one thing I know about Hillary is the repubs are scared shitless of her :D
one thing I know about Hillary is the repubs are scared shitless of her :D
If I didn't know better I would think you are trying to ignore another serious Democrat scandal and turn the conversation over to Republicans again.
The only thing I'm scared shitless of is electing another lying, incompetent, commie bullshitter as POTUS.
Why do you suppose that is? if she's this bad now (actually all of her entire political career) can you imagine if she should become president. Holy crap.
really whats all the scandals your talking about,lets leave the fake ones off the list
If I didn't know better I would think you are trying to ignore another serious Democrat scandal and turn the conversation over to Republicans again.
The only thing I'm scared shitless of is electing another lying, incompetent, commie bullshitter as POTUS.
braaahaha repubs are in meltdown mode
braaahaha repubs are in meltdown mode
A person uses a private email for public business only if they want the contents of the email to be off the record. I'm not saying that's what Hilary did because I dont know all of what were in the emails. But there's really no other reason to do that.
I don't know why the repubs waste so much time on useless shit ,come on get your act together
I don't know why the repubs waste so much time on useless shit ,come on get your act together
again all legal you can keep crying about it but it's not going to change :D
It may be legal but is it ethical?
I think this is somewhat along the issue, IMO.
Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice both did the same thing, without outcry.
Even if I wanted to take the conservative side on issues such as this one, I'd eventually have difficulty with this. The reason for that is because some of you conservatives go completely overboard with your theories and accusations. It is as if you really fear liberals are out to get you personally.
I have not followed this whole email scandal with Hillary Clinton. It could be something big or it could just be another trumped up piece of shit to discredit a politician. Republicans are certainly not immune to this type of scrutiny either.
Both Republican and Democratic politicians have done some really dumb and occasionally despicably dishonest shit. It all boils down the to fact, in my opinion, that most politicians are more interested in getting elected or staying in office then they are in representing their constituency. In other words, Republican or Democrat, many are just a bunch of charlatans. This is what we should be talking about.
fact...yeah it was
fact...Hilary is imploding
fact...yeah it wasDarrell Issa (R), Hillary's chief nemesis, admits her private email use was not a crime.
fact...Hilary is imploding
Hillary is hiding an appendage if you ask me. :D
rumor has it she likes to hide it up your ass,could be just a rumor ;D
Sorry - I like women w big tits and fat ass. Hildebeast is a zoo animal that is only attractive to fellow members of the hippopatumas family and the same gender.
VIDEO: She Did It… Megyn Kelly Just Exposed Truth About Hillary
Our favorite conservative power-hitter, Megyn Kelly, recently kicked the hornet’s nest in D.C. by filing a Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed the required OF-109 form upon her exit from the State Department in 2013.
The request was filed last week. Typically, those types of requests take the full legal limit of 20 days — but not if you’re Megyn Kelly. Though it wasn’t officially confirmed that her FOIA request got the ball rolling, a former White House press secretary said that was probably the case.
And the inconvenient truth has been exposed. According to findings from the FOIA request announced yesterday, the State Department concluded that they couldn’t find any record indicating that Clinton signed the required form upon her resignation as Secretary of State.
“I don’t know whether there was a form last Tuesday and today, said form has suddenly disappeared,” Kelly stated, indicating how convenient it was for the form to have vanished, if there ever was one to begin with.
Either way, Clinton isn’t coming out smelling like a rose because suddenly claiming there wasn’t a form is just about as shady as actually having signed one and then breaking the regulations it referred to.
“And we’ll probably never know, but I will say, they’re going to have to certify something at some point that’s a lot more official than what (State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki) just did,” Kelly added.
Even Psaki, tried to spin the situation and claim that there was a difference between the actual secretary of state position and the average staff member, implying that Clinton wouldn’t have had to sign forms made for peasants.
But Kelly from the official regulation that yes, even the secretary is required to sign and submit such forms upon leaving office.
“The bottom line is, what she said today was an attempt to wiggle out of responsibility — there was a form, there should be a form and guess who’s responsible for ensuring that these documents are maintained? The head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton,” Kelly stated.
She’s exactly right. We have a feeling the coming weeks will be a bit rough for Clinton, as she’s battling major media and is now under six known official investigations.
And while we are loathe to indulge ourselves in schadenfreude over Hillary’s misfortunes, we do hope that her troubles continue long into the 2016 presidential campaign season.
http://conservativetribune.com/megyn-kelly-exposed-hillary/
Was there a requirement for them to do so? This aint fake and needs to be dug into. This isn't like the Clintons have a shining record of telling the truth.
if there is a requirement they didn't enforce it, you can't blame Clinton, Rice or Powell for that
the missing emails... right after benghazi... big fucking surprise!!
we all saw this coming. I said it the next day - they let it happen to avoid wasted 200 bad guys right before the 2012 election.
now we see hilary hid it. Of course. She's doing what bush did, what clinton did, etc. Everyone's okay with it. sucks.
Trying to deter attention away from Obama, Hillary, and any other liberal engaged in misconduct. What a surprise.
I'm probably one of the only people on getbig saying hilary committed a felony by putting classified email on her silly little unprotected server. We know it wasn't protected from the ghost addressing, it was laid out on Hannity's show today, you should have listened to it. very interesting.
she wanted to hide her emails around benghazi, and had no problem riskign sensitive info to do it. Disgusting.
You are probably the only person posting on this board who repeatedly mentions some Republican whenever a Democrat is accused of doing anything wrong.
Nah, they all do it. Then cry like bitches when it's done to them claiming it should be discussed in another thread.
Benghazi night call between Clinton and Obama withheld, documents show
We all knew it. Well, some of us claimed obama let this happen from minute 1 to avoid a mess right before the election.
But liberals, RINOs and even the repubs in congress that cleared her... you can't convince some people.
The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals. It's a full-time job.
the lady doth protest a little much ;)
If you're not one of those liberals, i don't see why you get offended here.
What I'm trying to say is that every time something unflattering or negative is said about a liberal, you pipe in to try and deflect attention away from liberals. The DNC should put you on their payroll.
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/
OH I know....nothing to see right.
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
"It's definitely a criminal probe," said the source. "I'm not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe."
Clinton turns over private server to Justice Dept. amid report it contained 'top secret' emails
Published August 12, 2015
FoxNews.com
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton announced Tuesday that she had directed her aides to turn over her personal e-mail server to the Justice Department, giving in to months of demands that she relinquish the device she used to store her correspondence while secretary of state.
The move came hours after it was disclosed that the inspector general for the intelligence community, I. Charles McCullough III, had notified senior members of Congress that two of four retroactively classified emails found on Clinton's server contained material deemed to be more sensitive than had previously been thought.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said two emails that traversed Clinton's personal system were deemed "Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information" — a rating that is among the government's highest classifications. Grassley said McCullough had reported the new details about the higher classification to Congress on Tuesday.
The State Department disputes McCullough's determination that the emails were classified at the time they were sent. McCullough had previously told Congress that potentially hundreds of classified emails are among the cache that Clinton provided to the State Department.
"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," said State Department spokesman John Kirby. "They were not marked as classified."
A source familiar with the investigation told Fox News late Tuesday that the two emails in question contained operational and geospatial intelligence from the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which produces satellite images.
The FBI is investigating whether classified information was improperly sent via and stored on the so-called "home-brew" e-mail server she ran from her house in the New York City suburb of Chappaqua after concerns were raised by McCullough. Investigators have said that the probe is not criminal in nature and have denied that Clinton is a target of their inquiries.
Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said she has "pledged to cooperate with the government's security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them."
It's not clear if the device will yield any information — Clinton's attorney said in March that no emails from the main personal address she used while secretary of state still "reside on the server or on back-up systems associated with the server."
An intelligence source familiar with the matter told Fox News that the campaign's statement of cooperation was overblown, as the FBI had previously taken possession of a thumb drive containing sensitive emails that had been held by Clinton's personal attorney, David Kendall. The Associated Press reported that Kendall gave three thumb drives containing copies of roughly 30,000 work-related emails sent to and from Clinton's personal email address to the FBI after the agency determined he could not remain in possession of the classified information contained in some of the emails.
The AP's report cited a U.S. official briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly. The State Department previously had said it was comfortable with Kendall keeping the emails at his Washington law office.
Clinton had to this point refused demands from Republican critics to turn over the server to a third party, with Kendall telling the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that "there is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server." Clinton has also defended her use of the server, saying she used it as a matter of convenience to limit the number of electronic devices she had to carry.
Congressional Republicans seized on Clinton's reversal late Tuesday.
