama said that though it was probably a "mistake" for Hillary Clinton to use a private email server during her time as secretary of state, it “is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”.....
“Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,”
Is this her big break?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamas-comments-hillary-clintons-email-143500810.html
Office of the President (POTUS)
Hillary Clinton
Influence
FBI
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 32
1
1
0
For some reason he is the leader of the "gang that can't shoot straight". The administration overall has created hate and discontent with their ready shoot and aim actions.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No, because. Undo Command Influence is a military concept. Neither the President nor Mrs. Clinton is in a relevant chain of military command.
Whether it is APPROPRIATE is a different matter. Likewise, they may or may not be civilian laws or legal principles implicated (tampering with an investigation, etc. ) - I don't know.
Whatever it is, it is not UCI.
Whether it is APPROPRIATE is a different matter. Likewise, they may or may not be civilian laws or legal principles implicated (tampering with an investigation, etc. ) - I don't know.
Whatever it is, it is not UCI.
(1)
(0)
CSM Michael J. Uhlig
COL Vincent Stoneking, stand by for POTUS UCI used to overturn a Sexual Assault, I will share this later....this thread is meant to get the thinking caps on.
(0)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
CSM Michael J. Uhlig - You can present examples of POTUS UCI in regard to MILITARY Sexual Assault cases if you want, but it won't be applicable to the current situation. The difference in those cases is the "relevant chain of military command" bit I referenced above.
POTUS is the CiC of all U.S. Military formations, and thus there CAN be UCI.
In the case presented, the President is not a serving (or former) member of the Armed Forces, Mrs. Clinton is not a serving (or former) member of the Armed Forces, and there will not be a military criminal or administrative proceeding.
Therefore, there in no nexus with the military which would make UCI relevant to the discussion. Not saying it is RIGHT, but UCMJ concepts have no relevance in the civilian world.
POTUS is the CiC of all U.S. Military formations, and thus there CAN be UCI.
In the case presented, the President is not a serving (or former) member of the Armed Forces, Mrs. Clinton is not a serving (or former) member of the Armed Forces, and there will not be a military criminal or administrative proceeding.
Therefore, there in no nexus with the military which would make UCI relevant to the discussion. Not saying it is RIGHT, but UCMJ concepts have no relevance in the civilian world.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It was undue pressure, but it is so typical of this person. History proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
He did the same thing when it came to Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman , expressing partisanship and surely influencing people against ZImmerman before the trial. For a man who supposively has Constitutional Law as his specialty of a Harvard law degree, He knows nothing and cares less for Constitutional law than would be imaginable to me, if it was not real. He is a fraud and scum. Another example for people who talk of "affirmative action hires" to justify discrimination against African Americans, which he actually is not.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Politics as usual.
I will say again, if I had in my possession what I saw posted I would be in jail.
I will say again, if I had in my possession what I saw posted I would be in jail.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Nope. Just giving his opinion on a topic that he's asked about over and over and over and over again....
(1)
(0)
SSgt Alex Robinson
We did not better better for him to have said I can't comment on an active investigation?
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
Then he would have been painted as secretive and clearly hiding something. There's really no "win".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
You have to be a subscriber to the NY Times to see which investigation you are referring to SSgt Alex Robinson. I request you post a description:-)
(1)
(0)
SSgt Alex Robinson
It is an article about the president's comments on the current investigation of Hillary Clinton LTC Stephen F.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
SSgt Alex Robinson - I suspected that was the case; but, since I couldn't see the link I wanted to make you aware that others might not be able to see it.
I suspect the President is trying to influence the course of the investigation for two reasons (1) it happened on his watch and (2) Hillary is running for his office.
I suspect the President is trying to influence the course of the investigation for two reasons (1) it happened on his watch and (2) Hillary is running for his office.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
CSM Michael J. Uhlig - Sergeant Major; Not UCI but definitely ill advised.
The wiser course of action would have been something along the lines of "You know that it wouldn't be proper for me to comment - either way - on something which is the subject of an ongoing investigation. No matter what I said, some people would accuse me of attempting to influence the outcome of the investigation." - and leaving it at that.
The wiser course of action would have been something along the lines of "You know that it wouldn't be proper for me to comment - either way - on something which is the subject of an ongoing investigation. No matter what I said, some people would accuse me of attempting to influence the outcome of the investigation." - and leaving it at that.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; I would agree with the statement "If anyone is in a top administrative position and cannot recognize if something SHOULD be classified, they are in the wrong position.", however I cannot agree that anyone in a top administrative position should be able to recognize something which the issuing authority is LATER going to "classify" is going to be "classified" in the future.
There is material on public library shelves which was issued as "unclassified" which is not "classified".
There is material on public library shelves which was issued as "unclassified" which is not "classified".
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Still not buying it. My specialty was communications with the highest security classification possible. Even those reporting to me could recognize classified material. This post classifications are definitely new to me and IMO, a further means of cover up.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; If the retroactive classifications were intended to be a cover up, then none of the eMails would have been "up classified" and any eMails which WERE classified at the time they were received would have been "down classified".
That, of course, assumes a degree of competency in whomever is doing the "covering up".
If one assumes total incompetence in whomever is doing the "covering up" then, of course, some of the eMails will be "up classified" and none of them would be "down classified".
That, of course, is what actually happened.
So, the odds are that either:
[1] the "cover up" was being done by a total incompetent; or
[2] there was no "cover up".
FYI, "retroactive up classification" has been practiced since WWII and sometimes documents which you could purchase from the government printers have been "up classified" to "SECRET" (and beyond [but with no effort being made to actually recall the newly "classified" material]).
That, of course, assumes a degree of competency in whomever is doing the "covering up".
If one assumes total incompetence in whomever is doing the "covering up" then, of course, some of the eMails will be "up classified" and none of them would be "down classified".
That, of course, is what actually happened.
So, the odds are that either:
[1] the "cover up" was being done by a total incompetent; or
[2] there was no "cover up".
FYI, "retroactive up classification" has been practiced since WWII and sometimes documents which you could purchase from the government printers have been "up classified" to "SECRET" (and beyond [but with no effort being made to actually recall the newly "classified" material]).
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
My experience in this arena is extensive, considering it was essential for my advancement, job performance and assignments on submarines. I would use AR 380-5 29Sep2000, Chapt. 3 and para. 4-37, for my source, which is very similar to other classified material documents. The only way I could be convinced would be to see, or have verification by an independent source that the provisions of 4-37 were completed along with the change authorities identified.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When has President Obama not spoken out of turn? He has attacked a police officer for doing his duty before the facts were known (remember the incident early in his Administration with the distinguished professor?). He has defended thugs who were shot by police while committing crimes ("...if I had a son this is what he would look like"). He has leaped into contentious issues that resulted in riots and looting (to further an agenda that appears to promote racial divisiveness). It is obvious that he is more interested in promoting a narrative and furthering an ideological agenda than in governing a united people. What's one more incident?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google