Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hillary and her aides have not even been interviewed yet.
But an FBI source was quoted today that this case will be resolved "in weeks, not months."
Think about those two sentences together for a second. I think we know where it is coming out.
Mick
What are you talking about? Hillary has not been interviewed about her emails? Really? Whaaa, REALLY? You are going to say that they haven't asked, and she hasn't answered questions about this subject? Where have you been, man?
So yer sayin' that she did it accidentally?
That her judgement was so poor that she
couldn't even tell the difference between
"beyond top secret" and her yoga plans?
A ringing endorsement to be sure.
BTW, negligence fits the criteria for indictment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
No, he knowingly gave the information to his mistress with a huge forehead. He absolutely knew that his notebook had classified information. . . . he admitted it. Hillary is claiming that she had no actual knowledge (who knows if that's true) of the classified status of the emails because the information was not marked classified.
Mick
Hillary is claiming (and it seems to be born out) that only unclassified information was allowed on her server, and that some of that unclassified information was later, retroactively classified.
Possibly, it was illadvised, but hardley illegal. It's like convicting someone for doing doing national security business with Iran in 1953. It's illegal now, but it wasn't in 1953... (I'm guessing at my dates, if they are wrong, that's not the point.)
My prediction: There is no indictment, and not for any nefarious reason or due to any backroom deals, but because, as many people in positions to know have said, there is nothing criminal there. It's a "scandal" only in the right wing fantasy land. Just like Benghazi and the myriad of other faux "scandals" the right has attempted to cook up against the Clintons for the last quarter of a century.
Clinton wins the nomination and goes on to win the election, and is president for the next four, and possibly eight, years.
As this (Clinton Email Probe Recalls Past Scrutiny Over Classified Information : NPR) NPR piece found, high officials are rarely prosecuted from violating classified material rules. The major factor is "intent." The Justice Department's inspector general has found that Alberto Gonzales mishandled top secret documents and was never prosecuted.
In addition, the secretary of state has been personally delegated presidential authority to decide what is classified and what can be declassified.
Tell us more about that 147 agents. We are dying to know.
Can you dispute the fact that the emails were not marked classified when sent? That seems to be what it all hinges on - the 'classified' designation. Not confidential or secret.
If information is classified, the markings are irrelevant.
As to the 147 FBI agents, here is a good post about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rescue3
If there are 12 agents assigned full time to a file, that's a task force. By definition, that's a major case. "Criminal probe" is a media term and is not one that is recognized in federal criminal justice system. Any newspaper silly enough to use it - and then apologize for it - well shame on them.
Hillary Clinton is the subject of a federal criminal investigation. She will become a target of a grand jury investigation if and when the matter is brought to a grand jury (if it hasn't already).
The FBI does not conduct 'security reviews' or whatever other term Hillary chooses to use to minimize what's really going on. The FBI is administratively and bureaucratically wired to do one thing: conduct criminal investigations. (Well, there are one or two other things, but they aren't relevant here.) I can guarantee you that there is an open file number, with her name as the title, and it is a criminal investigation being conducted by the national security division.
The office running the case is called the office of origin or controlling office. They send out leads. Agents in other offices catch those leads, write 302s (a form recording investigative results) and send them back to the office of origin for inclusion in the case file. If it is a very sensitive case, the agents conducting the leads are required to sign NDAs just like the controlling case agents. What the Director almost certainly briefed some member of congress was that 147 agents had signed NDAs on the case, meaning the original case agents plus all the ones that ran leads or were otherwise tangentially involved.
Congressmen are too important to keep their own notes. They tell their staff. There are over 5,000 congressional staffers. Leaks invariably come from staffers, not the member themselves. And democratic staffers leak at the same rate - or greater - as republican staffers. (BTW - a good number of democratic staffers are Bernie supporters.) Some of the crooked-est people I met in DC were congressional staffers.
The republicans are not driving this train; they are little more than interested observers. I'm certain they would love for Hillary to take a perp walk, just as I'm sure most democrats would like to see Hillary exonerated. I strongly doubt either will occur.
As to an indictment, the criminal justice system uses that tool far less often than people think. I brought lots of cases to grand juries that resulted in guilty pleas, not indictments. The Petreaus case was handled that way. There never was an indictment there - just a negotiated settlement.
Finally, 92% (give or take 1% variance from year to year) of criminal cases brought in the federal criminal system are resolved with a negotiated settlement (read: plea bargain). As I just wrote, many of those occur before the grand jury even receives a bill of indictment. In other words, the grand jury never gets the chance to indict.
Having undoubtedly ticked off both sides of this political divide, I now return you to your argument...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
Hillary is claiming (and it seems to be born out) that only unclassified information was allowed on her server, and that some of that unclassified information was later, retroactively classified.
Possibly, it was illadvised, but hardley illegal. It's like convicting someone for doing doing national security business with Iran in 1953. It's illegal now, but it wasn't in 1953... (I'm guessing at my dates, if they are wrong, that's not the point.)
The evidence contradicts Hillary's claim that the emails were retroactively classified. The top secret, and spacial access programs information is born classified.
Tell us more about that 147 agents. We are dying to know.
Can you dispute the fact that the emails were not marked classified when sent? That seems to be what it all hinges on - the 'classified' designation. Not confidential or secret.
See? this is exactly what I mean. Hillary says 'nothing marked classified on that server' which is true. The media and uninformed public eat up her parsed narrative (and if I understood your statement correctly) you believe the entire case hinges on classified/ not classified (when nothing could be further from the truth).
Storing (as 'on the server'), sharing or any form of distribution of these emails (whether forwarded or dictated (re-typed) from a State Department sourced email to a separate email and sent to the server or any other recipients) violates Federal law if any of those communication are marked (or classified) as 'Public Trust', 'Confidential', 'Secret' or 'Top Secret'.
Of the communication stored on the illegal server (that have been reviewed - no disposition on whether the deleted emails have been recovered in any form):
There are several Top Secret emails
There are over 100 emails with the classification of Secret.
I'd presume there could be thousands of Confidential and Public Trust emails (though not much has been discussed in the form of a 'count' as emphasis has been on Secret and top secret classification).
And yet many still think (or would like to think) "it all hinges on - the 'classified' designation"
Do you think Hillary Clinton should be indicted over the handling of her email server?
At least one email dealt with human intelligence, or spies engaged in ongoing operations, and was classified above Top Secret. At least two were Top Secret, while some others were even more sensitive, according to published reports. Poll: Should Hillary Clinton be indicted? | NewBostonPost
BTW, 93% say yes, according to their poll!
Last edited by i_love_autumn; 04-16-2016 at 08:45 AM..
Hillary has some very serious legal problems. With a so much evidence available for the public to see, I don't know how they will be able to not indict her. A failure to indict her is going to cause a major fallout.
At least one email dealt with human intelligence, or spies engaged in ongoing operations, and was classified above Top Secret. At least two were Top Secret, while some others were even more sensitive, according to published reports. Poll: Should Hillary Clinton be indicted? | NewBostonPost
BTW, 93% say yes, according to their poll!
The New Boston Post- per their website "the hub of conservative thought"
I'm sure that's a totally unbiased survey
It's a conservative dream that Hillary will be indicted. Of course, they've been dreaming that for decades, this is just the latest iteration. Those of us in the real world know it's not going to happen - and if they did, as noted above, they'd have to save some cell space for Colin Powell and Condi Rice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think Hillary Clinton should be indicted over the handling of her email server?
