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.
Guess this says it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As the FBI enters the final phases of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized email server for government business, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey are meeting frequently to discuss the progress and handling of the highly sensitive case, a source told Fox News.
Among the issues discussed in the meetings, which have been taking place several times per week, are who will be interviewed and in what order, according to an intelligence source close to the ongoing case. Emails released by the State Department have already shown Clinton and several key aides used the personal, unsecured network to send more than 1,000 messages which have been deemed classified.
“In a case like this you get one shot at the queen.”
'One shot at the queen': FBI, AG intensify focus on Clinton email probe
From FoxNews - "As the FBI enters the final phases of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized email server for government business, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey are meeting frequently to discuss the progress and handling of the highly sensitive case, a source told Fox News."
One shot at the queen...I love this stuff. This has to be the most entertaining election cycle in my lifetime. Let's face it, we all know Hillary broke the law, and she did it because she's Hillary and she's entitled and she's part of the DC power structure. So...how far will James Comey push this? What is Obama ordering AG Lynch to do? How far will Obama go to protect his legacy? What kind of quiet deals are being made? Would she be allowed to drop out of the race in lieu of arrest?
You are high on a proscribed substance if you think Loretta Lynch, Obama's cabinet member and Hillary supporter, would indict Hillary and hand the election to Mr. Trump at this stage in the game. Maybe a year ago, but now? Sure.
From FoxNews - "As the FBI enters the final phases of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized email server for government business, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey are meeting frequently to discuss the progress and handling of the highly sensitive case, a source told Fox News."
One shot at the queen...I love this stuff. This has to be the most entertaining election cycle in my lifetime. Let's face it, we all know Hillary broke the law, and she did it because she's Hillary and she's entitled and she's part of the DC power structure. So...how far will James Comey push this? What is Obama ordering AG Lynch to do? How far will Obama go to protect his legacy? What kind of quiet deals are being made? Would she be allowed to drop out of the race in lieu of arrest?
I don't see a word from the story about any alleged guilt. "final phases of its investigation" can very much mean that they will conclude that nothing illegal occurred.
I know you are praying that there is criminal activity to do what your candidates can't do, but we'll watch this play out.
Many legal experts believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State, though that decision has raised questions among some about her judgment. They noted that using a private email system was not banned at the time, and others in government had used personal email to transact official business.
Quote:
The bigger question is whether she or her aides distributed classified material in email systems that fell outside of the department’s secure classified system. But even if prosecutors determine that she did, chances she will be found criminally liable are low.
Quote:
“The facts of the case do not fit the law,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University. “Reasonable folks may think that federal law ought to prohibit what Hillary did, but it’s just not clear to me that it currently does.”
I don't see a word from the story about any alleged guilt. "final phases of its investigation" can very much mean that they will conclude that nothing illegal occurred.
I know you are praying that there is criminal activity to do what your candidates can't do, but we'll watch this play out.
Highly unlikely, with immunity being given to Bryan Pagliano. They intend to indict someone.
Many legal experts believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State, though that decision has raised questions among some about her judgment. They noted that using a private email system was not banned at the time, and others in government had used personal email to transact official business.
I've seen these comments in some articles. They are using clever wording, like, it isn't illegal to use a private server, and it's hard to prove intent.
The truth is that her legal problems aren't for using the private server, it for having classified emails on it, and not complying with record keeping laws. Also, they don't need to prove intent, just negligently handling classified information is a crime.
These legal experts are using (not so) clever wording in an attempt to conceal Hillary's legal problems.
Highly unlikely, with immunity being given to Bryan Pagliano. They intend to indict someone.
Clinton's campaign last year encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.
On his attorney's advice, Pagliano asserted his 5th amendment rights at that time because he wanted to avoid the "political spectacle" of being grilled by Trey Gowdy's committee. Pagliano at that time indicated he would waive immunity for FBI questioning but not Congressional.
Also, they don't need to prove intent, just negligently handling classified information is a crime.
These legal experts are using (not so) clever wording in an attempt to conceal Hillary's legal problems.
They have to prove gross negligence, which is a very high bar.
Why do you think all these legal experts are trying to conceal something? They're not her attorneys nor are they on her campaign staff.
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.
'One shot at the queen': FBI, AG intensify focus on Clinton email probe
