Hillary Clinton email scandal

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Yes. With only 10 days to go in the election, this won't affect the outcome no matter what is eventually determined.... long after the election is over. Obama will probably just provide Hillary with a presidential pardon, anyway.

It worked for Nixon and the conservatives loved it. Chickens come home to roost?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

It worked for Nixon and the conservatives loved it. Chickens come home to roost?

Is that your way of saying Hillary is guilty of crimes?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Is that your way of saying Hillary is guilty of crimes?

Im an engineer not a lawyer. More importantly I could not care less at this stage. Nobody in a position to do so has indicted her on any criminal charge.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gman0174

She is guilty without a doubt. She has shown all her true colours. So have the media, including the media in Ireland. Even on sites like 'thejournal' (though a stretch calling that journalism), the biased coverage is horrendous. Even Hillarys 'joke' about the drone and Assange..... That rolled of her tongue too easy, to suggest she has said it and ordered it before, much like Obama, cowering in a bunker while murdering women and children to get one target. USA stands at a precipice now, decide whether to allow corporate to destroy the country, or wrestle the control away. Its a shame that only good people, leaders seem to get assassinated......

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Yes. With only 10 days to go in the election, this won't affect the outcome no matter what is eventually determined.... long after the election is over. Obama will probably just provide Hillary with a presidential pardon, anyway.

So not only won't you admit you were wrong, you fit in a sly dig at Obama. Classy.

Brian?

Gman0174 wrote: »

She is guilty without a doubt. She has shown all her true colours. So have the media, including the media in Ireland. Even on sites like 'thejournal' (though a stretch calling that journalism), the biased coverage is horrendous. Even Hillarys 'joke' about the drone and Assange..... That rolled of her tongue too easy, to suggest she has said it and ordered it before, much like Obama, cowering in a bunker while murdering women and children to get one target. USA stands at a precipice now, decide whether to allow corporate to destroy the country, or wrestle the control away. Its a shame that only good people, leaders seem to get assassinated......

Actually there is a fairly large amount of doubt. Doesn't she deserve a trial?

drunkmonkey

Brian? wrote: »

Actually there is a fairly large amount of doubt. Doesn't she deserve a trial?

Should she be allowed to run for president with something hanging over her head like this, surely there's a law or something to say you can't.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Actually there is a fairly large amount of doubt. Doesn't she deserve a trial?

She does, pity the DoJ decided to forego one.

aloyisious

Whatever HRC is guilty of, plain stupidity through carelessness or wilfully ignoring a common-sense approach to the security of documents passing through her hands so regularly, the purpose of an investigation is to establish if there is a prima facie case for her to answer in a court of law, a case with enough evidence to secure a conviction on federal charge/s. If there is not enough there, no case will be brought on the same basis as here.... to avoid the waste of money from the public purse in pursuing a case incapable of providing a guilty verdict.

It would be a factor for the AG to consider if HRC could get a fair trial, what with the politicization of the case and the free public debate on the matter, when and if it might be possible to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. I have no doubt that should a case be put forward for trial under the current conditions, the current President would issue a clemency pardon as his last act before leaving office.

Another thing which might come into play is that the Emails being checked on by the FBI are part of evidence seized in relation to another investigation. It might end up in an argument between investigating teams on both cases on which one should have precedence in use of evidence in court, another decision to give a direction on by the AG to the FBI.

Due to time lost in the investigation and the examination of a report submitted for any decision on prosecution, it could well be sometime in 2017 at the earliest before any decision is made. Procrastination might scupper Don.......

All this could also be thrown up in the air if some-one decided to bring in a special prosecutor to go after HRC following her election. There's enough bad blood mounting up against her in Congress for some-one to try get her for re-election promotional reasons.

One other thing that will follow on from all this is that there will have to be, regardless of who is elected, a full investigation on the leaks of the emails, as they leaked classified documents. something that is a federal case as it was done deliberately to damage the US. That is as close to an act of espionage as is possible, something way beyond the offence HRC is accused of.