"It's about time," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio said in a statement. "Secretary Clinton's previous statements that she possessed no classified information were patently untrue. Her mishandling of classified information must be fully investigated."
"Secretary Clinton said she created this unusual email arrangement with herself for 'convenience.' It may have been convenient for her, but it has been troubling at multiple levels for the rest of the country," said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chairman of the Benghazi select committee. "Secretary Clinton's decision to prioritize her own convenience - and desire for control - over the security of our country's intelligence should concern all people of good conscience."
There is no evidence Clinton used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes. Kendall has said that Clinton is "actively cooperating" with the FBI inquiry.
In March, Clinton said she exchanged about 60,000 emails in her four years in the Obama administration, about half of which were personal and were discarded. She turned over the other half to the State Department in last December.
The department is reviewing those emails and has begun the process of releasing them to the public.
"As she has said, it is her hope that State and the other agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which emails are appropriate to release to the public, and that the release will be as timely and transparent as possible," Merrill said Tuesday.
Earlier this week, Clinton said in a sworn statement submitted to a federal judge that she has turned over to the State Department all emails from the server "that were or potentially were federal records." The statement, which carries her signature and was signed under penalty of perjury, echoed months of Clinton's past public statements about the matter.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/12/fbi-has-hillary-clinton-emails-from-home-server-official-says/?intcmp=hpbt1
You can post all the shit you want but the fact is that the GOP is using this committee as a campaign platform. No emails were classified according to the State Dept and quite frankly no person in the history of the union has been asked to turn over person emails, paperwork, etc.
Its a fishing expedition and this Bengazi committee should be disbanded immediately as its produced no smoking guns, not even a fart.......its a waste of time and Trey Gowdy has overstepped his boundries
Judge Napolitano: Hillary's Legal Problems 'Worse Than Grave'
Al Gore? Holy smokes. How desperate would that be for the Democrat Party? Another sorry lineup. :-\
True.........but I think the desperation is more on Al Gore's part.....maybe trying to right what in his mind was a historic wrong when he was perceived to have been gypped out of the presidency???.....i don't think the Dem party wants anything more to do with him.....nor Biden either
Al Gore? Holy smokes. How desperate would that be for the Democrat Party? Another sorry lineup. :-\
al gore entering the race? Among the liberal base (the one that elected obama twice by their actual GOTV effort)?
without a doubt, it's be the kind of celebrity frenzy we saw with obama. he'd win that nomination easily.
From the same person who said Perry will be the GOP nominee. lol
Yeah. Gore needs to stay out.
The Democrat Party never wanted Biden.
Any realistic, reasonable Democrat has to be disappointed by their options so far.
al gore entering the race? Among the liberal base (the one that elected obama twice by their actual GOTV effort)?
without a doubt, it's be the kind of celebrity frenzy we saw with obama. he'd win that nomination easily.
Other than the 100lbs of crack inside her pantsuit?
well, he got himself indicted, which never helps.
still, you know i'm right. ken starr would have had hilary in cuffs by now. Letting issa and gowdy do it, lol, well, we see how well they did with fast/furious and benghazi. yeah, i'm sure they'll be way more successful this time... lol at that.
::) You predicted he would be the nominee after he was indicted.
Incredibly poor judgment for someone who wants to be president.
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment with its servers in the BATHROOM, raising new questions over security of sensitive messages she held
By HUGO DANIEL IN DENVER, COLORADO, FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 18 August 2015
The IT company Hilary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account was run from a loft apartment and its servers were housed in the bathroom closet, Daily Mail Online can reveal.
Daily Mail Online tracked down ex-employees of Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado, who revealed the outfit's strong links to the Democratic Party but expressed shock that the 2016 presidential candidate chose the small private company for such a sensitive job.
One, Tera Dadiotis, called it 'a mom and pop shop' which was an excellent place to work, but hardly seemed likely to be used to secure state secrets. And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.
It can also be disclosed that the small number of employees who were aware of the Clinton contract were told to keep it secret.
The way in which Clinton came to contract a company described as a 'mom and pop' operation remains unclear.
However Daily Mail Online has established a series of connections between the firm and the Democratic Party.
. . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201367/Hillary-s-email-firm-run-loft-apartment-servers-BATHROOM-raising-new-questions-security-sensitive-messages-held.html#ixzz3jDDj1HxB
Ed Klein: Hillary Clinton Email Probe 'May Take as Much as a Year'
Al Gore? Holy smokes. How desperate would that be for the Democrat Party? Another sorry lineup. :-\
As sorry as a line up that includes members that have been convicted? Members that are currently indicted. Members that are currently under federal investigation. Members that still think the Earth is 6000 years old and some invisible man in the sky told them to run? Members that have the lowest approval ratings for their gov'n duties in the countries? Members that head the states with some of the lowest ratings in various categories (business, job growth, etc..)?
Actually in light of these facts, the Dem line up doesn't look too bad at all. Hence the reason a liberal is ranking at #1 in the polls for the Repub team as it is.
FUNNY!!!! ;D
Reality.I just don't get the 6000 yr thing......I just don't know how a whole party turns away from science like they do
No amount of delusional spin or whining will change it.
As sorry as a line up that includes members that have been convicted? Members that are currently indicted. Members that are currently under federal investigation. Members that still think the Earth is 6000 years old and some invisible man in the sky told them to run? Members that have the lowest approval ratings for their gov'n duties in the countries? Members that head the states with some of the lowest ratings in various categories (business, job growth, etc..)?
Actually in light of these facts, the Dem line up doesn't look too bad at all. Hence the reason a liberal is ranking at #1 in the polls for the Repub team as it is.
Even if we assume the GOP has a sorry lineup, that doesn't make Hillary, Bernie Sanders et al. look any better.
Even if we assume the GOP has a sorry lineup, that doesn't make Hillary, Bernie Sanders et al. look any better.
Even if we assume the GOP has a sorry lineup, that doesn't make Hillary, Bernie Sanders et al. look any better.
Of course it does.
There is no assuming. The GOP is a sorry line up. Laughable anyone would call the Dems sorry when that motley crew is sitting across the aisle representing the cream of the crop of their own party.
This makes no sense either. A candidate is good, bad, great, etc. because of what that candidate brings to the table, not because other candidates might have flaws. For example, Perry is a lousy debater. That isn't going to change because Hillary is dishonest, has poor judgment, etc.
How many of the Repubs are "good" candidates? ::) Let's try this a different way.
Which of the Dems are under indictment? Investigation? Have convictions?
Which of the Dems have the lowest approval ratings?
Which Dem is responsible for shitty lack luster economic rating of their home state?
Which one of the Dems claim God wants him to run?
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if there are no "good" Republican candidates. That has nothing to with whether Hillary, Sanders, Chaffey, etc. are "good" or lousy candidates.
Actually it does matter. You will vote for the candidate with a "R" next to their name no matter what. The Dems could run a Jesus/Mother Teresa ticket and right wing idiots will still vote for whatever turd the GOP offers up.
Actually it does matter. You will vote for the candidate with a "R" next to their name no matter what. The Dems could run a Jesus/Mother Teresa ticket and right wing idiots will still vote for whatever turd the GOP offers up.
You mean like I voted for Democrat Tulsi Gabbard in the last election?
People voting along party lines has zero to do with whether a given candidate is good or bad.
Was unaware she ran for POTUS.Congress woman.
Congress woman.
I know that. But this thread is about the POTUS candidates.
Well you did state that he will always vote with the (R)... So that's somewhat of an incorrect statement. There was no requirement for it to be for the President of the United States.
That's all.
disagree. Dos Equis is entirely capable of voting for a clinton. I vouch for him there.
and i have to give him props for not getting on the democrat Trump's bandwagon like some of the pretend-republicans on getbig. He's shit all over trump from minute one, and hasn't turned into a Donald Lapdog like others have because FOX starting being all sweet to him. It's sickening seeing so many repubs just smile and say "yeah, i don't care about his positions on guns, taxes, abortion, etc - He is a strong leader!!"
Well you did state that he will always vote with the (R)... So that's somewhat of an incorrect statement. There was no requirement for it to be for the President of the United States.
That's all.
I assumed that since we were discussing POTUS candidates it would fall within reason that is what I was referring to. Sorry for not being more clear.
Your first mistake is thinking anyone cares what you think.
You do care. Deep down, we have that Trump dislike in common. We both know he's a common immature democrat, taking the populist route thru idiot town, sapping up all the base voters who believe we're made of PBR and star-spangled awesomeness.
Trump is an asshole but in a field filled with them, he is comes out on top, because he is entertaining.
You do care. Deep down, we have that Trump dislike in common. We both know he's a common immature democrat, taking the populist route thru idiot town, sapping up all the base voters who believe we're made of PBR and star-spangled awesomeness.
