Hillary Clinton email scandal

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

The acts don't violate the law if there's no intent. This has been explained to you ad-nauseam.

As was demonstrated to you repeatedly, 1) that's not true and 2) to claim there was no intent in this case is ludicrous,

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As was demonstrated to you repeatedly, 1) that's not true and 2) to claim there was no intent in this case is ludicrous,

It's not been demonstrated at all.

1. There are only two criteria for adjudging the actions criminal - criminal intent, and gross negligence. Neither applied in this case, so no crime was committed.

2. What you consider ludicrous is at odds with the determination of the FBI investigation. Tilting at windmills comes to mind.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

It's not been demonstrated at all.

1. There are only two criteria for adjudging the actions criminal - criminal intent, and gross negligence. Neither applied in this case, so no crime was committed.

2. What you consider ludicrous is at odds with the determination of the FBI investigation. Tilting at windmills comes to mind.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

Funny, I don't see any mention of criminal intent in there, do you? The FBI's position rests on claiming they can't show Clinton acted "knowingly".

Possessing and transmitting classified materials on an unsecure network clearly violates these statutes. Allowing people without clearances access to said material clearly violates these statutes. Do you dispute that?

alastair

You don't?

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates...

Not adhering to the code is not equivalent to a criminal act. Comey has made that clear, and it's been made clear to you repeatedly.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You don't?



Not adhering to the code is not equivalent to a criminal act. Comey has made that clear, and it's been made clear to you repeatedly.

Eh, no. The Code is the law. If you're not adhering to it, you are breaking the law. Comey said that they felt they couldn't prove it to a sufficient standard to recommend prosecution.

You have displayed a marked determination to try and excuse wrongdoing on Clinton's part. At the end of the day, she did wrong, whether you believe it broke the law or not. Are you so morally bankrupt that you can't admit that?

oik

alastair wrote: »

The acts don't violate the law if there's no intent. This has been explained to you ad-nauseam.

They don't violate the law if there's no mens rea. Intent is just one form of mens rea.

Negligence is a form of mens rea. Negligence is failure to act with reasonable care. Comey said she was extremely careless.

alastair

oik wrote: »

They don't violate the law if there's no mens rea. Intent is just one form of mens rea.

Negligence is a form of mens rea. Negligence is failure to act with reasonable care. Comey said she was extremely careless.

But he didn't say she acted with gross negligence, so no crime occurred.

drunkmonkey

alastair wrote: »

Not adhering to the code is not equivalent to a criminal act. Comey has made that clear, and it's been made clear to you repeatedly.

To quote the former assistant director of the FBI yesterday, "The Clintons, that’s a crime family. It’s like organized crime, basically. The Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”

Have you a crush on her or something?

oik

alastair wrote: »

But he didn't say she acted with gross negligence, so no crime occurred.

They're synonymous.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Eh, no. The Code is the law. If you're not adhering to it, you are breaking the law.

We both know this isn't the case. See my ad-nauseam post for a reminder.

alastair

oik wrote: »

They're synonymous.

No they're not. Comey made clear that they would warrant professional sanction, but not criminal charges.

AbusesToilets

Here's the NDA she signed, which lays out what actions are considered violations, makes no mention of having to "knowingly" commit said acts.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

K-9

FISMA. wrote: »

Here's the FBI's 302's on the Clinton case.

FBI 302's are basically summary reports by the interviewing Agent.

Imagine a cop asking a murder suspect "did you do it?"

To which the murder suspect replies "no."

Case closed.

Basically, that's what we have here.

4 pages.

All too often "Clinton cannot recall."

Moved to the relevant thread to discuss the details of the email scandal!

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Here's the NDA she signed, which lays out what actions are considered violations, makes no mention of having to "knowingly" commit said acts.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

You do realise that there are no criminal laws outlined within that text? Only references to specific laws that do indeed, reference criminal intent?

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

You do realise that there are no criminal laws outlined within that text? Only references to specific laws that do indeed, reference criminal intent?

It counters your assertion previously re: potential punishments for Clinton's actions. It shows that she was clearly briefed as to what her responsibilities with respect to handling classified materials were, and what would be considered a violation. This gives further evidence to counter her assertion that she acted in ignorance of the law.


