My former roommate is a lawfag (top 5 schools in the country mind you) and he is also a hillary supporter...

My former roommate is a lawfag (top 5 schools in the country mind you) and he is also a hillary supporter. Me and him were arguing today and his key point for why she should not be indicted were

>was not law at the time she was in office
>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
>the quote "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there

How would Sup Forums counter these points? Other than calling him a cuck of course.

Other urls found in this thread:

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924
gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2009-title18/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793
wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>>was not law at the time she was in office
that not true.

>me and him

Fuck off. You're a God damned retard

My friend is a lawfag (top 2 schools in the country mind you) and he says your friend is a fucking idiot.

>Untrue it was law
>Irreverent she broke the law
>The administrative action would be handled BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH SHE IS WORKING FOR BY THE FUCKING WAY
Your roommate is a fucking retard

My friend is literally the best lawyer in the world and he says you're all fags.

This.

>Fucking KEK

>was not law at the time she was in office
That is a blatantly false statement. Some faggots cannot be reasoned with it seems.

The evidence clearly suggests that the law was broken, however the law clearly states that there is a burden of proof on the prosecutor to convince a jury that it was criminal misconduct. The system is absolutely rigged, that democratic prosecutor has a conflict of interest, SHE FUCKING MET PRIVATELY WITH BILL CLINTON.

Sounds like your friend got his "law degree" out of a cereal box.

People are interpreting that quote as 'we could charge her but we're not going to', when actually it's saying 'she didn't break any laws, but she did do some dumb stuff that she would normally be fired for'. As in they are NOT SAYING that they could charge/indict her but are selectively letting her off. They ARE SAYING that she should be administratively punished, but she can't be because she isn't part of an administration.

Again, to be clear, they are indeed saying she broke no laws.

>Again, to be clear, they are indeed saying she broke no laws.

And Comey was lying about that, obviously.

this is exactly what he is saying coupled with . He said that the burden of proof is not there which is why she is not prosecuted.

pretty sure that's only half the story, he later goes on to contradict that entire statement.

Feds lose their jobs and possibly face charges for leaving classified documents on their desk overnight. Correct procedure in sensitive information handling exists for a reason, she deliberately said fuck it, and now we literally have no idea what's been leaked to whom.

When did it become law that you could not use private emails?

>handling of classified information

it's in the fucking job description nimwit

>job description
>law

2 different things, breaking company policy is not the same as breaking a law.

The reason the FBI's recommendation is important is because that's the decision. The prosecutor can't just up and say whether or not they will prosecute because of the conflict of interest. So who makes the decision then? The FBI at large gets to call the shot.

>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
Who said you'd single her out? You punish all involved.
Getting rid of corruption isn't like removing a splinter where you go after it with tweezers, it's like getting rid of gangrene, cut the limb off.
And let's just say they aren't corrupt, they're just extremely stupid. These people should not be working at the government with top secret information at their disposal if they're that god damn stupid.

As for the other points I'm lot a lawfag so I don't know.

>>was not law at the time she was in offic
call him a lying cuck faggot.

Even though both the fbi and the doj are corrupted as shit, sign the petition to charge Hillary...

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924

this video

faceberg /DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/

Also, there are supreme court rulings and precedents that aren't written into the law that must be taken into account. I'm just gonna copy paste something:

'The letter of the law includes supreme court decisions. Gorin v. US and New York Times v. US both deal with this issue. The court has always held that under espionage laws, in order to meet the standard for punishment, one has to have acted with intent to hurt the US.

'Because of those court decisions, and because of the case law here, a strict reading of the law does not in fact lean towards favoring indictment. '

Does this effectively mean that lawfags in general understand why she was not indicted while most "normal" people dont because they are not familiar with case law?

It kinda is when you work for the fucking law (aka government)
You must be leaf visiting the us

You could say that. I'd go even further and say that it's been obvious for a long time, for a long list of reasons both legal and not, that she wouldn't be indicted.

FBI is not a prosecuting agent it's an investigative one, you don't ask a cop to adjudicate your speed ticket do you?