No, I don't care what you think.
again, this is attack #3 upon me. I'd like to think we should keep this thread about which felonies Hilary may have committed. Any efforts to distract people from Hilary's crimes, well, let's just say it's very un-Reagan-like.
(http://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11885260_942725182461153_4103780397757255777_n.jpg?oh=82d90681328eecd4ef5a95d165ae7f02&oe=5671817B)
32,000 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server being sold by mystery ‘computer specialist’ for $500,000: report
BY Adam Edelman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Thursday, September 3, 2015
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has come under fire for using a private server to send and receive official emails during her tenure as the nation’s chief diplomat. There have been no reports to date, however, that Clinton’s account was hacked.
More than 30,000 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server have been put up for sale, a new bombshell report claims.
RadarOnline.com reported Thursday that a “a person claiming to be a computer specialist” is asking for $500,000 for 32,000 emails from the former secretary of state’s private server.
“Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box,” a source told the entertainment and gossip website.
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clinton has come under fire for using a private server to send and receive official emails during her tenure as the nation’s chief diplomat.
The 2016 Democratic front-runner has repeatedly claimed she never sent or received any classified material on the private server. She has said that she deleted thousands of non-work-related emails from the account.
The State Department is examining the remaining emails and releasing them to the public in small troves.
For the emails to be up for sale on the black market, a hacker would have, presumably, had to have extracted them at some point from Clinton’s account or from the account of someone Clinton had emailed with.
To date, there have been no reports that Clinton’s account was hacked.
The email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, was hacked in 2013.
Susan Walsh/AP
The email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, was hacked in 2013.
However, in 2013, a Romanian hacker known on the Internet as “Guccifer” leaked confidential memos written for Clinton by former aide and confidante Sidney Blumenthal.
“Guccifer,” whose real name is Marcel Lazar Lehel, allegedly hacked into Blumenthal’s AOL email account and leaked several messages to a variety of recipients, including gossip sites Gawker and The Smoking Gun.
The hacker reportedly accessed Blumenthal’s correspondence with Clinton dating to 2005, including sensitive foreign policy and intelligence memos shared while Clinton was secretary of state.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/emails-clinton-private-server-sale-report-article-1.2347762
Justice Department rules Hillary Clinton followed law in deleting emails
State Dept. concedes ‘gaps’ in Clinton emails; contradiction could result in perjury charge
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Monday, September 14, 2015
The emails former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton turned back over to the government last year contained “gaps,” according to internal department messages evaluating her production.
Mrs. Clinton took office on Jan. 21, 2009, but the first message she turned back over to the department was dated March 18, and the earliest-dated message she herself sent was on April 13, or nearly three months into her time in office, according to a message obtained through an open records request by Judicial Watch, which released it Monday.
Mrs. Clinton has said she continued using a previous account she’d used during her time as a senator for business at the beginning of her time as secretary, but the differing dates between the first email received and the first sent raise still more questions.
The revelation of the gap comes even as the legal situation grows more complicated.
Two Senate committee chairmen pushed Monday to try to find out just how deeply the Justice Department’s investigation into the Clinton email server has gone, as the two senators tried to figure out ways of getting Bryan Pagliano, the tech staffer who helped set up her email server at her home in New York, to spill what he knows.
In a letter to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson asked the government to say whether it would object to a “proffer” session between the senators and Mr. Pagliano, where he could detail, off the record, what he knows without having to worry about it being used against him in a prosecution.
Meanwhile, the State Department met with more resistance from the myriad groups who have sued to pry loose emails from Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, and who told a federal court Monday they don’t want to see the proceedings centralized in a single judge.
“State should have anticipated many years ago that it would experience an increase in [Freedom of Information Act] requests for records about Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, and planned accordingly. Yet apparently nothing was done at any time in the last six years to prepare for this highly foreseeable expense, and state now relies on its own failure to prepare as justification to delay complying with its obligations under FOIA,” Jason Leopold, a journalist whose case has prompted the ongoing release of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, said in a court filing made by his lawyer.
Mrs. Clinton declined to use the State Department’s regular email system during her time in office, instead setting up a server at her home and using an account on that server. Many of her top aides also used personal accounts or accounts on the server Mrs. Clinton kept.
Mrs. Clinton says she didn’t break any laws, though the State Department and at least one federal judge have said she violated policy. And the use of non-State.gov accounts has shielded much of the information from subpoenas, congressional inquiries and open records requests — until now.
The State Department would like to shield them a little longer, having asked the federal district court to consolidate more than 30 search lawsuits that have been filed.
Several judges have already indicated they’ll object to that, however, and have turned down delay requests in the meantime. The judges are also pushing the State Department to be more forthcoming in how many emails it is sitting on from Mrs. Clinton’s aides.
The revelation of a possible email gap in Mrs. Clinton’s own records came out of the State Department’s response to one of the open records cases.
According to Eric F. Stein, a State Department official who wrote the evaluation of Mrs. Clinton’s messages, there were “gaps” of several weeks at the beginning and end of her records.
For example, the last message she turned over was dated on her last day in office, Feb. 1, 2013, and it came from Cheryl Mills, one of her top aides. But the last message Mrs. Clinton herself sent and turned over was dated Dec. 30, 2012, a month before she left office.
Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment about the email gap, but the State Department, in a statement, said Mr. Stein’s evaluation was later proved wrong and the department found emails from Mrs. Clinton’s last days in office, so there is no gap then.
“We are not aware of any gaps in the Clinton email set, with the exception of the first few months of her tenure when Sec. Clinton used a different email account that she advised she no longer has access to,” the department said. “There is no ‘gap’ in Secretary Clinton’s sent messages from … December 2012 through the end of January 2013. Upon review, the department has many messages sent by Secretary Clinton during that period, including messages that appear to have been produced directly from her ‘sent’ mailbox. Future document releases will include emails from this time period.”
Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has filed 20 separate open records lawsuits demanding release of emails from Mrs. Clinton or her aides, said the gaps could contradict Mrs. Clinton’s assertion, under penalty of perjury, when she said she returned all work-related emails that were on the server she kept at her New York home.
“The Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have taken their cover-up of the email scandal too far,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “I suspect that federal courts will want more information, under oath, about the issues raised in these incredible documents.”
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch give more details about the documents Mrs. Clinton turned over — 55,000 printed pages, divided into 12 boxes.
One March 23, 2015, a letter to Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer, David E. Kendall, detailed the department’s early thoughts about the documents.
The State Department asked that any of the emails still in electronic format be preserved, warned that some of the documents could be deemed classified and said Mrs. Clinton would need permission before releasing any of the documents.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/14/state-dept-cites-gaps-hillary-clinton-email-record/?page=2
A band of conservatives say they won't back legislation financing government agencies unless the bill blocks federal payments to Planned Parenthood. A partial shutdown will occur Oct. 1 unless lawmakers provide money to keep government functioning.
It is partly because of these types of elaborate investigations with legislators arguing or even discussing all the nuisances involved, that government costs so much and does so little of what people elected them to do, like pass or fail legislation and bills. It is also a case of the media influencing how government spends/wastes it's time.
Once again, there is talk of a government shutdown because legislator's are not able to come to agreement on the budget, in this case a temporary one....again!
This one is a little different, because it impacts Hillary's judgment when it comes to dealing with national security issues and her integrity. Definitely worth pursuing.
So this email scandal is on life support now that the FBI refuses to help the GOP with it's witch hunt.
What do these idiots have next to try to smear her with?
Funny how there is not a word about reducing spending on matters like this.
Agreed...but if they find her not guilty and say she hasn't done anything wrong you won't accept the findings anyway
I think someone is getting prosecuted, whether it's her or whomever she throws under the bus, but it's pretty obvious she ran classified intel off her personal computer. We've already had one guy take the Fifth.
Regardless, you'll be voting for her. Heck she's probably still the most likely next president even if she gets indicted. :-\
If I vote for her, you'll be voting for Trump simultaneously :D
I think someone is getting prosecuted, whether it's her or whomever she throws under the bus, but it's pretty obvious she ran classified intel off her personal computer. We've already had one guy take the Fifth.
Regardless, you'll be voting for her. Heck she's probably still the most likely next president even if she gets indicted. :-\
So will her trial be before or after they finish with Bush and Powell's trial for the same thing? I seem to forget when that is scheduled.
So will her trial be before or after they finish with Bush and Powell's trial for the same thing? I seem to forget when that is scheduled.
Obama will be in divorce court first.
;D..ain't it funny how ex-presidents NEVER divorce????
So will her trial be before or after they finish with Bush and Powell's trial for the same thing? I seem to forget when that is scheduled.
