How can a Christian vote for Trump

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm a born again Acts 2:38 believing Christian, a registered Democrat, a union member, and my politics are definitely liberal in that I tend to favor the rights of the individual regardless of color, religion, age, gender, or even sexuality. And I can say with all pride and certainty.... I'll never vote for Trump.

That's good. Now if we can just get you to not vote for Hillary, either.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

That's good. Now if we can just get you to not vote for Hillary, either.

lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

That's good. Now if we can just get you to not vote for Hillary, either.

Here are my thoughts on Hillary.

No politician in recent history has faced more scrutiny than Hillary Clinton. With every scandalous accusation after accusation, with every conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, bipartisan committees, examiners, hearings, etc. have all reviewed the "facts" and cleared Hillary Clinton of any charge of criminal wrong doing. If she was above the law she wouldn't have had to repeatedly face such grueling examination and interrogation.

In nearly 30 years of trumped up charges, nothing has stuck. Let's face it. Either Hillary Clinton is the target of an organized political campaign to destroy her through false accusation and exaggeration, or her political enemies are the dumbest most incompetent men and women in politics.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

With every scandalous accusation after accusation, with every conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, bipartisan committees, examiners, hearings, etc. have all reviewed the "facts" and cleared Hillary Clinton of any charge of criminal wrong doing. .

Not the email investigation. The FBI did NOT clear her of wrongdoing. In fact, the FBI confirmed there was wrongdoing. Listen to Comey's presser again. He did not say she was cleared of wrongdoing. He confirmed she broke the law.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Not the email investigation. The FBI did NOT clear her of wrongdoing. In fact, the FBI confirmed there was wrongdoing. Listen to Comey's presser again. He did not say she was cleared of wrongdoing. He confirmed she broke the law.

You're mistaken. There was no evidence of "criminal" wrong doing. The error was procedural.

It's like with my office. We deal with SSI (Sensitive Security Information). We had one TA take a thumb drive home with encrypted work files on it. That really wasn't a problem because it was standard practice to keep our thumb drives on our lanyards. Well, that individual's car was stolen later that evening. Guess what, he always took off his work lanyard and placed it in the glove box of his car! The car was found later after being ditched and set on fire. However, the jump drive and security badges were not located or identified in the wreckage. Of course this TA had to file a report that the SSI was stored on his thumb drive and was lost. There was a big fact finding review because of the nature of the data stored on his thumb drive.

The fact finding found one primary problem. While taking SSI home with us is technically not permitted in our security directives, it was established practice in the department. We were all guilty. This was to stop immediately. Due to the nature of the security violation being an issue of departmental procedure and the circumstances surrounding the lost thumb drive were out of the TA's control, they found that the TA was not guilty of any criminal wrong doing.

The result was a change in departmental procedure. No criminal charges filed.

That's what the FBI is trying to explain in the case of the missing emails. Yes, the FBI found that the use of a private email server was a reckless mishandling of what could be sensitive email. However, private email servers had been used in other governmental departments and had been used even in the State Department going all the way back to the Bush Administration. In fact, in 2007 the Bush Administration was discovered to have had over 22 MILLION emails deleted from a private network of email servers serving the Oval Office and all necessary departments. Private email servers were even being used under the Clinton Administration. So, while the use of a private email server was reckless and against security directives, it wasn't done with any criminal intent. It was past practice. The FBI admonished that emails not be handled in such a way and even promised that the FBI cannot promise leniency if another is found guilty of the same infraction from that point forward. You but your bottom dollar, governmental departments are not going to be using private servers any more, unless they want a scandal. There were also a few technical errors in her testimony. However, there is no evidence that Clinton willfully or knowingly provided false information. The FBI also made note that staff had used the inappropriate heading for a few classified emails. In addition, there is no evidence indicating that any emails stored on the private email server were compromised.

In the end it is a procedural issue, not a criminal issue.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're mistaken. There was no evidence of "criminal" wrong doing. The error was procedural.