You seem unable to grasp that a person can break the law without being convicted in court for the same. She clearly broke the law, she has not been prosecuted for it. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It counters your assertion previously re: potential punishments for Clinton's actions. It shows that she was clearly briefed as to what her responsibilities with respect to handling classified materials were, and what would be considered a violation. This gives further evidence to counter her assertion that she acted in ignorance of the law.


You seem unable to grasp that a person can break the law without being convicted in court for the same. She clearly broke the law, she has not been prosecuted for it. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

She didn't break the law. That's why she wasn't prosecuted. That's what Comey explained. Please just accept that an investigation into possibile criminal charges determined that there was no criminality, and you're simply going to have to come to terms with that. Posting up NDA's completely irrelevant to the actual laws doesn't make you look anything other than desperate.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

She didn't break the law. That's why she wasn't prosecuted. That's what Comey explained. Please just accept that an investigation into possibile criminal charges determined that there was no criminality, and you're simply going to have to come to terms with that. Posting up NDA's completely irrelevent to the actual laws doesn't make you look anything other than desperate.

Yawn. Did I miss where you showed where Comey had said there was no criminality?

Comey's words have been posted multiple times at this stage. They don't say that there was no criminal acts found. You're inventing text that doesn't exist.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yawn. Did I miss where you showed where Comey had said there was no criminality?

Comey's words have been posted multiple times at this stage. They don't say that there was no criminal acts found. You're inventing text that doesn't exist.

They say exactly that. He says there's no case for criminal charges:

we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

They say exactly that. He says there's no case for decriminal charges.

You stated:

She didn't break the law. That's why she wasn't prosecuted. That's what Comey explained. Please just accept that an investigation into possibile criminal charges determined that there was no criminality, and you're simply going to have to come to terms with that. Posting up NDA's completely irrelevant to the actual laws doesn't make you look anything other than desperate.

Are you backing away from that now?

Comey stated that weren't recommending prosecution because they couldn't sufficiently establish that Clinton acted knowingly or acted with Gross Negligence. Nowhere does he dispute that she committed acts that violate US Code.

AbusesToilets

Comey's words, again:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You stated:


Are you backing away from that now?

Comey stated that weren't recommending prosecution because they couldn't sufficiently establish that Clinton acted knowingly or acted with Gross Negligence. Nowhere does he dispute that she committed acts that violate US Code.

Once again; I've not shifted from my observation of the facts at all.

The FBI don't decide on prosecution, but they did make a clear statement on the evidence of criminality - that there was no case of criminality with regard to the facts investigated. Clinton herself admits she broke the rules - but that's not the issue (as Comey stated himself) - the issue is criminality - and there was none in the opinion of the investigators.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

Once again; I've not shifted from my observation of the facts at all.

The FBI don't decide on prosecution, but they did make a clear statement on the evidence of criminality - that there was no case of criminality with regard to the facts investigated. Clinton herself admits she broke the rules - but that's not the issue (as Comey stated himself) - the issue is criminality - and there was none in the opinion of the investigators.

The words are right there above your post. They don't say they found no evidence of criminality. They say there are recommending no criminal charges be pursued. Potential violations of the relevant statutues = potential evidence of criminality.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The words are right there above your post. They don't say they found no evidence of criminality. They say there are recommending no criminal charges be pursued. Potential violations of the relevant statutues = potential evidence of criminality.

'Potential' violations are not evidence of either criminal intent, or gross negligence. When he says there's no case for criminal charges, it's not rocket science - there's no evidence of criminality.

Itssoeasy

So I see that judge jeanine pirro who would in no way be considered a fan of Hillary Clinton said she felt that what director comey did was wrong. I think we get a further statement on Monday from the FBI director as whoever or whatever made him send that letter has put on a wrong track.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

'Potential' violations are not evidence of either criminal intent, or gross negligence. When he says there's no case for criminal charges, it's not rocket science - there's no evidence of criminality.

No, he's saying that they don't feel they have sufficient evidence to make a successful case. That is entirely different than saying that there is no evidence of a crime.