The FBI is investigating Hillary for running classified intel off her home computer. Neither Bush nor Powell did that. That may partly explain why you keep "forgetting."
which law did hilary break? Specifically, not some vague catch phrase.
The FBI is investigating Hillary for running classified intel off her home computer. Neither Bush nor Powell did that. That may partly explain why you keep "forgetting."
Wasn't the intel classified after she ran it and not before? If so, then where is the crime? That may partly explain why you keep "selectively" forgetting this part.
No. She claims it was "marked" classified after she sent and/or received it. Although that was her second or third story. That's the Hillary talking point. Anyone with half a brain who has regular access to classified intel knows it when they see it, whether it is "marked" or not. There are also allegations that her people stripped classified indicators on the documents. Plus the guy running her server has taken the Fifth.
In any event, the FBI is not investigating Hillary for using her personal email server to conduct government business, so your Bush/Powell examples are inapplicable.
No. She claims it was "marked" classified after she sent and/or received it. Although that was her second or third story. That's the Hillary talking point. Anyone with half a brain who has regular access to classified intel knows it when they see it, whether it is "marked" or not. There are also allegations that her people stripped classified indicators on the documents. Plus the guy running her server has taken the Fifth.
In any event, the FBI is not investigating Hillary for using her personal email server to conduct government business, so your Bush/Powell examples are inapplicable.
So no crime? Or just no crime that you wish she did?
pretty much.
look, i've said since 1992 that both clintons are lying shady libs. no love for her.
but you haven't listed which law was broken.
So no crime? Or just no crime that you wish she did?
My examples of Bush/Powell are applicable since they have never been charged with a crime either.
O Rly? How old were you in 1992?
IN high school, I had college prep "international relations" class which required us to read the newspaper each day. Most 11th graders don't know who boutros boutros ghali is, but I did.
I know how old you were. "Old enough to vote Clinton".
Great group of democrat party candidates...the pathological liar Hillary, the guy (Biden) who quit the race the last time he ran for President because he's a bigger plagiarist than Carlos Mencia and Bernie!!....the man who isn't even a democrat. I guess I'd pick Bernie...he's a socialist fool, but at least he's honest.
That's it...that's your absolute best defense?
Compared to the dems...the GOP field is the reincarnation of the Algonquin Roundtable
This is just making stuff up now.
Every computer connected to the Internet is "Subject to hack attempts".
I suppose people who don't realize how the internet works may act like this is a big deal, but it's not.
Every internet connected device is "Subject to hack attempts".
Oh brother.
Ed Klein: Hillary Adviser Warning Her to 'Lawyer Up'
Email scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton is reportedly getting some ominous advice from a longtime and trusted legal adviser: Lawyer-up. Edward Klein, author of "Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary," writes on his website.
The unnamed confidante suggests Clinton hire a criminal defense lawyer in case she's indicted for mishandling classified documents on her private email server, and for allegedly lying under oath.
The adviser tells Klein that Justice Department prosecutors expect the FBI probe on the case to wrap up as soon as the end of this year.
"There is going to be blood in the water," the adviser warns.
Seems Klein is at it again:
*Klein has also come under fire for his use of anonymous quotes, purported to be from the subjects of his books, which he claims he received from anonymous insiders. The credibility of such quotes has been questioned by writers such as Joe Conason, Salon's Simon Malloy and conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Peggy Noonan. "Some of the quotes strike me as odd, in the sense that I don't know people who speak this way," Limbaugh said of Klein's work, describing the sources as "grade school chatter."
[/u]
Politico criticized Klein's book about Clinton for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes that don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life.
* The above are excerpts from the WKI page on Ed Klein
No wonder the advisor is unnamed. Can you believe a trusted Clinton advisor would break confidentiality in a public forum, speaking to someone as shady as Ed Klein? Would you take advice from such a person?
Yes.
No.
She should can any advisor who even remotely talks like this unknown one.
Assuming she knows who it is. It's a dirty business. She actually fits right in. Check out her trustworthiness poll numbers. Atrocious.
Most people have recognizable speech patterns. It would not be hard for her to figure out who it is, assuming a real person/advisor exists at all.
Yes she's hiding something...And her delusional, slanderous and simply untrue campaign ads have already started...They sure suck
How do you know there was a recording? Didn't see that in the story. I doubt an unnamed source would agree to drop a dime while knowingly being recorded.
I was not referencing vocal patterns. People's word choices and how they construct what they are conveying can reveal who they are too. Folks do this all the time on Getbig, especially with Uncle Junior's plethora of gimmicks. The gimmick barely gets one post out and they are recognized. If I had a gimmick (which I don't), I bet it wouldn't be long before someone would know it is Primemuscle.
Dude, end the thread...Hillary's gonna win
I've said numerous times she is still the most likely next president
I don't have a problem with the investigation per se.....but HOW LONG is it going to take?....is there any computer geniuses on here who can explain just HOW LONG it takes to investigate a server and a hard drive to determine whats on it>????
and lets just face it right now.....does the outcome really mater politcally???...even if the FBI finds Hillary innocent of everything and exonerrates her,the Republicans are STILL going to scream coverup, conspiracy, etc and will even accuse the FBI or White House of covering up or destroying evidence......the Republicans just cannot be appeased in anyway
which is why I understand why Hillary is upset and angry....yes I agree it was definitely a misstep and mistake on her part that she would have her own personal server and I agree that she showed poor judgment in doing so....but she can't win...either she is guilty or if innocnet will be painted as covering up something or conspiring with others...to hide her guilt
I think you're underestimating the mature professionalism and presidential nature of republican frontrunner Donald Trump.
What he lacks in self-control and understanding of actual presidential powers and matters, he more than makes up for with self-esteem!
Well, I can tell you that there is no way it took this long to recover data if it was in fact recoverable.
If you do a secure wipe of 7 times on a drive using random encrypted bits, you aren't getting data back. Also, if you do, then it would have been recovered by now.
Don't let anyone fool you. They have all the data they could possibly have already and are sifting through data, but it's much ado about nothing because they keep bringing it up without any actual definitive determination that something wrong was done.
Hillary may suck ass, but she has done nothing wrong.
I do think her motive in having said personal server was to have control over any damaging emails that may have occurred while she was secretary of state....whether there were any damaging emails to begin with is another story
Very possibly.
Let me also clarify that she may have done these things that were bad or whatever, and certainly she ran that personal email server, that's a fact.
That said, can anyone prove that anything was released to people who shouldn't have it? Did she break any laws?
That's all I want to know.
Exactly what the president should have said when he was asked about it on 60 Minutes.
This is nuts. I would say I don't see how someone doesn't get prosecuted over this, but politics may rule the day.
I loved how Bush refused to comment on ongoing FBI investigations. Why can't Obama do that too?
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-
Hil knew the rules and assumed they didn't apply to her. If this was me..I'd be selling cigarettes in the DB at Leavenworth for tuna cans. Plenty of people have gotten fucked for exactly what she and her people did.
So she didn't have any classified emails?
The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an ongoing FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email setup.
Story Continued Below
Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top-secret information; the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
However, after an initial version of this story was published Friday, a spokesman for Clapper indicated the issue had not been fully resolved. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said. He declined to say if any changes had been made in recent days to the strict handling requirements for the disputed emails.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qlB9a8uN
Did you actually read the link? From the first line:
"The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO."
So, assuming their report is true, they are saying only two of the emails are not "top secret." They don't address the hundreds (999) that are "secret."
So she didn't have any classified emails?
The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an ongoing FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email setup.
Story Continued Below
Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top-secret information; the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
However, after an initial version of this story was published Friday, a spokesman for Clapper indicated the issue had not been fully resolved. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said. He declined to say if any changes had been made in recent days to the strict handling requirements for the disputed emails.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qlB9a8uN
Did you read?
it says that THE 2 emails.
Not THAT two emails.
Try reading past the first sentence.
I'm suggesting that the article I posted states that someone said that 2 of them were highly classified and that the statement was proven false.
Are you saying that you know for a fact that there basically 1000 classified emails on the server?
Doesn't look like nothing is really going to come of this...the public doesn't seem to care......probably because the investigation has gone on for far too long
Sources: Review affirms Clinton server emails were 'top secret,' despite department challenge
By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne
Published December 15, 2015
FoxNews.com
EXCLUSIVE: An intelligence community review has re-affirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department, according to two sources familiar with the review.
The sources described the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level as a “settled matter.”
The agencies that owned and originated that intelligence – the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or NGA – reviewed the emails to determine how they should be properly stored, as the State Department took issue with their highly classified nature. The subject matter of the messages is widely reported to be the movement of North Korean missiles and a drone strike. A top secret designation requires the highest level of security, and can include the use of an approved safe.