FISMA.

We all know that Hillary disseminated Secret and Top Secret information.

We all know that Comey will not investigate her, fundamentally, due here ignorance.

With respect to all of the above: water under the bridge.


The question here is: why the letter?

For those back on the auld sod, FBI directors do not send letters to Congress, as in this instance.

The question that needs to be, and I believe will be answered in a few days, is: why send the letter?

Perhaps, something big is coming down the auld interweb and the FBI is getting ahead of the curve.

Perhaps, Comey just took himself out of any further questioning - I cannot comment on any on-going investigations.

October surprise?

... I think the best is yet to come!

Don't forget what Mr. Clinton did to Mr.Putin's boy back in the 90's!!!

.

Timberrrrrrrr

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Should she be allowed to run for president with something hanging over her head like this, surely there's a law or something to say you can't.

Should Trump be allowed to run with a case coming up in relation to him and raping a child?

Which do you think is worse?

FISMA.

... looks like a weiner just ended a Clinton Campaign!

Even stranger, it's not Bill's!!!

You just can't write this stuff!!!

drunkmonkey

FISMA. wrote: »

Perhaps, something big is coming down the auld interweb and the FBI is getting ahead of the curve.

Perhaps, Comey just took himself out of any further questioning - I cannot comment on any on-going investigations.

October surprise?

... I think the best is yet to come!

Don't forget what Mr. Clinton did to Mr.Putin's boy back in the 90's!!!

.

Is Braverman the next Snowden, supposedly he's gone seeking asylum in moscow.

Not sure I believe the moscow story the FBI probably cut him deal:), he was meant to be the source of the leak to NBC "to follow the money" trail to find the real Hillary scandal.

The emails aren't the full story. I'd say it's pretty serious corruption with deep roots.

aloyisious

FISMA. wrote: »

We all know that Hillary disseminated Secret and Top Secret information.

We all know that Comey will not investigate her, fundamentally, due here ignorance.

With respect to all of the above: water under the bridge.


The question here is: why the letter?

For those back on the auld sod, FBI directors do not send letters to Congress, as in this instance.

The question that needs to be, and I believe will be answered in a few days, is: why send the letter?

Perhaps, something big is coming down the auld interweb and the FBI is getting ahead of the curve.

Perhaps, Comey just took himself out of any further questioning - I cannot comment on any on-going investigations.

October surprise?

... I think the best is yet to come!

Don't forget what Mr. Clinton did to Mr.Putin's boy back in the 90's!!!

.

Question is whether the people she disseminated the info to were persons authorised to receive the information. If they were, it's not relevant.

Listened to Comyn before congress, as he was answering a question about the emails, the questioner cut him off mid-answer with another question, so Comyn was able to answer without saying the emails contained classified info. I had wondered if it was an error by the questioner or a move to head off an embarrassing answer.

alastair

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My 'dogged defence of Hillary' simply comprises of the factual findings of the FBI - that there's no case for criminal prosecution. Nothing has changed in that regard, despite the tinfoil theories and claims of political interference (which runs both ways imo - Comey is simply being thorough to avoid another round of wingnut claims of a cover-up). There's nothing of interest in this whole email affair, and never was.

alastair

Brian? wrote: »

Actually there is a fairly large amount of doubt. Doesn't she deserve a trial?

Not according to the FBI. She's no case to answer they've already determined.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She does, pity the DoJ decided to forego one.

They didn't. They said they would be guided by the FBI investigator's findings. There was no case.

uck51js9zml2yt

alastair wrote: »

My 'dogged defence of Hillary' simply comprises of the factual findings of the FBI - that there's no case for criminal prosecution. Nothing has changed in that regard, despite the tinfoil theories and claims of political interference (which runs both ways imo - Comey is simply being thorough to avoid another round of wingnut claims of a cover-up). There's nothing of interest in this whole email affair, and never was.

But is if enough to end her campaign and give us president trump ?

alastair

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is Braverman the next Snowden, supposedly he's gone seeking asylum in moscow.