If it was unclear, I was saying the prosecuting agent had a conflict of interest, so they can't make the decision. The FBI effectively gets to make the decision in this instance because of that.

Classified and sensitive material is to NEVER be moved off a secure network. Also call him a cuck.

there are open records laws and she deleted emails and calendar that should be accessible

she mixed foundation business with govt business

>>was not law at the time she was in office
Lie.
>>cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)
Bradley Manning, etcetera
>>the quote "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there
This is Obama's fault, for using his own people as investigators. Regardless the judicial branch can press criminal charges on any citizen. Where the citizen works for a living does not matter.

>effectively
ehhhhh, it's not the final decision, let's put it that way, it's a decision

Case law is bullshit. A judge's mistaken precedent should not alter law passed by congress.

My dad got real pissed about this, since he works for fucking ONI. He has 3 different levels of classified material he works with along with that levels' server, and if he misplaced a few emails on the wrong classification, not even bringing a private email into the matter, he would lose his job at the very least. He's reminded every day by his superiors about how to sort and file reports/documents/emails, even though he's done this work all his career, literally 30+ years. So, needless to say, a fucking Secretary of State should be expected to work on a level higher than a inteligence worker.

I wish I could high five you, bro. Long live grammar Nazis

>he would lose his job at the very least.
that's basically what the FBI is saying, is that if she was still employed there, she should be fired for her conduct. Alas, she works for Wall St. now and doesn't have to worry about that.

>me and him
>top 5 schools in the country mind you

I mind you to call him a fucking lying cuck piece of Hahnrei like we say in Germany (top 1 cuck nation in the world mind you)
In every western nation criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively, it does not matter however since there were laws that would prohibit her from doing what she did.

Supreme court cases specifically can only be overruled by amendments. That is exactly how the system works and is important as a check and balance.

nice x22 ID

He told me that more likely, he would not be able to be hired at any gov job ever, and maybe worse.

>How would Sup Forums counter these points?
Past behavior is strongly indicative of future behavior.

>implying Sup Forums can respond to something they disagree with, with anything other than "cuck".

Yeah well my dad works for Nintendo and he says Mario will be president.

If you did the cop would convict, so what does it say when they say 'ahhh we'll let it slide'.

...

Your roommate is a retard. I'm also a top school lawfag, and let me tell you, there are lots of fucking dumbasses in law school.

Your dad is over reacting. If she was still SoS she would have real problems as the director has mentioned. But she's not so she isn't so weigh it appropriately.

...Its okay to admit you don't know how law works user.

It's too much effort than its worth.

>setting up your own private email server for yourself counts as gross 'carelessness'

>top 5 schools in the country mind you

Kill yourself you elitist prick

What is OPSEC?

Also a fucking leaf

That is incorrect. There is no "intent to hurt the US" nexus. There is a criminal intent nexus inherent in all federal crimes, but this only requires scienter, which is intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. The State Department review last month made it clear that she knew she wasn't supposed to be using a private server. The reason for not prosecuting was political, not legal.

Comey said as much when he said "we have found evidence of potential violations of statutes."

>>was not law at the time she was in office

That is not true. The law in question went into effect in 2010.

gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2009-title18/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793

It's true her server was set up in 2009, but the law was in effect while Hillary was receiving the classified data on the server. Any illegal uploads onto the server that took place after the law went into effect are crimes.

> To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

In other words, do NOT consider this a precedent. If any of you does it, you get life sentence.

> cannot retroactively single her out when others have done the same thing (even if they were not breached)

In other words, since Jack the Ripper was never caught, we cannot single future rippers out.

> My former roommate

I hope you went American psycho on him.

Morally what she did is despicable but his points are not moral ones, but lawful ones, and the law has said that she isn't going to jail

The justice system failed to uphold the spirit of our nation

That's not even mentioning gems like

wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605

I'm a lawyer(went to Harvard mind you) and I say you're friends right. I also have level 5 autism but that doesn't matter

The law technicalities are nonsense. Everyone who has served in the military and in substantive government positions understands the handling of classified information. The attempt to argue otherwise is like if we tolerated and expanded a fire department that never stopped or tried to fight any fires. You can say whatever you want about what the rules technically say, but if you lose the war, you lose the war. This is our elites' culture of excuse-making and buck-passing collapsing on itself.