It's like with my office. We deal with SSI (Sensitive Security Information). We had one TA take a thumb drive home with encrypted work files on it. That really wasn't a problem because it was standard practice to keep our thumb drives on our lanyards. Well, that individual's car was stolen later that evening. Guess what, he always took off his work lanyard and placed it in the glove box of his car! The car was found later after being ditched and set on fire. However, the jump drive and security badges were not located or identified in the wreckage. Of course this TA had to file a report that the SSI was stored on his thumb drive and was lost. There was a big fact finding review because of the nature of the data stored on his thumb drive.

The fact finding found one primary problem. While taking SSI home with us is technically not permitted in our security directives, it was established practice in the department. We were all guilty. This was to stop immediately. Due to the nature of the security violation being an issue of departmental procedure and the circumstances surrounding the lost thumb drive were out of the TA's control, they found that the TA was not guilty of any criminal wrong doing.

The result was a change in departmental procedure. No criminal charges filed.

That's what the FBI is trying to explain in the case of the missing emails. Yes, the FBI found that the use of a private email server was a reckless mishandling of what could be sensitive email. However, private email servers had been used in other governmental departments and had been used even in the State Department going all the way back to the Bush Administration. In fact, in 2007 the Bush Administration was discovered to have had over 22 MILLION emails deleted from a private network of email servers serving the Oval Office and all necessary departments. Private email servers were even being used under the Clinton Administration. So, while the use of a private email server was reckless and against security directives, it wasn't done with any criminal intent. It was past practice. The FBI admonished that emails not be handled in such a way and even promised that the FBI cannot promise leniency if another is found guilty of the same infraction from that point forward. You but your bottom dollar, governmental departments are not going to be using private servers any more, unless they want a scandal. There were also a few technical errors in her testimony. However, there is no evidence that Clinton willfully or knowingly provided false information. The FBI also made note that staff had used the inappropriate heading for a few classified emails. In addition, there is no evidence indicating that any emails stored on the private email server were compromised.

In the end it is a procedural issue, not a criminal issue.

Aquila, Comey actually stated that if anyone else had done what she had done, there would have been consequences. He actually said that. She exhibited gross negligence in the mishandling of classified documents. Gross negligence is all that's required for her to be prosecuted, not intent. If it were anyone else, she would be in jail.

Not only did she exhibit gross negligence, she actually thwarted the investigation by deleting over 30,000 e-mails prior to handing the rest over to the FBI. And those she did hand over, were printed out, not digital, which strips out any header information that would have been of use to a real investigation.

Add to that, that within the 17,000 of those e-mails the FBI later recovered, they found classified information. According to her, supposedly every one of those e-mails were personal, not government related. That was a blatant lie, yet the FBI and Obama's Department of Injustice refuse to do anything about it.

What she did was criminal, and if it were anyone else she'd be in prison. This was not procedural, this was pathological.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Aquila, Comey actually stated that if anyone else had done what she had done, there would have been consequences. He actually said that. She exhibited gross negligence in the mishandling of classified documents. Gross negligence is all that's required for her to be prosecuted, not intent. If it were anyone else, she would be in jail.

Not only did she exhibit gross negligence, she actually thwarted the investigation by deleting over 30,000 e-mails prior to handing the rest over to the FBI. And those she did hand over, were printed out, not digital, which strips out any header information that would have been of use to a real investigation.

Add to that, that within the 17,000 of those e-mails the FBI later recovered, they found classified information. According to her, supposedly every one of those e-mails were personal, not government related. That was a blatant lie, yet the FBI and Obama's Department of Injustice refuse to do anything about it.

What she did was criminal, and if it were anyone else she'd be in prison. This was not procedural, this was pathological.