Not sure I believe the moscow story the FBI probably cut him deal:), he was meant to be the source of the leak to NBC "to follow the money" trail to find the real Hillary scandal.

The emails aren't the full story. I'd say it's pretty serious corruption with deep roots.

Dear god. It's the night of the living tinfoil.

alastair

Anderson Shaggy Spine wrote: »

But is if enough to end her campaign and give us president trump ?

It's not enough to warrant any notice, let alone register on her lead.

Amazingfun

lol.....

Anthony Weiner ‏@AnthonyVVeiner 1h1 hour ago
I don't know about you guys, but I'm sensing a political comeback.
#FeelTheWein #HillarysEmails

uck51js9zml2yt

alastair wrote: »

It's not enough to warrant any notice, let alone register on her lead.

We're talking about America here. It's not a normal country by any standard!

alastair

Anderson Shaggy Spine wrote: »

We're talking about America here. It's not a normal country by any standard!

I'm confident. The only people who pretend they care one iota about this are already voting Trump, and there's just not enough of them.

FISMA.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Should she be allowed to run for president with something hanging over her head like this, surely there's a law or something to say you can't.

Yes.

For example, if you are the source for classified information being disseminated to the enemy.

drunkmonkey

Yea that would probably be enough to stop most people, she's got some determination, just watched her announcement after it, She's really believes she's the next president. She's so far gone now she can't pull out.

ancapailldorcha

FISMA. wrote: »

... looks like a weiner just ended a Clinton Campaign!

Even stranger, it's not Bill's!!!

You just can't write this stuff!!!

Amazingfun wrote: »

lol.....

Post constructively please.

FISMA.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Post constructively please.

Sorry, just couldn't resist!

Here's a copy of Hillary's Non Disclosure Agreement.

Although, correct me if I am wrong, she does not remember signing it!:rolleyes:

Anyone in the states that has held a security clearance signs a similar document.

Have a look at #7.

Having your own private server - illegal.
Destroying 30,000 emails - illegal.
Convincing voters there's no crime here? - Priceless!

Unfortunately, the law only matters to those that respect the rule of law.

To those that believe the law is a judicial hurdle to be overcome mental exercise, no law or document matters.

AbusesToilets

FISMA. wrote: »

Sorry, just couldn't resist!

Here's a copy of Hillary's Non Disclosure Agreement.

Although, correct me if I am wrong, she does not remember signing it!:rolleyes:

Anyone in the states that has held a security clearance signs a similar document.

Have a look at #7.

Having your own private server - illegal.
Destroying 30,000 emails - illegal.
Convincing voters there's no crime here? - Priceless!

Unfortunately, the law only matters to those that respect the rule of law.

To those that believe the law is a judicial hurdle to be overcome mental exercise, no law or document matters.

A good example of the seriousness that the US Government holds in protecting classified material.

Note the possible punishments listed. Anything to say with respect to that Alister?

Ronin247

FISMA. wrote: »

Sorry, just couldn't resist!

Here's a copy of Hillary's Non Disclosure Agreement.

Although, correct me if I am wrong, she does not remember signing it!:rolleyes:

Anyone in the states that has held a security clearance signs a similar document.

Have a look at #7.

Having your own private server - illegal.
Destroying 30,000 emails - illegal.
Convincing voters there's no crime here? - Priceless!

Unfortunately, the law only matters to those that respect the rule of law.

To those that believe the law is a judicial hurdle to be overcome mental exercise, no law or document matters.

I find it strange that she would have written the date in European style 22-01-2009 as opposed to American style 01-22-2009.
She doesnt remember signing this document and it is dated by a method not used by Americans.
Desperation by a failed Trump campaign?
A clever ploy by HRC to make the document null and void as no such date exists?

Gman0174

Actually there is a fairly large amount of doubt. Doesn't she deserve a trial?

Absolutely! Not sure if you were sarcastic. The old adage, were theres smoke, theres fire, no shlt.... This woman is smog!