ECO_Mental

Just watched some one CNN I think a DNC staffer complaining about this. I do think it was wrong to release a statement that said nothing only to give ammo to the Trump. Anyway she said great news that the FBI are opening up an investigation again about miss use of emails because we can get to the bottom of the 40 MILLION emails the Bush White house deleted.....yes that's right 40 million emails, bring it on

AbusesToilets

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Just watched some one CNN I think a DNC staffer complaining about this. I do think it was wrong to release a statement that said nothing only to give ammo to the Trump. Anyway she said great news that the FBI are opening up an investigation again about miss use of emails because we can get to the bottom of the 40 MILLION emails the Bush White house deleted.....yes that's right 40 million emails, bring it on

Again, irrelevant to the Clinton case. If Bush et al broke the law, then they should face the appropriate punishment.

Overheal

Lads, I don't know how you have the collective stamina to have this circling argument for what is going on the better part of a week now. But between the personal jabs you're still all trying to argue the same points at this stage of the thread as you were at the beginning of the thread. Bill Murray would have shot himself already. Well, again, because it didn't end Groundhog Day. Every time I look at this thread I'm reading the same posts retold slightly differently and im going out of my damn mind.

Like, can y'all not just agree to disagree and wait for information to actually develop??

gosplan

Jesus. She stored e-mails in the wrong way.

Done.

Is there really that much more to it?

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Lads, I don't know how you have the collective stamina to have this circling argument for what is going on the better part of a week now. But between the personal jabs you're still all trying to argue the same points at this stage of the thread as you were at the beginning of the thread. Bill Murray would have shot himself already. Well, again, because it didn't end Groundhog Day. Every time I look at this thread I'm reading the same posts retold slightly differently and im going out of my damn mind.

Like, can y'all not just agree to disagree and wait for information to actually develop??

But the internet points!!!

You are correct of course, neither side is apt to change their opinions on this matter.

Mr.Micro

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It counters your assertion previously re: potential punishments for Clinton's actions. It shows that she was clearly briefed as to what her responsibilities with respect to handling classified materials were, and what would be considered a violation. This gives further evidence to counter her assertion that she acted in ignorance of the law.


You seem unable to grasp that a person can break the law without being convicted in court for the same. She clearly broke the law, she has not been prosecuted for it. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

I think you need to add " allegedly" broke the law. She was not arrested or charged, so you cannot say she broke the law.

AbusesToilets

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think you need to add " allegedly" broke the law. She was not arrested or charged, so you cannot say she broke the law.

Her actions violated the law. If you simply read the list of things she did, and compared that to what was written in the US Code, that's clear. The debate is over her level of knowledge with respect to those actions.

FISMA.

oik wrote: »

They don't violate the law if there's no mens rea. Intent is just one form of mens rea.

Negligence is a form of mens rea. Negligence is failure to act with reasonable care. Comey said she was extremely careless.

Y'up.

Deleting 33,000 emails and using Bleach Bit would be enough for any prosecutor to establish intent.

I agree with Rudy Giuliani: “...the failure to indict her under the two, let's call them non-intent statutes, is a total outrage."

K-9

It's up there with Watergate according to Trump.

gosplan

gosplan wrote: »

Jesus. She stored e-mails in the wrong way.

Done.

Is there really that much more to it?

650,000 reasons more- all you need is to create doubt in the minds of the American voter- nothing more. It's the oldest trick in the book. Sales guys have used doubt creation for years to scare people into buying.
This time, it's to scare people away from voting Clinton.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3887790/Hillary-s-nightmare-scenario-Weiner-s-laptop-holds-650-000-emails-thousands-Clinton-s-private-server-search-WEEKS-Democrat-faces-ongoing-FBI-probe-s-elected.html

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, he's saying that they don't feel they have sufficient evidence to make a successful case. That is entirely different than saying that there is no evidence of a crime.

Its fairly simple. The found no crime had been committed. There were no charges to answer to.

If Hillary was charged, went to trial and was found not guilty she would be innocent. She was never even charged, hence she is innocent. You can call her a criminal repeatedly, but until the time she is convicted of a criminal act she is innocent. It's the corner stone of the US justice system. Let it go.