The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day -- and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event.
The findings have been transmitted to the State Department, which continues to challenge the intelligence community’s conclusions about the classification of all the emails. But the department has no authority to change the classification since it did not originate the information.
On Nov. 6, Politico reported that the intelligence community was retreating from the “top secret” classification, a development that could have helped Clinton’s presidential campaign deflect allegations about mishandling classified material. Fox News can confirm it is true the handling of one email has changed since it was drafted and sent, but this change has no bearing on the “top secret” nature of the emails when first received on Clinton’s server. And this is what matters to the FBI probe.
While the classification finding is important, the central issue is whether the FBI investigation concludes there was or was not a criminal violation.
Fox News reported earlier this month that two top Republican senators have written directly to Secretary of State John Kerry and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about possible leaks from their departments on their review of Clinton’s emails -- wrongly leaving the impression that the two “top secret” messages were not that sensitive.
The letter was sent by Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Richard Burr, who heads the powerful Intelligence Committee, on Nov. 13, with copies sent three days later to the intelligence community and State Department watchdogs known as inspectors general. The IGs were asked to conduct an independent review of the process.
While the senators’ letter is not public, Fox News has confirmed that the senators cited the Politico report from Nov. 6 where unnamed sources claimed the two “top secret” emails had been downgraded after a second review. While hailed by Clinton’s supporters as evidence she did not break the law and send classified information on her personal email account, the Politico story was later updated to reflect the fact that Clapper’s office said the review was ongoing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html
FOX NEWS AGAIN ::)
::)
If FOX NEWS is all you've got then you've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 8)
*yawn*
And there is the fall guy...........
I've been saying she will try and throw one of the underlings under the bus.
And there is the fall guy...........
Looks like a smoking run to me, but she will somehow skate and some underling will take the fall. More proof that the law only applies to the surfs.
I don't care one way or the other...if they charge her, then fine...if not thats fine as well...I'm gonna depend on the expertise of the FBI and will go with whatever they say.....
I don't think Obama cares either ;D
For your sake, I hope they charge her with something or else all of this posting about her has been a massive waste of time on your part ;D
Looks like a smoking run to me, but she will somehow skate and some underling will take the fall. More proof that the law only applies to the surfs.
I'm sure the POTUS doesn't care............
But :
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.
Looks to me like Hilary meets the criteria of this law.
You sound giddy over the fact Hillary will likely get away with what has landed people in jail for far less. Bravo. ::)Not giddy at all..just waiting to see what the FBI finds in its investigation....whateve r happens to Hillary, happens...I have no dog in this fight
They might let her off with a $10,000 fine or something like that...
Looks like a smoking run to me, but she will somehow skate and some underling will take the fall. More proof that the law only applies to the surfs.
Judge Nap: Hillary Email Probe Finds 'Treasure Trove' of Financial Improprieties
Jan 11, 2016 // 9:55pm
As seen on The Kelly File
The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has reportedly unearthed a "treasure trove" of financial improprieties related to the Clinton Foundation, Judge Andrew Napolitano said on "The Kelly File" tonight.
Judge Napolitano explained that a source told him about a possible intersection of Clinton's work with the Foundation and State Department business, which may have violated public corruption laws.
"I have a source that says the FBI has a 'treasure trove' of financial documents showing financial improprieties, as well as a pattern of decisions by Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state and favorable treatment to the people for whom she made the decision, and then contributions to the Clinton Foundation," Judge Napolitano said.
He added that the State Department released two new emails over the weekend that reveal Clinton showed an intention to deviate from her obligation to keep secrets secure.
He said it's hard to believe that the FBI - in the age of terror, no less - would be expanding its investigation into Clinton if it was simply a wild goose chase.
Get more insight from Judge Napolitano above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/11/judge-napolitano-reacts-fbi-expanding-its-investigation-hillary-clinton
I usually have respect for Judge Napolitano and his word carries weight with me....still the problem with FOX and the conservatives in general is that they become hysterical on so many issues that later turn out to be all smoke and mirrors......(Obama's BC, Benghazi, the Ebola scare, etc) that its hard to generate any outrage until definitive proof is shown...which is why I am waiting for the final FBI report...whatever they conclude I will go with
Fox and conservatives were not hysterical about Obama's BC. Nonsense.
Fox and conservatives have been all over Benghazi for good reason.
It's not hard for anyone who isn't a lapdog to form an opinion about what that woman did. It's a no brainer. The only thing that will likely keep her from getting prosecuted is her name and party affiliation.
WOW...well there we have it...the great pontificator says she's guilty and so everyone that doesn't rush to judgment is a "lapdog".....all I've said is lets wait until the FBI concludes the investigation...one of the reasons I say this is because we as the public basically have no idea what is Top Secret or what the term ACTUALLY means....or what the term "classified" means....until this is defined then we are just guessing....sometimes the government designates "Top Secret" or "Classified" to the most mundane of things...if Hillary mentions in an e-mail that Obama wears XXL underwear, is that "top secret"???????...if she mentions Obama will be at such and such a location the next day, is that "Top Secret" or "classified"??????.....we need to know the definition of this designation and just what meets the criteria of "Top Secret" or "classified".....thats all I'm saying......again...if Hillary is guilty then so be it...I have no dog in this fight....from what I've read, Obama supposedly told Hillary she is on her own with this whole thing
and as for your assertion that conservatives and FOX weren't hyping Benghazi (which has unearthed NO WRONGDOING), the president's BC or the Ebola scare (in which conservatives criticized Obama for not stopping flights to Africa and said that it would lead to THOUSANDS BEING EXPOSED AND DYING)...you are just plain out and out lying now....you and I can't have a conversation if you are going to continually deny reality
you would be perfect as one of those government guys in George Orwell's "1984" that changes historical facts and shapes them to their liking ;)
We are well into Orwell's 1984 already
HAHAHA!!!!. ;D..really??......what makes you say that?..of course admittedly there is definitely a loss of privacy
The fact that the .gov can access your health records, that you can be put on a list, that your doctor can report you - this is going down the 1984 road.
The fact that the .gov can access your health records, that you can be put on a list, that your doctor can report you - this is going down the 1984 road.
WOW...well there we have it...the great pontificator says she's guilty and so everyone that doesn't rush to judgment is a "lapdog".....all I've said is lets wait until the FBI concludes the investigation...one of the reasons I say this is because we as the public basically have no idea what is Top Secret or what the term ACTUALLY means....or what the term "classified" means....until this is defined then we are just guessing....sometimes the government designates "Top Secret" or "Classified" to the most mundane of things...if Hillary mentions in an e-mail that Obama wears XXL underwear, is that "top secret"???????...if she mentions Obama will be at such and such a location the next day, is that "Top Secret" or "classified"??????.....we need to know the definition of this designation and just what meets the criteria of "Top Secret" or "classified".....thats all I'm saying......again...if Hillary is guilty then so be it...I have no dog in this fight....from what I've read, Obama supposedly told Hillary she is on her own with this whole thing
and as for your assertion that conservatives and FOX weren't hyping Benghazi (which has unearthed NO WRONGDOING), the president's BC or the Ebola scare (in which conservatives criticized Obama for not stopping flights to Africa and said that it would lead to THOUSANDS BEING EXPOSED AND DYING)...you are just plain out and out lying now....you and I can't have a conversation if you are going to continually deny reality
you would be perfect as one of those government guys in George Orwell's "1984" that changes historical facts and shapes them to their liking ;)
I know its difficult for Obamabots to deal with facts, but it's obvious that woman mishandled classified intel. Whether she should be found "guilty" is something for the courts to decide, but anyone with half a brain, who isn't a hack, can look at we already know and conclude what she did was wrong.
I think your hostility toward me is clouding your judgment....what does being an "Obamabot" as you put it have any thing to do with whats going on with Hillary?????????????????...Obama does not support Hillary.....so why bring that into the mix>???????
I know that you have a very difficult time accepting facts from me...very unbecoming of a MOD.....so be it.....and you have a habit of presenting your speculation as "facts"....all I said was wait until the FBI pronounces judgment.......and again...what is your definition of classified?????????
Hostility? ::)
You being an Obamabot doesn't have anything to do with whether Hillary actually mishandled classified intel. It has to do with your inability to see the facts right in front you that demonstrate she mishandled classified intel.
I don't have a definition of classified. It's whatever the agency designates as confidential, secret, top secret, etc. AND the substance of whatever is in the communication.