Watergate Lawyer Blasts Republicans, Clears Hillary Of Any Wrongdoing Over Emails
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/2...-fbi-congress/

Fact check: 12 questions and answers about Hillary Clinton’s emails
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ails/86735856/

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Watergate Lawyer Blasts Republicans, Clears Hillary Of Any Wrongdoing Over Emails
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/08/2...-fbi-congress/

Fact check: 12 questions and answers about Hillary Clinton’s emails
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ails/86735856/

Uh, did you even check that second link? I'm not going through the first one, as I don't want to waste my time reading the 7,000 (!) page report.

As for the second link:

the National Archives and Records Administration requires all work-related emails to be properly preserved. Federal rules required Clinton to preserve work emails and turn them over before leaving office, but she did not turn over her emails until 21 months after she left office.

That's a crime. She violated the law.

Was she allowed to use a private server?

No.

Why exactly do you believe she used a private e-mail server? Could it have anything to do with the e-mails she failed to turn over?

Did Clinton seek government approval to use a private server for her personal email account?

No.

At the very least, it's a violation of policy.

No other secretary of State maintained a private server that was used for government business.

I ask again, why do you believe she would use a private server?

Clinton’s office disclosed in March 2015 that her private server had a total of 62,320 emails. It said at that time that her lawyers went through the emails and identified 30,490 work-related emails and 31,830 private emails.

She allowed her lawyers to go through potentially classified e-mails. Her lawyers had neither the security clearance, or the need to know.

Clinton gave the State Department the 30,490 work-related emails totaling roughly 55,000 pages. She said she deleted the others. “I didn’t see any reason to keep them,” she said at a March 10, 2015, press conference.

Let's assume for a moment, that every one of those e-mails were truly personal and not work related. Even if that were true (which it's not), she thwarted a federal investigation by destroying evidence before it could be reviewed. Why do you think she did that?

However, Comey said Clinton had multiple servers during her four years as secretary of State, and not all of her work-related emails were turned over to the State Department. The FBI recovered “several thousand work-related emails” that were not provided to the State Department, and he said it was possible they included some of the emails “deleted as ‘personal’ by her lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for production in late 2014.”

Gee, Comey said that she failed to turn over work-related e-mails that were later recovered. It's a federal crime to lie to investigators.

Comey said the FBI “found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way.”

Don't buy it. But even if you believe that, the fact that she deleted the information before it could be reviewed by investigators, is in and of itself a crime. Any of the rest of us lowly peons would be thrown in jail for doing that.

Yes. More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received, Comey said. The FBI director said “a very small number” of the emails containing classified information “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” contrary to Clinton’s claims that none was marked classified.

So, Hillary is either incompetent, has memory loss or was intentionally lying. Take your pick, none of them make her look good.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said.

Extremely careless. Extremely careless in handling of sensitive, highly classified information. That's gross negligence. That's all that's required for prosecution.

The FBI director said the lack of direct evidence that Clinton’s server was successfully hacked by “any foreign power or other hostile actors” doesn’t mean it wasn’t.

In other words, they just don't know if the server was hacked or not. That's gross negligence. He went on to say:

we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

They don't know, but they admit it's possible.

Comey said, “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. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

This is the money quote. Anyone else would have been prosecuted, but not Hillary.

That report cited the case of Jonathan Scott Gration, a former ambassador to Kenya, who ignored instructions in July 2011 not to use commercial email for government business and resigned in mid-2012 when the department initiated disciplinary action against him.

So, someone else does the exact same thing Hillary does, and gets prosecuted. Hillary does it and gets a free pass.

Maybe you should check your sources more carefully, before you post them.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're mistaken. There was no evidence of "criminal" wrong doing. The error was procedural.

Whatever you say, Aquila. You spin it how you want to in order to make yourself feel better. I'll stick with Comey's explanation and detailed charges against her.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Whatever you say, Aquila. You spin it how you want to in order to make yourself feel better. I'll stick with Comey's explanation and detailed charges against her.

Oh, you can be guilty of violating departmental standards... but cleared of doing it for nefarious reasons. No criminal intent doesn't mean that you didn't screw up.... it just means that you had no criminal motive worthy of prosecuting.