Manic Moran

There is very definitely a feeling of "rules for thee, but not for me" amongst the military. We as a general block believe that had we conducted ourselves in such a manner, we'd be up on charges.
Recent survey: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/hillary-clinton-email-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-fbi
"In a September poll conducted by Military Times and Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families, 90 percent of the active-duty military personnel surveyed said they had a negative view of her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of State. Even among those planning to vote for Clinton, 60 percent said they disapprove of her handling of the issue. "
The incredibly popular military satire site Duffel Blog (Think of it as The Onion for the US Military) is having a field day with the concept, such as http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/01/opsec-doesnt-apply-to-everyone/ , http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/10/ucmj-updated-to-clarify-double-standards-policy/ and http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/07/heres-article-full-classified-info-even-gives-****-anymore/
Whilst we are aware that the FBI could not find grounds for prosecuting criminal misconduct, we are also aware in the military that we have different rules and justice systems. The need and process for classification remains the same regardless of the level at which the material is found, it's the fact that neither is she being punished, nor is she particularly acknowledging the error for something which "If as a captain I did what she did, I'd be making little rocks out of big rocks at Leavenworth [penitentiary] right now" that irks us.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Its fairly simple. The found no crime had been committed. There were no charges to answer to.

If Hillary was charged, went to trial and was found not guilty she would be innocent. She was never even charged, hence she is innocent. You can call her a criminal repeatedly, but until the time she is convicted of a criminal act she is innocent. It's the corner stone of the US justice system. Let it go.

I won't let it go. It is, as Manic alludes to, a blatant case of double standards in play. She has committed gross violations of the standards and getting off scot-free. That's not acceptable to me and many other people.

aloyisious

I like this debate. Here's two things though. 1 - if, as AbusesToilets thinks, the FBI director knows there is evidence that HRC broke a federal law in the way she handled documents of state and then decides there is not enough evidence to warrant a prosecution, does AbusesToilets then believe the Director should be charged with, at least, being wilfully complicit in protecting HRC from charges of breaking of federal law?

2. Ref the deleted emails, has what was on them been recovered to prove there were documents of state rated at at least classified level? It's be a bit embarrassing if charges were brought against her merely for deleting emails? If there is no evidence there was classified or higher rated state material on the deleted emails, then the subpoenas from congress can be argued to be fishing for things to stiff Hillary in the election, muddy the waters to make it seem she behaved in a criminal manner.

That'd play along with Don's "lock her up" statements without an iota of proof that HRC committed any offence for which she should go to prison. What Don want's is to put Hillary in detention without trial, before she even faces a judge for an initial hearing and maybe a decision to remand HRC in custody as a flight risk. Don's playing a poker game with the US public, the prize; the White House, the Presidency and control of all their futures for (4) four years.

FISMA.

Brian? wrote: »

Its fairly simple. The found no crime had been committed. There were no charges to answer to.

Wrong. That's not how things work over here. The FBI is not the judge, jury, and executioner.

Since when does the FBI act as investigator and prosecutor?

Since when does the Attorney General abdicate her duty to the Director of the FBI?

It's a break-down of the legal process.

The evidence should have been sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch who in turn should have convened a Grand Jury.

Nice link how things are done at the Federal Level - Steps In The Federal Criminal Process.

"The investigators at these agencies investigate the crime and obtain evidence, and help prosecutors understand the details of the case. The prosecutor may work with just one agency but, many times, several investigating agencies are involved.

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury...

For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nabber

650,000 emails to check now. Should be fun.

Also Clinton was not found innocent. They concluded that she did it all unknowingly.
She lied about deleting mails, she lied about classified information and she lied about being cooperative.

Same as Benghazi.

Too much bad press for her at the moment. She has always been dishonest, but I thought her greed would be her down fall.

Which ever one is elected, I'm sure it will be a one term only.

Pro Hoc Vice

Nabber wrote: »

650,000 emails to check now. Should be fun.

Also Clinton was not found innocent. They concluded that she did it all unknowingly.
She lied about deleting mails, she lied about classified information and she lied about being cooperative.

Same as Benghazi.

Too much bad press for her at the moment. She has always been dishonest, but I thought her greed would be her down fall.

Which ever one is elected, I'm sure it will be a one term only.

A person who has not been found guilty of a crime is innocent a jury or judge in the common law word does not declare an accused person not innocent they decide that a person up to that point was and remains innocent or guilty. It's called the golden tread of the common law system. By you logic Trump is guilty of fraud, sexual assault and rape, in the rape issue he was not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out does that make him guilty? No it does not nor should it.