Billy86

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Should she be allowed to run for president with something hanging over her head like this, surely there's a law or something to say you can't.

Well by that standard, neither does. I mean I would call it a valid argument, but Trump does also have a trial for defrauding the American public (thousands if them) out of millions and millions of dollars coming up in a few weeks, and a few weeks after that has a court hearing for raping and threatening to murder a 13 year old child.

Gman0174

Should Trump be allowed to run with a case coming up in relation to him and raping a child?

Which do you think is worse?

So, deny everything about a warmongering lying deceitful woman, and believe every allegation against Trump?

FISMA.

Gman0174 wrote: »

Should Trump be allowed to run with a case coming up in relation to him and raping a child?

Billy86 wrote: »

and a few weeks after that has a court hearing for raping and threatening to murder a 13 year old child.

Check your sources lads...

"As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by "Katie Johnson," and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her."

:rolleyes:

Source - snopes

Brian?

Gman0174 wrote: »

Actually there is a fairly large amount of doubt. Doesn't she deserve a trial?

Absolutely! Not sure if you were sarcastic. The old adage, were theres smoke, theres fire, no shlt.... This woman is smog!

I wasn't being sarcastic. numerous posters have said she's guilty, they've brought in the verdict already. If she is guilty, she deserves due process just like anyone else.

There is regularly smoke without fire. In fact when it comes to Hillary the smoke turns out to be steam generated by the boiling heads of right wing pundits.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

A good example of the seriousness that the US Government holds in protecting classified material.

Note the possible punishments listed. Anything to say with respect to that Alister?

Colin Powell signed exactly the same agreement. Destroyed thousands of emails that he'd run on a private email account. Nobody has been employing a witch hunt in his case.

And the FBI were well aware of that agreement when they concluded that there was no criminal case for Hillary to answer.

That clarify matters?

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

Colin Powell signed exactly the same agreement. Destroyed thousands of emails that he'd run on a private email account. Nobody has been employing a witch hunt in his case.

And the FBI were well aware of that agreement when they concluded that there was no criminal case for Hillary to answer.

That clarify matters?

He's not running for president, that's the huge difference between Clinton and all the others that get mentioned in the "wataboutery"

None are running for president.

alastair

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

He's not running for president, that's the huge difference between Clinton and all the others that get mentioned in the "wataboutery"

None are running for president.

The law doesn't care if you're running for president or not. She either commited a crime or she didn't. The Feds say she didn't commit a crime. Hillary has been quite open about the facts of what happened with her emails, so if someone has a problem with that, they have already made up their minds.

gosplan

alastair wrote: »

Colin Powell signed exactly the same agreement. Destroyed thousands of emails that he'd run on a private email account. Nobody has been employing a witch hunt in his case.

And the FBI were well aware of that agreement when they concluded that there was no criminal case for Hillary to answer.

That clarify matters?

The code is outdated too. Digital files kind of change the nature of things.

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

The law doesn't care if you're running for president or not. She either commited a crime or she didn't. The Feds say she didn't commit a crime. Hillary has been quite open about the facts of what happened with her emails, so if someone has a problem with that, they have already made up their minds.

I'm not actually taking about the law.

I'm talking about the perception of Clinton as a good president.

Its ammo for her opponents to paint her as untrustworthy regardless of what the ultimate legal ruling is.

It doesn't matter what Powell or anyone else did, they are not running.

alastair

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm not actually taking about the law.

I'm talking about the perception of Clinton as a good president.

Its ammo for her opponents to paint her as untrustworthy regardless of what the ultimate legal ruling is.

It doesn't matter what Powell or anyone else did, they are not running.

Of course it matters what Powell did. It provides some context as to the actual culture in government of adhering to the rules about communications. If what she did was some crazy abberation that no-one else would consider, it's a different story to that of a bending of the rules that is not unknown in those circumstances. Most people will judge her actions on the attitude that pervades with regard to the specific rules. If the rules seem archaic, and inhibit doing the job (which seems to be the case here) then people will make up their minds accordingly.

