4
4
0
Yes, I know that "Politico" tends to be on the left of American politics, BUT, regardless of whether or not you think that Ms. Clinton SHOULD be indicted, do you think that the analysis of past cases is sound?
Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted
Posted from politico.com
National Security
Politics
Law
Ethics
Election 2016
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
I'm not sure that precedence is the factor it once was. America has passed thru the looking glass and just like Alice's world, everything is backwards. We have seen the mighty fall. Nixon. Agnew. There have been others. And we've seen them skate. Ted Kennedy. Now, maybe Hillary? Who can predict. Hillary has been protected these many years by a news media (I dare not call them journalists for fear that the ghosts of real journalists will haunt me). However, even their voices are strangely muted these days. The bottom line is that our once trusted crystal balls are cracked and we are now forced to go into the dark places of the future without reliable pundits to steel us for what may occur. Sure, the talking heads are still talking but nothing they say seems prescient anymore, does it?
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; I think that I'll have to put you down as "maybe more likely than not but getting less and less so at a rate we don't know and which could change and even change direction unpredictably".
Personally, I'm all in favor of having fewer people telling us what to think and having more people who are thinking for themselves. Am I going to "get my 'druthers"? Maybe but getting less and less likely at a rate we don't know and which could change and even change direction unpredictably.
Personally, I'm all in favor of having fewer people telling us what to think and having more people who are thinking for themselves. Am I going to "get my 'druthers"? Maybe but getting less and less likely at a rate we don't know and which could change and even change direction unpredictably.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - Damn, I couldn't have said it better myself. Right you are if you say you are obscurely
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Here is the BIG Problem. IF they don't indict her, 60% of America will claim the fix was in and Obama will go down in history as a president that interfered in justice to protect HRC. IF they do Indict her, that leaves Ole Bern to run.... That wont get them in the WH and then a GOP President dumps all of Obama's work. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; Indeed the last poll that I could find said that 62% of Americans thought that Ms. Clinton's eMail policy was "inappropriate".
On the other hand "inappropriate" does not mean the same thing as "illegal".
Equally, I strongly suspect that MORE than 60% (probably closer to 99%) of the American public DOES NOT know enough about the law on the subject to be able to form an informed opinion as to whether or not Ms. Clinton's eMail policy constituted a violation of the law.
By the way, who paid for your kids PRE-college education? It's just possible that the world has progressed to the point where 12 years of schooling (especially considering the pace with which knowledge is imparted by the school system) IS NOT sufficient to enable a person to compete successfully. [One way of paying for post-secondary education would be a NON-CANCELLABLE "future debt" assessed at "X% of GROSS income for every year of post-secondary education provided".]
PS - I can't agree that electing Ms. Clinton would be propelling America towards fascism - no matter how much I might dislike the lady personally. On the other hand, I can't agree that Mr. Trump is going to "restore American values" (unless you believe that "American values" include bigotry, belligerence, and bullshit).
On the other hand "inappropriate" does not mean the same thing as "illegal".
Equally, I strongly suspect that MORE than 60% (probably closer to 99%) of the American public DOES NOT know enough about the law on the subject to be able to form an informed opinion as to whether or not Ms. Clinton's eMail policy constituted a violation of the law.
By the way, who paid for your kids PRE-college education? It's just possible that the world has progressed to the point where 12 years of schooling (especially considering the pace with which knowledge is imparted by the school system) IS NOT sufficient to enable a person to compete successfully. [One way of paying for post-secondary education would be a NON-CANCELLABLE "future debt" assessed at "X% of GROSS income for every year of post-secondary education provided".]
PS - I can't agree that electing Ms. Clinton would be propelling America towards fascism - no matter how much I might dislike the lady personally. On the other hand, I can't agree that Mr. Trump is going to "restore American values" (unless you believe that "American values" include bigotry, belligerence, and bullshit).
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
COL Ted Mc I have to agree on both Trump and HRC. I get tired of people that say Trump will do this but HRC wont do this. truth is, Unless they are willing to break the law neither would have the power to do either. As for who paid for my kids first 12 years of school. The same as EVERYONE else's kids. Me by way of property tax, which BTW is the highest in all of Missouri and other tax payers. the same as everyone's kids unless they go to private school. I guess when someone wants to refund my $20,000.00 a year per kid college for 4 kids I would be more willing to help other kids. BUT The kids have to qualify for school by grades, not just skin color or gender and the parents have to be working. Both of us work and my kids scored big time on ACT. One is a Vet one is Biology Major Pre-Dental one is a Chef and the other isn't using his education because he changed fields, but is happy anyway. Im 59 and don't plan on working till I die to pay for some kid to go to school that got there because of a race quota and cant even pass 11th grade English. Sorry. I worked all my life to give for my kids. Others need to do the same rather than stand with there hands out like we owe it to them while they sit at home and watch the price is right and hang at the bars all night.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; When you say that you paid for your children's pre-secondary education, did you count in the taxes paid by those who had fewer children than you did?
