What Will Happen to Hillary Over the Mishandling of Classified Material?

[Redfish]

AP is a 'radical left' source?

The Los Angeles Time is, they are the Daily KOS of print media.

The lawyers consulted by AP said the same thing as the lawyers consultd by the LA Times; there was no crime.

You ignore both. And all the lawyers specializing in national security they consulted, insisting you know better.

But why would I ignore them and instead believe you?

who are these brilliant lawyers? do they have names?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

You know it's getting bad when the left of center Washington Post is running stories on the criminal acts Clinton engaged in.

{
Dozens of FBI personnel have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election.

The Washington Post reviewed hundreds of documents and interviewed more than a dozen knowledgeable government officials to understand the decisions and the implications of Clinton’s actions. The resulting scandal revolves around questions about classified information, the preservation of government records and the security of her email communication.}

How Clinton’s email scandal took root

Simply put, Clinton deployed an unsecured and unencrypted server to escape accountability under FOA and federal auditing. She violated federal law simply because she sought to hide the content of her emails from potential federal investigators.

 

[Skylar]

I'm just a person that put more weight in the professional assessment of the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security ......than I do your personal opinion.

As would most rational people.

You recite highly biased opinions from radical left sources.

AP is a 'radical left' source? I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

 

[Uncensored2008]

who are these brilliant lawyers? do they have names?

Eric Holder, Lorreta Lynch, Elizabeth Warren, Huma Aberdeen.....

Skylar is irrelevant, she is 100% hack.

 

[Redfish]

You recite highly biased opinions from radical left sources.

AP is a 'radical left' source? I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

 

[Skylar]

AP is a 'radical left' source? I don't think 'radical left' means what you think it means. The lawyers AP consulted said the same thing that the lawyers the LA Times consulted: there was no crime.

Why would I ignore numerous lawyers specializing in national security tapped by multiple news outlets.....and instead believe you?

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

 

[Redfish]

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

The Clintons started the whole birther movement, don't you imagine that they have a lot more? why else would he have made her SecState? It was to buy their silence. Wake up and smell reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

The Clintons started the whole birther movement, don't you imagine that they have a lot more? why else would he have made her SecState? It was to buy their silence. Wake up and smell reality.

It would be reasonable if we had an honest government and were a nation where laws applied to all.

But we don't.

I would point out just how corrupt the Obama regime is, but then he would set the IRS on me, as he does to all his enemies.

 

[Skylar]

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

Sigh.....that's not the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime either. So we'll toss your accusation on the midden heap where it belongs.

Now to your newest accusation: that the Clinton's have a 'lot of dirt on Obama'. What's your evidence. Remembering of course that your latest baseless narrative is explicitly contradicted by your OLD baseless narrative of what may happen:

That the Obamas hate the clintons and Obama will let the FBI to indict.

1. the Obama's and Clintons hate each other
2. the FBI has indictable evidence that cannot be refuted
3. Hillary starts losing primaries
4. the media and the DNC turn on her, remember they hate her too
5. Obama lets the DOJ issue the indictment
6. the DNC scrambles and decides to run Biden

Does that mean Cruz will get Jeb Bushs supporters?

Which fact free, baseless narrative am I to believe Redfish? I choose 'none of the above'.

 

[Obiwan]

I think we should wait and see what the FBI says. They have the facts, all of the media outlets are just spouting BS.

And if the FBI finds that no crime was committed, just like the overwhelming majority of those lawyers specializing in national security polled have.....

....will you acknowledge that no crime was committed? Or give us elaborate conspiracies like Unc is doing now?

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

You know, most Libs accept what the left-wing HuffPo runs, and THEY are even willing to concede that Hillary faces a good chance of being indicted...
As Long as Hillary Clinton Risks FBI Indictment, Bernie Sanders Is the Real Front-Runner

 

[flacaltenn]

Or....she didn't violate the law.

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..

Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.

If someone were to leave a classified briefing at a Hotel desk for 10 minutes ---- that's a breach of security and needs to be reported. No need to prove --- it was "transferred" to anyone..

 

[the_human_being]

George Clooney will hold a fund raiser and pay her fines.

Obscene Fundraiser for Hillary?