In relation to her greed 12 million people in the world have aids in countries that are too poor to treat them 9 million of those people have live saving drugs because of the greedy Clinton foundation.

vetinari

It's hard to take people who appear so concerned about Hillary's emails seriously when they never seem concerned about the other public officials (Colin Powell, George Bush) who did similar things. i.e. use a private server, delete emails.

This to be honest is the dullest, most uninteresting scandal I've seen in 10 years of living in the US. She had a private server for her emails, she shouldn't have. That's literally the extent of the scandal. It's never even been determined that any of her emails were accessed by foreign agents. It's amazing the how long this story has kept going to be honest. I mean, it's objectively a dull, I would say minor, scandal.

Iceboy

vetinari wrote: »

It's hard to take people who appear so concerned about Hillary's emails seriously when they never seem concerned about the other public officials (Colin Powell, George Bush) who did similar things. i.e. use a private server, delete emails.

This to be honest is the dullest, most uninteresting scandal I've seen in 10 years of living in the US. She had a private server for her emails, she shouldn't have. That's literally the extent of the scandal. It's never even been determined that any of her emails were accessed by foreign agents. It's amazing the how long this story has kept going to be honest. I mean, it's objectively a dull, I would say minor, scandal.

I agree, at this point, "what difference does it make?" The 33K deleted emails and 12 phones smashed to pieces with a hammer are just about yoga and Chelsea's wedding, obviously.

Funny how she has come out and told Comey to just release all those emails, well Hillary, Why don't you just tell the public yourself? Why did you feel the need to delete 33k emails and destroy 12 phones with a hammer if you had nothing to hide?

"August 2015 Hillary Clinton was asked, "Did you wipe your email server?" and she evasively replied, "Like with a cloth or something?" A year later we found out that "cloth" was BleachBit, a software application that deletes information "so even God can't read it," as Congressman Trey Gowdy announced August 2016."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rha6Wamfp0

Do you even need to be a body language expert to see the level of guilt and insecurity she has when questioned about the server? Like god damn, the stuttering and the shiftiness are just classic signs of deception.

K-9 wrote: »

It's up there with Watergate according to Trump.

This has the potential to be the go down as the most incredible expose on American politicians in all of history. ESPECIALLY if the rumors about details of the "Lolita Express" are true and are contained in the 650k or so emails they found in pedophile Anthony Weiner's Laptop

http://ncrenegade.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hillary-in-on-Bills-pedophile-express-trips-576x1024.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK85kXyAKfI

This week is going to be one of the UGLIEST weeks in American history and has the potential to gut the democratic party and put a stain on American politics for many many years to come.

26000 Elephants

The most amazing thing about all this is that Hilary will be President, despite everything.

Simply because Trump is such a a turkey.

Terrlock

if she has anyone else of any integrity running against her would she be elected?

26000 Elephants

Terrlock wrote: »

if she has anyone else of any integrity running against her would she be elected?

Not in a million years. Trump has been her saviour.

Thargor

Came very close to having another Bush as president.

Brian?

FISMA. wrote: »

Wrong. That's not how things work over here. The FBI is not the judge, jury, and executioner.

Since when does the FBI act as investigator and prosecutor?

Since when does the Attorney General abdicate her duty to the Director of the FBI?

It's a break-down of the legal process.

The evidence should have been sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch who in turn should have convened a Grand Jury.

Nice link how things are done at the Federal Level - Steps In The Federal Criminal Process.

"The investigators at these agencies investigate the crime and obtain evidence, and help prosecutors understand the details of the case. The prosecutor may work with just one agency but, many times, several investigating agencies are involved.

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information he gathers from talking with the individuals involved, he decides whether to present the case to the grand jury...

For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury...

Again, it's simple. The FBI found no crime had been committed so they did not bring charges.

The FBI's job is to

1. Investigate if a crime has been committed.

2. Ascertain who committed said crime, if 1 true.

3. Provide the DOJ with evidence to prosecute.

If they found 1 to be false why would they continue to 3? Your opinion is that all investigations should proceed to 3, no matter whether 1 is true. This is nonsensical.

In this case they found no crime had been committed. Case closed.

I'll give you a parallel. Bob is found dead in bed. The night before Bob had argued with Sue. Sue swore she hated Bob and that she wished he was dead. Bob died of a heart attack. No crime was committed. No charges were brought against Sue. No need for a jury or a trial because no crime had been committed in the first place. See?