Should people who DON'T have any children be forced to pay "school taxes"?
The ACTUAL cost of your children's college education is much more than $20,000 per year (the LOWEST it is going to be is $40,000 and it could be as high as $80,000+).
When you say that you paid for your children's post-secondary education did you count in that $20,000 to $60,000+ which OTHER people (who might not have any children at all) were kicking in?
While I sympathize with your position and HIGHLY applaud what you have done for your children (BTW, the MOST expensive post-secondary education program is Veterinary Medicine) you DID NOT "pay for it all yourself". While I agree that people should NOT be given opportunities simply because of race or gender, I also acknowledge that there are some social backgrounds where people simply cannot have any reasonable expectation of paying even the 50% to 25% cost of providing a post-secondary education for their children (even assuming that the pre-secondary schools the children attended managed to educate them to the point where they could make productive use of a post-secondary education [which isn't a very safe assumption to make]).
Should people who DON'T have any children be forced to pay "school taxes"?
The ACTUAL cost of your children's college education is much more than $20,000 per year (the LOWEST it is going to be is $40,000 and it could be as high as $80,000+).
When you say that you paid for your children's post-secondary education did you count in that $20,000 to $60,000+ which OTHER people (who might not have any children at all) were kicking in?
While I sympathize with your position and HIGHLY applaud what you have done for your children (BTW, the MOST expensive post-secondary education program is Veterinary Medicine) you DID NOT "pay for it all yourself". While I agree that people should NOT be given opportunities simply because of race or gender, I also acknowledge that there are some social backgrounds where people simply cannot have any reasonable expectation of paying even the 50% to 25% cost of providing a post-secondary education for their children (even assuming that the pre-secondary schools the children attended managed to educate them to the point where they could make productive use of a post-secondary education [which isn't a very safe assumption to make]).
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
Tell me about Veterinary medicine. She has been out of school for 5 years and I'm still paying. The daughter that is a Bio Major and Pre-dental is helping pay hers since she will make more per year than I do in two...LOL. The Marines have offered her a commission. I'm guessing its more about the Biology major than the Dental since us Navy guys took care of there dental...LOL She has considered it and they sure seem to want her. She has a friend that's an E-3 MP. She thinks it would be fun to be an officer around her. You are correct. When she was at UMKC it was $22,000.00 per semester but she is back home now going to UMSL and its been about half since there is no dorm involved. Just mom and dad to clean up after her. And Im not sure anyone else is kicking in money since she is at the University Of Missouri. Around here taxes pay for high school, not so much college unless your at a community college.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
We all know that the current Administration is and will always be for their people, this includes Hillary Clinton. President Obama did say that "even though she mismanaged the emails, she did not posed a threat to National Security..." If this does not sound like a get out of jail free pass, then I don't know what does.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
But then you have this issue and thanks to Capt Walter Miller for pointing it out.
But there’s another form Clinton was required to sign when she departed — SF-312. Unlike OF-109, this form pertains to classified documents. In fact, it’s a document signed by anyone who has been granted access to classified information, including government employees, military personnel, political appointees, and elected officials."
Here is the kicker:
There is no longer any doubt that Hillary failed to turn over all of the classified information in her possession before she left the State Department. She now argues only that she possessed no information marked classified when she departed.
As Ross points out, however, SF-312 renders this argument moot. It states:
As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526.
But there’s another form Clinton was required to sign when she departed — SF-312. Unlike OF-109, this form pertains to classified documents. In fact, it’s a document signed by anyone who has been granted access to classified information, including government employees, military personnel, political appointees, and elected officials."
Here is the kicker:
There is no longer any doubt that Hillary failed to turn over all of the classified information in her possession before she left the State Department. She now argues only that she possessed no information marked classified when she departed.
As Ross points out, however, SF-312 renders this argument moot. It states:
As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; Good point except for one minor detail - the State Department forgot to get Ms. Clinton to sign the form.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
COL Ted Mc You are correct...But different form and im not so sure The State Department really forgot. seems too convenient. The Form they claim they forgot is Form OF-109. And BTW if you forgot to have someone do that leaving the military. what would your chain of command have to say to you? I'm betting it wouldn't be pleasant.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; The old maxim is "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (also known as "Hanlon's Razor").
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google