>top 5 schools in the country mind you
You are in all top 5 schools at the same time? Please clarify your position.

You cuck.

>Sullivan: They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it.
>Shillary: If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure

Shit. She really did it...

The first you can factcheck.
The second is undeniably true, not counterable within the realm of reason, logic or even just general sanity.
The last one is also accurate, as the worst they could currently do is fire her yet as she doesn't work for them they have no means to punish her from a non-legal approach.

You pretty much lost this battle in a very final manner unless he's sucked that first point out of his thumb.

These seem troubled times... but I believe there is much reason for hope. ((H8)) to sound like a shill but I don't think Hillary is flat out evil, as some here do ; BUT careless with SAP= putting people in peril?! Across the pond it's bloody pouring, but our weather always seems mild in comparison to yours. These are interesting times...

> as she doesn't work for them

Ok so if I steal blueprints from Ford, mail them to Lada, resign from Ford and Ford finds out... I'm safe? They can't fire me anymore, right?

> Mentions logic.
> Rapes logic.

How about you just give it up already. Move on to something more important like Obama's birth certificate you dim witted fucksticks.

Hello Adam.

You can't considering the law is being rewritten to suit her needs

This isn't reddit, dumbass. People in Comey's position choose their words very carefully before making a broadcast like that -- there would not be any room for question or doubt if he did not want there to be.

It is my hope that you're part of a paid damage control shillery brigade, but I fear that this rhetoric is indicative of the sort of mental gymnastics the average person is willing to make of their own accord when presented with the facts.

I mean, Hillary came out with a clear win here, no charges recommended. You sound like you're the one running damage control, trying to grasp at straws of things that won't be happening.

Trump came out ahead on this. Hillary is the weakest democrat he could run against. Not being charged keeps her in the race, but between the State Department report last month and the FBI's decision today, she looks corrupt and above the law. Everyone give Trump shit about honesty, but he beats her 2 to 1 amongst voters on honesty.

Springing to defend something that hasn't been attacked is an amateur move. I didn't make any accusations, only pointed out the obvious.

>inb4 im rubber ur glue

This was the equivalent of a party apparatchik not bringing charges against Stalin.

>was not law at the time she was in office
Most of these laws have been on the books since the eighteenth century. I doubt it'd be on the books for less than 50 years, yet alone less than 4, and last I checked it was last amended while she was in office.

>cannot retroactively single her out
This is not ex post facto prosecution. This is justice.

>when others have done the same thing
Petraeus didn't even set a precedent and I can recall him. This is an ages-old precedent. Politicians like Clinton are disqualified from office forever by the laws she violated. Also, she could face the death penalty in the worst case scenario.

>(even if they were not breached)
The server has been accessed by IP addresses in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, Russia. However, there is no solid evidence stating that the RW theory postulated by the Romanian hacker currently on trial for illegal third party access to confidential emails is true, since no traces of this were later found on Clinton's email servers in their "slack space".

>the quote...
Okay so how the fuck do you elect this woman for President if she should've been fired from the Department of State? Jesus Christ this man is stupid even if this is legally valid.

You're retarded, mind you I went to the second best high school in the United States, so I didn't even need to go to college.

>TRY GETTING A RESERVATION AT DORSIA NOW, YOU FUCKING STUPID BASTARD! YOU, FUCKING BASTARD!

There are laws involved with handling classified information. You make it sound like its a goddamn dress code in an employee handbook. Being careless is leaving your cell phone in the toilet. Taking the time, money, and effort to install a private email server in your basement to handle sensitive and/or classified info is a conscious decision to circumvent the system. So is deleting 30,000 emails. Christ, they crucified Nixon for 18 minutes of missing audio tape. 30,000 emails? And the FBI admits she lied, but this is all just one big "whoopsie, my bad" for HRC. The AG, Comey, and the rest need to be removed from their positions, and HRC needs to be held accountable in accordance with the law.