It may have been wrong, but it was understandable, and she's not the only one who's felt they had to work around the rules.

RobertKK

Well if classified emails were on the Yahoo email account used by both Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin then there are very serious problems.
One being Yahoo only recently announced their emails were being hacked for about two years, and they - Yahoo tried to cover that up.
So these emails could have been seen by whoever hacked Yahoo.

Iceboy

The reason Comey couldn't let this slide is Preet Bharara and the NYPD are leading the investigation into Anthony Weiner. Preet and his team found the emails, Comey couldn't provide cover for this because his crooked team wasn't leading the investigation!

For those who don't know Preet, he does not f around. He's gone after big time crooked politicians in NY including The once untouchable Sheldon Silver. He is as clean as they come and hates corruption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preet_Bharara

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

Of course it matters what Powell did. It provides some context as to the actual culture in government of adhering to the rules about communications. If what she did was some crazy abberation that no-one else would consider, it's a different story to that of a bending of the rules that is not unknown in those circumstances. Most people will judge her actions on the attitude that pervades with regard to the specific rules. If the rules seem archaic, and inhibit doing the job (which seems to be the case here) then people will make up their minds accordingly.

It may have been wrong, but it was understandable, and she's not the only one who's felt they had to work around the rules.

But it doesn't matter what Powell did.

He is not running for president.

Clinton is a person that is already low on the trustworthy scale, this just adds to it.

Because she is running for, and favourite for the presidency people are going to take this far more seriously than what another secretary of state, who is no longer in the public eye, did over a decade ago.

Saying that its OK that Clinton did it because Powell did it will not wash.

alastair

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But it doesn't matter what Powell did.

He is not running for president.

Clinton is a person that is already low on the trustworthy scale, this just adds to it.

Because she is running for, and favourite for the presidency people are going to take this far more seriously than what another secretary of state, who is no longer in the public eye, did over a decade ago.

Saying that its OK that Clinton did it because Powell did it will not wash.

Perhaps you need to actually read what I wrote?

alastair

Iceboy wrote: »

The reason Comey couldn't let this slide is Preet Bharara and the NYPD are leading the investigation into Anthony Weiner. Preet and his team found the emails, Comey couldn't provide cover for this because his crooked team wasn't leading the investigation!

For those who don't know Preet, he does not f around. He's gone after big time crooked politicians in NY including The once untouchable Sheldon Silver. He is as clean as they come and hates corruption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preet_Bharara

Leaving aside the whole super-DA spin, Comey hasn't covered for anything to date, and there's nothing to suggest his investigation was corrupt.

Iceboy

alastair wrote: »

Leaving aside the whole super-DA spin, Comey hasn't covered for anything to date, and there's nothing to suggest his investigation was corrupt.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/revolt-fbi-agents-say-hillary-should-have-been-prosecuted-theyre-disgusted/

alastair

Iceboy wrote: »

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/revolt-fbi-agents-say-hillary-should-have-been-prosecuted-theyre-disgusted/

Like I said - no evidence of any cover-up or corruption. And posting up a Fox News piece that still can't get the numbers of investigators involved in the case right, isn't going to convince anyone otherwise.

Iceboy

alastair wrote: »

Like I said - no evidence of any cover-up or corruption. And posting up a Fox News piece that still can't get the numbers of investigators involved in the case right, isn't going to convince anyone otherwise.

Yep, nothing to see here folks...move along

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDkYB5-bRrI

Timberrrrrrrr

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But it doesn't matter what Powell did.

He is not running for president.

Clinton is a person that is already low on the trustworthy scale, this just adds to it.

Because she is running for, and favourite for the presidency people are going to take this far more seriously than what another secretary of state, who is no longer in the public eye, did over a decade ago.

Saying that its OK that Clinton did it because Powell did it will not wash.

Neither is Bill Clinton yet all we have heard from the Trump side for the last few months is "BUT BILL DID....."