That's what makes her telling someone to remove the classified markings and send unsecure so wrong. The document was marked classified because of its substance.
okay...so if the FBI says that Hillary did nothing wrong, will you accept that????...yes or no
okay...so if the FBI says that Hillary did nothing wrong, will you accept that????...yes or no
what do you mean the doctor can report you?
Absolutely not.
okay...so if the FBI says that Hillary did nothing wrong, will you accept that????...yes or no
Read the EO, a doctor can report that you are having mental problems, then voila you are barred from owning a firearm.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with that...
When is Hillary going to come down to da Hood, eat fried chicken drink Kool-Aid, pay off a few black pastors then speak with a fake Negro dialect?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02831/Clinton1web_2831249b.jpg)
Really? What is going to be considered a mental issue? More secret lists ::)
okay..then your hypocrisy is showing again.......she absolutely must be guilty because you say she is........and if she's not then that's unacceptable to you......
YOURE ABSOLUTELY CRAZY..you know that right??????????????
If there is a person who is psychotic and violent maybe its good that hes on the radar at least......
::) What I know is she mishandled classified intel. She ran classified intel off her home computer. That is wrong and I don't what the FBI finally concludes. Nobody with a security clearance is permitted to run classified intel off their personal computers.
I agree that what she may have done is idiotic....but was it illegal??????thats a different story...I already think shes an idiot...but is it criminal?????lets see
Like I said, whether she is guilty of a crime is something that the courts would decide if her name wasn't Hillary. Whether she actually mishandled classified intel is a no brainer.
I agree that what she may have done is idiotic....but was it illegal??????thats a different story...I already think shes an idiot...but is it criminal?????lets see
well that's been my point of contention....her guilt is not assured..we haven't heard everything......however, I love how now you are the PARTISAN......but you won't see it as usual..if you were fair you would wait and see
Doesn't have anything to do with being partisan. It's about right and wrong.
how can you fully judge right and wrong when you still don't know the full story or meaning of what they are investigating???....the fact that you say you don't care about the outcome and will still believe her guilty without hearing ALL the evidence shows you are partisan
What other evidence? Classified emails were on her private mail server or they weren't. There really is no gray area here.
If that was all there is to it, then she would have been found guilty and be behind bars nowSo we agree that she had classified email on a her private server, which is illegal. So why isn't she in jail is the question. As far as I am concerned that alone should disqualify her from holding the office of President.
So we agree that she had classified email on a her private server, which is illegal. So why isn't she in jail is the question
yes...sort of....I would still like to see exactly what was "classified"
yes...sort of....I would still like to see exactly what was "classified"
how can you fully judge right and wrong when you still don't know the full story or meaning of what they are investigating???....the fact that you say you don't care about the outcome and will still believe her guilty without hearing ALL the evidence shows you are partisan
Because I know the basic facts. Do you think it was wrong for her to run classified intel off her home computer?
I don't.
Her home computer may, in fact, be more secure.
Do you think Snowden ran away with stuff from Hillary's home computer?
not relevant, the law lays out plainly compliance when it comes to classified materials. .Gov wants to hang Snowden, but Hilary is all good, why because she is one of the ruling class. If laws don't apply to everyone, then there is no law.I didn't say it was legal.
I don't.
Her home computer may, in fact, be more secure.
Do you think Snowden ran away with stuff from Hillary's home computer?
Not surprised you would say that.
Her home computer more secure than government computers at the state department? lol Even after we know the server she was using was in someone's bathroom? Holy smokes. :-[
What the heck does Snowden have to do with Hillary?
Well now you're just being obsequious on purpose.
To answer your lack of understanding in reverse.
Apparently NSA servers were hacked by Edward Snowden and data was released to the wild. To the best of my knowledge, none of Hillary's were released to the wild and it required the FBI to physically retrieve her server to find any information about what was on it what so ever.
Hence, being on a government server does not equate to secure.
Secondly, the server itself may very well be more secure than the government computers as the people maintaining that server may be more security conscious.
I've worked in government and I can assure you that the servers and workstations are not as secure due to many factors as a newly built server in someones bathroom.
If you consider the fact that the server has a lock on a door in front of it inside a datacenter "security", then you have absolutely no idea what security when it comes to technology actually entails.
Accept that on this, you are surely ill equipped to argue against me as we know this is what I am extremely knowledgable in, and we know you are not.
"Obsequious"? I had to Google that: "obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree." Sounds like a misplaced word. You gotta be careful when trying to use those big words. :)I actually quickly typed obstinate but my autocorrect on my phone wanted to use obsequious.
Snowden is a very poor example, because he worked on the inside and had access to classified intel. Has zero to do with Hillary.
If you want to believe that Hillary's home computer, with a server being run out of someone's bathroom, was more secure than computers at the State Department, then go right ahead. That's really dumb, but you are free to have a dumb opinion. lol
You should talk to people who have security clearances and work with classified intel so you can have a better understanding of just how strict and secure those things are. Maybe headhunter can help you out.
I actually quickly typed obstinate but my autocorrect on my phone wanted to use obsequious.
I know the difference, but since you actually had to google the word, I guess we know enough about your English skills. It also shows that you have no real knowledge of the topic since that was your immediate go to.
Genius. I've had a top secret clearance and worked for the DoD and numerous other government agencies.
I'm more than qualified to speak on this.
You are not.
Feel free to start posting your rolling eyes anytime as it's all you have left at this point.
I make no apologies about using Google to look up a word. I don't pretend like I know something. I like learning. I do know what obstinate means. :)
You had a top secret security clearance? I find that hard to believe. You would not be making these comments if you did. You wouldn't be saying a server in the bathroom of someone's house is more secure than top secret information you would review on a government computer in that kind of controlled environment.
Unless you are just trolling.
As I said. You have no concept of what information security entails.
I do not care what so ever what you believe.
In fact, in looking at this thread, you actually believed Hillary did not have any classified intel on her home computer, because someone mistakenly said only 2 of them were not top secret. Someone with a top secret security clearance would be a lot more knowledgeable and at least have a basic understanding of the different types of classified information.
I said no such thing.
Find the quotes where I said she didn't have classified information?
Oh I think something is coming out of the fact she had 999 (and counting) classified emails on her personal server. If not her, then one of her minions is likely going to be indicted IMO.
But as I've said a number of times, I don't think this will prevent her from winning the nomination and likely the presidency. Voters have shown an ability to ignore dishonesty and incompetence in favor of partisanship.
So whose report is right?
The ones you're posting or the ones that say she didn't?
What report says she didn't have classified intel on her personal server?
So she didn't have any classified emails?
The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.
After a review, intelligence agencies concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets, the source said. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an ongoing FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email setup.
Story Continued Below
Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top-secret information; the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
However, after an initial version of this story was published Friday, a spokesman for Clapper indicated the issue had not been fully resolved. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said. He declined to say if any changes had been made in recent days to the strict handling requirements for the disputed emails.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qlB9a8uN
Did you actually read the link? From the first line:
"The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top-secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO."
So, assuming their report is true, they are saying only two of the emails are not "top secret." They don't address the hundreds (999) that are "secret."
Did you read?
it says that THE 2 emails.
Not THAT two emails.
Try reading past the first sentence.
Are you seriously suggesting that only two emails were designated top secret and that is the sum total of the classified intel on her personal server? If so, you really need to read through this thread, including the last story I posted. The total count is 999 that were classified secret. Your story only deals with two emails that were classified top secret. "Secret" and "top secret" are different classifications, but both are still "classified."
I'm suggesting that the article I posted states that someone said that 2 of them were highly classified and that the statement was proven false.
Are you saying that you know for a fact that there basically 1000 classified emails on the server?
You questioned whether any of her emails were classified, based on a story saying only two were not top secret.
I don't know anything for a fact, because I'm not involved in the investigation. I just know what I've read, which says the count is up to 999.
Right here:
Where did I SAY she didn't?
Sounds like I was questioning the articles.
Which I was.
Only in your mind is a question a statement.
You were questioning whether any of the emails on her computer were classified, based on a report that only two were (mistakenly) not deemed top secret. Not exactly the kind of thing you would expect from someone with a top secret security clearance. :-\
Yes. Questioning the articles based on the way they were written. Very simple.
What do you know of Top Secret anything?
Zero.
You were questioning whether any of her emails were classified based on a specific designation of only two emails.
I know a lot about a few things and nothing about a lot of things.
I also know you certainly do not sound like someone who had a top security clearance. But whatever. Don't really care one way or the other.
Because I know the basic facts. Do you think it was wrong for her to run classified intel off her home computer?AS far as I know, yes I do....you see, unlike you, I give definitive answers..... ;)....but I have heard that its not illegal for people in gov't to have their own servers.....is this true?...I don't know
I didn't say it was legal.