>shows that the normal course of action is administrative action, which cannot be done since she does not work there

remind your dumb fuck lawfag friend that this person is trying to get a job that will put her in a higher position than she would have lost if she wasn't named HRC

OP, you guys were arguing two different points. Keep in mind that there were two investigations into Hillary's email practices:

1. By the Department of State
2. By the FBI

The Dept. of State was investigating whether the act of setting up a private email server without asking permission violated the administrative regulations directing the conduct of employees. At the time Clinton set up the server, she was arguably allowed to do so, under an interpretation of the relevant regulation. Later, the regulations were changed, which essentially put her in violation. Nevertheless, even if she did violate the regulation, she would only face adminisrative - and not criminal - penalties.

The FBI's investigation was totally different. It involved looking to see whether her conduct violated a criminal statute concerning the handling of classified information. It was her mishandling of classified information that potentially subjected her to criminal penalties.

So, as you can see, the two inquiries were related, but asked different questions, and had different potential penalties: administrative vs. criminal.

Based on the conversation you posted, you and your roommate were conflating the two separated investigations and jumbling the possible outcomes of each.

t. 2L at U Chicago (#4 ranked law school).

>lawyers
>any better than politicians

What the fuck are you even doing OP?

>the judicial branch can press criminal charges on any citizen.
uh.

...

It was never not illegal to send TOP SECRET data over unsecured and monitored connections you fucking retarded faggot. People have gone to jail for way less.

it was classified, not top secret

Dropped it right there.
These are the retarded twatter shills. They only know three words "DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT"

lol wrong. there was top secret, secret and confidential information.
"classified" is not even a classification you retard

7 of them were actually top secret. 100+ more were lower levels of classified. And those are just the ones we know about! Even if you didn't indict on her gross negligence with state secrets, her actions leading up to and within the investigation are themselves blatantly illegal. She instructed her lawyer and IT guy to delete evidence in an incredibly transparent obstruction of justice and just straight up lied about not thinking her server had any classified information, which we know because of emails she sent instructing employees to strip the "classified" header off of sensitive documents!

Pretty sure recent email were confirmed TS, but it doesn't matter. The only requirement is that it's protected defense information. It doesn't even have to be classified for it to fall under the definition of espionage.

...

Espionage is not a grounded claim, as there's no evidence that she directly or indirectly transmitted data to an enemy of the state, or even intended to. What she is guilty of is gross negligence, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

sup reddit

who cares

your friend might be at a top law school but he truly doesnt no shit about actually practicing yet so he should shut the fuck up

he's just using his status as a law student to present some fallacy of appeal to authority when he's really just a partisan hack

>My former roommate is a lawfag (top 5 schools in the country mind you) and he is also a hillary supporter


what relevance does that have at all

There were some marked TOP SECRET

Jesus that's the best a law student had? I dumb carpenter, me hammer, me build.

Stop playing checkers with him, change the game.
> you can Google this, the FBI retroactively changed the law. She was guilty of the law yesterday. They changed it to add intent. They say she had no criminal intent.
This will affect the basis of all law. Mow down a bunch of kids on the side of the road because you were texting? You didn't have the INTENT to murder them.
> give up on the emails, they have. What was revealed today is that everyone knows, and can be proven without a doubt is that she lied under oath.
> that's a felony, and would disqualify her from working a cash drawer at 7-11.
Felons can't run for president?
Why would anyone elect a felon?

Stop having pointless arguments, and think out side the box, schlomo. Stop lying about law school on an anonymous image board for antique farm equipment.

Isn't selling national secrets treachery and is punishable by death?

>I can't argue with someone smarter than me
>I know, I'll get one of the dumbest boards on Sup Forums to help me out!
you gonna get btfo lol

Why do they keep falling back on "MUH INTENT"?

Isn't it fucking obvious that her intent was to hide her fucking emails from future FBI investigation and FOIA requests? Doesn't the deletion of 33,000 emails prove that?

>The FBI has the legislative authority to change the law
Stick to operating a bandsaw, George

Exactly. When a government employee with a security clearance demonstrates that they can't be trusted to protect classified information, they permanently lose the aforementioned security clearance.