 

[flacaltenn]

George Clooney will hold a fund raiser and pay her fines.

Obscene Fundraiser for Hillary?

Maybe she can use Clooney as a character reference on her NEXT security application...

 

[Siete]

mishandling any information has yet to be proven ..

I digress ....


Has Hillary gone to jail yet?

 

[eagle1462010]

mishandling any information has yet to be proven ..

I digress ....


Has Hillary gone to jail yet?

The Dems better win then..............New DOJ if they lose.................How will she pardon herself...............

For Hillary............she has to win...............

 

[Skylar]

Or....she didn't violate the law.

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..

Your agreement or disagreement isn't a factor. And as you demonstrated with your claims about her having to be 're-cleared' for security clearance if she becomes president, you really don't know what you're talking about:

Nope.. She needs to be RE-CLEARED into the appropriate programs.,. The ones that she violated the trust of.
That should never happen.. No need to get legal on her ass. Just make certain the rules and procedures are respected and mean something.

Which is explicitly contradicted by the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security

"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf

There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.

"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

Thus, as president, she has clearance as she is the 'owner' of national intelligence. Your 'cased closed' hypothetical doesn't take this enormous detail into account. Rendering your hypothetical functionally meaningless. And likewise demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about on this issue.

Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.

Neither the LA Times nor AP are citing themselves. But lawyers that specialize in national security issues. With overwhelming consensus of those attorneys agreeing that no crime was committed. That you personally disagree is legally irrelevant.

 

[flacaltenn]

mishandling any information has yet to be proven ..

I digress ....


Has Hillary gone to jail yet?

She hasn't yet. But there is plenty of evidence that the private commercial server she did State Dept biz on was REPEATEDLY abused and compromised HUNDREDS of secure communications. That IS a crime..

And it belonged to her because she is ARROGANT and CARELESS with national secrets and very PARANOID about her document trail..

 

[Skylar]

mishandling any information has yet to be proven ..

I digress ....


Has Hillary gone to jail yet?

She hasn't yet. But there is plenty of evidence that the private commercial server she did State Dept biz on was REPEATEDLY abused and compromised HUNDREDS of secure communications. That IS a crime..

And what is this evidence?

 

[flacaltenn]

Or....she didn't violate the law.

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..

Your agreement or disagreement isn't a factor. And as you demonstrated with your claims about her having to be 're-cleared' for security clearance if she becomes president, you really don't know what you're talking about:

Nope.. She needs to be RE-CLEARED into the appropriate programs.,. The ones that she violated the trust of.
That should never happen.. No need to get legal on her ass. Just make certain the rules and procedures are respected and mean something.

Which is explicitly contradicted by the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security

"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf

There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.

"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

Thus, as president, she has clearance as she is the 'owner' of national intelligence. Your 'cased closed' hypothetical doesn't take this enormous detail into account. Rendering your hypothetical functionally meaningless. And likewise demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about on this issue.

Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.

Neither the LA Times nor AP are citing themselves. But lawyers that specialize in national security issues. With overwhelming consensus of those attorneys agreeing that no crime was committed. That you personally disagree is legally irrelevant.

She should NEVER AGAIN have access to security clearances. All the assertions you wanna make won't stop a showdown between a PREZ who is a KNOWN abuser of the process and the rest of the government charged with generating, acting on, and protecting those secrets. She needs to sign into every program she WANTS access to.. There is PROCESS for that. Because you are not just granted BLANKET access to ALL secure information.., AND --- because you need to be COUNCILED as to the scope of each "program", the details considered secure, etc..

She is not de facto "owner" of shit if she is not eligible for security vetting.. And there will be wars over sharing that program access with anybody who's already violated that trust.. As there should be for this unique situation...

 

[flacaltenn]

mishandling any information has yet to be proven ..

I digress ....


Has Hillary gone to jail yet?

She hasn't yet. But there is plenty of evidence that the private commercial server she did State Dept biz on was REPEATEDLY abused and compromised HUNDREDS of secure communications. That IS a crime..

And what is this evidence?

You denying that the private server REPEATEDLY trafficked secure communications?? If you are that much of a denier --- then you one of the morons who has no understanding of the seriousness of that event.. And there's really no use talking with a person in total denial as to the basic facts.