It is relevant because he asked if it was "wrong". Wrong doesn't equate to legality. Wrong is about morals.
I do not think it was "wrong", morally speaking, due what I mentioned previously.
This is my contention as well..I do feel something was sneaky about it...but was it against the law???????..I just don't know at this point...which is why I'm hoping the FBI can explain all of this when the time comes
This is my contention as well..I do feel something was sneaky about it...but was it against the law???????..I just don't know at this point...which is why I'm hoping the FBI can explain all of this when the time comes
AS far as I know, yes I do....you see, unlike you, I give definitive answers..... ;)....but I have heard that its not illegal for people in gov't to have their own servers.....is this true?...I don't know
You referred to it as "idiotic" before, though.
idiotic because it was something that someone in her position should have known better than to do..... and sneaky because it does feel like she was trying to hide something....however was it illegal????????????....I don't know..all I'm saying is lets let the FBI do their investigation and decide....
but the great pontificator has already said the law doesn't matter to him....that unless the FBI says she's guilty as he believes then she is still guilty
Well if you're a simpleton, then yes that's the takeaway from my comments.
If, on the other hand, you are the slightest bit analytical, you would read that I said whether she is actually guilty of a crime is something for the courts to decide.
I asked.........."okay...so if the FBI says that Hillary did nothing wrong, will you accept that? ...yes or no"
your answer........."Absolutely not"
so the takeaway is that you are a partisan and don't care about whether she is guilty or not...she will always be guilty in your eyes. you don't care what the law says
I know its difficult for Obamabots to deal with facts, but it's obvious that woman mishandled classified intel. Whether she should be found "guilty" is something for the courts to decide, but anyone with half a brain, who isn't a hack, can look at we already know and conclude what she did was wrong.
1. If we take what you say at face value, there is still absolutely nothing showing that I view this as a Democrat or Republican issue.
2. You apparently are not smart enough to distinguish between intrinsic right/wrong and actual guilt or innocence following a criminal proceeding.
3. I specifically made a distinction between right/wrong and criminal guilt/innocence:
4. You agreed that what she did was wrong and idiotic. So, you actually agree with me, but are apparently not smart enough to realize you actually agree with me.
its very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't admit when they are wrong....and then distorts the argument when he is clearly wrong or caught saying something he claimed he didn't say.........again..very very unbecoming of a mod....lets just move on and pretend this didn't happen...you're good at that
Make sure to start the Condee and Colin threads.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/index.html
Make sure to start the Condee and Colin threads.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/index.html
She should be confident. I'll be shocked if the Obama Justice Department holds her accountable.
She should be confident. I'll be shocked if the Obama Justice Department holds her accountable.
Clinton: '100 percent confident' nothing will come of FBI email probe
Published February 05, 2016
FoxNews.com
Hillary Clinton defiantly claimed at Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate that she is “100 percent confident” nothing will come of the FBI’s investigation of her email practices and has no concerns about the controversy’s impact on her chances in the race.
“I have absolutely no concerns about it whatsoever,” the former secretary of state said at the MSNBC-hosted debate in New Hampshire.
The comments come less than a week after the State Department confirmed that, as it releases thousands of Clinton emails, it is withholding 22 emails containing information too “top secret” to release.
But Clinton pointed Thursday to emerging reports that former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the immediate staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also received classified national security information on their personal email accounts. The details were included in a memo written by the State Department watchdog that was released Thursday.
IG Steve Linick said in the memo that two emails sent to Powell and 10 emails sent to Rice's staff contained classified national security information. Powell and Rice were the top diplomats under Republican President George W. Bush.
"None of the material was marked as classified, but the substance of the material and 'NODIS' (No Distribution) references in the body or subject lines of some of the documents suggested that the documents could be potentially sensitive," Linick wrote.
In a statement, Powell said the emails were from his executive assistant. He said that while the department now has said they are "confidential," which is a low level of classification, both messages were unclassified at the time and there was no reason not to forward them to his personal account. Powell's office said two FBI agents visited Powell in December for a general discussion about email practices during his time at State.
Clinton pointed to those developments in arguing that those officials are now facing the same scrutiny she’s facing, suggesting investigators are going too far in their handling of the “absurd situation of retroactive classification.”
She dismissed the controversy as similar to Republican criticism of her over the Benghazi terror attacks.
Earlier, however, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., challenged the campaign’s “everybody did it” defense.
“The attempt to paint her predecessors in the State Department as equal offenders in mishandling classified material is an insult to what we now know to be the truth,” Issa said in a statement. “Official investigations have confirmed that Secretary Clinton’s unsecure server stored more than 1,000 emails containing classified information, including some classified at the very highest levels. Her guarantee to the nation that the number was zero now seems more like desperation than news cycle spin.”
At Thursday’s debate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders once again declined to criticize Clinton over the email scandal.
“I will not politicize it,” he said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/05/clinton-100-percent-confident-nothing-will-come-fbi-email-probe.html?intcmp=hpbt1
you truly overestimate the power the president has over the FBI
lol. You are incredibly naïve if you believe the president will play no role in this process.
Actually you are naive if you think President Obama would risk his own prestige and legacy by interfering in an investigation in which he has no dog in the fight....also he's not exactly fond of the Clintons...and its reportedly been said that Obama has already told Hillary she's on her own and he will not intervene on her behalf..although I don't know this for sure
This is what happens when you have blind devotion to a political "leader." He already tried to interfere in the investigation by saying to the entire world in an interview that Hillary did nothing wrong. Obviously an attempt to influence an ongoing FBI investigation. He did the same thing with Lois Lerner.
And LOL at "prestige and legacy." Oh brother . . . .
when I say "interfere" you know EXACTLY what I mean,.,...Obama is free to pontificate like anyone else...BUT did he give the word to the FBI not to be too hard on Hillary???????...doubtful..and you know this to be true.....as for Lois Lerner, EVERY POLITICIAN defends his underlings.......thats no surprise.....comparing Lois Lerner to Hillary is like apples and oranges.....
Stop being dishonest
if the FBI comes out and says Hillary did nothing wrong you will not accept that anyway
I'm not even sure what to say. You believe the president is free to comment and offer opinions about an ongoing investigation being conducted by the Justice Department. Holy smokes. And you vote? :-\
why not?....he even defended Hillary during the Benghazi investigation....nothing wrong with that...and EXACTLY WHERE DID THAT LEAD?????????????...he was right
You are asking me why the president should not comment on a pending investigation? Dude. Even if I explained something so elementary to you it would be a waste of time. I'm embarrassed for you, especially given how much you pound your chest claiming to have destroyed people on the board. :-[
I think my repeated destroyings of you have definitely had an affect on you..you're not the same guy and here you are attacking me and we are just having a conversation....the president is allowed to talk about anything he pleases....again..he defended her during Benghazi and HE WAS RIGHT......the investigation turned up nothing...I'm not saying Hillary is innocent.....now answer my question..WILL YOU ACCEPT the findings if the FBI declines to prosecute??????
You really have a lot to learn.
I've already answered your question and I'm fairly certain it was in this thread.
I guess you're not going to answer my question....par for the course
imagine Gore/Biden showing up, 3 weeks before the presidential elections.
Repubs would lose their shit lol.
don't drag out that hilary email thing too long ;)
Why do you suppose that is? if she's this bad now (actually all of her entire political career) can you imagine if she should become president. Holy crap.
amenOnly a fool would think Obama is the worst president of all time
Hillary could be almost as bad as Obama, the worst president of all time?
DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server
By Evan Perez, CNN Justice Reporter
Wed March 2, 2016 | Video Source: CNN
Washington (CNN)Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.
The FBI has been asking for Pagliano's cooperation for months as dozens of investigators pored over thousands of Clinton emails in a secure room on the fourth floor of FBI headquarters.
The probe shifted into a new phase recently as investigators completed the review of the emails, working with intelligence agencies and the State Department to determine whether they were classified.
The Washington Post first reported Pagliano's cooperation.
"As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Justice Department's security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed," said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign.
Fallon added that the campaign was "pleased" Pagliano was cooperating with the Justice Department.
Last fall, when Pagliano invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to talk to congressional investigators, Fallon said: "(Clinton has) encouraged everyone to cooperate because we want to make every good-faith effort to be transparent and answer any questions people have. With Mr. Pagliano, we encouraged him as well because we don't think he has any reason to not be transparent about the help that he provided from an IT perspective, but unfortunately, it is his choice what to do."
A message left with Pagliano's attorney was not immediately returned.
With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.
The emails released publicly show some Clinton aides sent the sensitive information, often from the State Department's unclassified email system, to others, and eventually to Clinton at her private email address. She didn't use a State Department email account.
The released emails appear to align with her public statements that she didn't send emails that were marked as classified.
She did receive emails from aides that, while not marked as classified, did contain information that should not have been handled outside the government's secure email system, the emails released so far have found.
The FBI reviewers oversaw the process that upgraded the emails now known to be highly sensitive as part of a series of State Department Freedom of Information Act releases that ended Monday.
Clinton has said she hasn't been asked to be interviewed for the FBI probe.
Republican candidates quickly pounced on the development Wednesday night.
"This is an ominous development for the Clinton campaign and for Democrats as a whole," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News' Megyn Kelly. "This suggests that the investigation is moving to a whole other level. She is going to be a badly wounded candidate, and if we nominate a strong Republican nominee, we're going to win this general election."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/index.html
Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified
according to an intelligence source close to the case who called him a “devastating witness.”
Similar to comments made by the president.
Democratic Lawmaker Says Clinton Will Never Be Indicted
By Julia Limitone
Published March 03, 2016 E
Hillary Clinton is innocent, that’s her story -- and New York Congressman Charlie Rangel is sticking with it.
“There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton,” he said during an interview with the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo.
Rangel discussed why he’s glad the government is moving forward with the case by granting ex-Clinton staffer Bryan Pagliano immunity.
“I think all people, especially those supporting Secretary Clinton, want to remove this cloud as we move forward in what appears to be a terrible campaign between Republicans and Democrats. Anything we can do to clear the air so that the voters will be able to deal with policy as it relates to peace, war, the economy, jobs, immigration – that’s what we have to do,” Rangel stated.
“And for those who are just pessimistic that this is going to lead to indictment, then they should be glad that the immunity is being given, the truth is going to be heard and I’m very confident that Hillary Clinton will survive this.”
Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey told the FOX Business Network on Thursday, the investigation is serious and not going away.
Rangel responded: “There’s been no Grand Jury that’s been there. Hillary Clinton has cooperated. There has not been a scintilla... of evidence that Hillary Clinton has done anything wrong by the FBI or the overall Justice Department.”
Rangel also argued there could be evidence that may lead to Pagliano’s prosecution.
“What has happened here is that the person who worked and set up the system for Hillary Clinton has said that it’s implied that before I talk I want to make certain that I’m not indicted. Now it takes a whole lot of speculation to say that what he’s going to say means that Hillary Clinton made a mistake [and] did some wrongdoing -- and even if it was, that it was criminal. There’s nothing to indicate that unless you are looking for it.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/03/03/democratic-lawmaker-says-clinton-will-never-be-indicted.html
[/quote
Rangel? That corrupt pieces of shit? Talk about needing to be indicted! Gotta love the cognitive dissonance from the left.
Long read, but great comprehensive discussion of Clinton's email scandal. There are 147 FBI agents working on this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.
I just heard it's more like a dozen. We were duped into believing 147 by the media.
Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted
A POLITICO review shows marked differences between her case and those that led to charges.
By Josh Gerstein
04/11/16
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
As for Berger, he apparently was pressed for time when reviewing “Top Secret” information being considered by the 9/11 Commission, and walked out of National Archives headquarters in Washington with classified documents and notes stuffed in his clothing. He eventually admitted to the FBI sticking some of the documents under a construction trailer on the street before returning to the Archives and slipping out with more. Berger, who died earlier this year, took the papers to his office and destroyed some of them, but eventually returned others.
Emails From Hillary Clinton’s IT Director at State Department Appear to Be Missing
Romanian hacker who says he breached Clinton server finalizing plea deal
The plot sickens.
WikiLeaks to publish more Hillary Clinton emails - Julian Assange
New release likely to fan controversy and provide further ammunition for Republican presidential rival Donald Trump
Julian Assange says it was unlikely the US attorney general would indict Clinton. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA
Mark Tran@marktran
12 June 2016
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said his organisation is preparing to publish more emails Hillary Clinton sent and received while US secretary of state.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is under FBI investigation to determine whether she broke federal law by using her private email in sending classified information. A new WikiLeaks release of Clinton emails is likely to fan a controversy that has bedevilled her campaign and provide further ammunition for Donald Trump, her Republican presidential rival, who has used the issue to attack her.
Assange’s comments came in an interview on ITV’s Peston on Sunday. “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct,” Assange said.He did not specify when or how many emails would be published.
WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive in March of 30,322 emails and email attachments sent to and from Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents are from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014, and 7,570 of the documents were sent by Clinton, who served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
Assange, a trenchant Clinton critic, said she was receiving constant personal updates on his situation. The WikiLeaks founder has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London since July 2012, when he sought asylum to avoid extradition. Assange is wanted in Sweden over allegations of rape dating from 2010, which he denies, but he has not been charged.
A Stockholm district court upheld an arrest warrant against the Australian last month, saying there was still “probable cause for suspicion” against him.
Assange said it was highly unlikely that the US attorney general, Loretta Lynch, would indict Clinton. “She’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that’s not possible. It’s not going to happen. But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government,” he said.
He has attacked Clinton as a “liberal war hawk”, claiming that WikiLeaks had published emails showing her to be the leading champion in office to push for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, despite Pentagon reluctance.
“They predicted that the postwar outcome would be something like it is … she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk,” he said.
He also accused Google last week of helping Clinton in her presidential campaign, lumping together two of his bugbears.
Google “is intensely aligned with US exceptionalism” and its employees will likely be rewarded if Clinton wins the presidential election come November, Assange told an international media forum in Moscow.
His attacks on Clinton may be dismissed as highly partial, but the email controversy continues to dog her. An internal report last month found she had broken several government rules by using a private server rather than more secure official communication systems.
The 78-page investigation by the inspector general of the state department singled out several previously unknown breaches while Clinton was secretary of state, including the use of mobile devices to conduct official business without checking whether they posed a security risk.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/12/wikileaks-to-publish-more-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange
Is Julian Assange even credible these days?
Is Julian Assange even credible these days?
repubs wanted to feed him to the guillotine back when he was pwning Bush on a daily basis.
Now that he's shitting on Hilary, they are lining up to give him HJs.
Typical.
Hillary looking really fat lately. She seems to be hiding a gunt.
Hillary looking really fat lately. She seems to be hiding a gunt.
Clinton IT specialist invokes 5th more than 125 times in deposition
I thought the IT specialist was the one who was going to spill the beans on Hilary?
Hillary Clinton Failed to Hand Over Key Email to State Department
In email, she appeared to express concern about her correspondence being accessible to public
(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-OQ195_CLINTO_J_20160623204538.jpg)
In this March 2012 photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her mobile phone at U.N. headquarters. A key email wasn’t included in the documents that Mrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department, raising questions about the thoroughness of her disclosures to the government and her record-keeping practices as secretary of state. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
By BYRON TAU
Updated June 24, 2016
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over a key email where she appeared to express concern about her correspondence being accessible by the public, the State Department acknowledged Thursday.
In a 2010 email exchange with top aide Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton expressed reservations about being put onto the State Department’s email system.
“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in response to Ms. Abedin’s suggestion that she obtain a government email account.
The email exchange in question was previously uncovered as part of a State Department Inspector General investigation into the use of email by Mrs. Clinton and other secretaries of state. However, it wasn’t included in the emails that Mrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department, raising questions about the thoroughness of her disclosures to the government and her record-keeping practices as secretary of state.
State Department spokesman John Kirby said the email “was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by Former Secretary Clinton.” He said it was instead obtained by the department as part of a trove of emails turned over by Ms. Abedin in 2015.
According to federal record-keeping laws, work emails from Mrs. Clinton and her staff were federal records that were required to be preserved and turned over upon their departure from government service. In addition, under the Freedom of Information Act, emails from agencies like the State Department are eligible for possible public release.
Last year, Mrs. Clinton certified under oath to a federal court that she had turned over all the work-related emails in her possession on her private server. “I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done,” she wrote in a document filed in U.S. District Court in August.
Mrs. Clinton’s use of the private email server for all her government work has roiled her presidential campaign since it was made public last year. An independent State Department Inspector General report concluded that Mrs. Clinton failed to follow State Department procedures about record keeping and cybersecurity. She has denied any wrongdoing, saying she believed she was following the precedent of previous secretaries of state in using a personal email account.
Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said both Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin turned over all work-related correspondence in their possession. “We understand Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have.”
He denied Mrs. Clinton was trying to circumvent any record-keeping requirements.
“This email shows that, contrary to the allegations of some, Secretary Clinton was not seeking to avoid any use of government email. As indicated in this email, she was open to using a state.gov account but she simply wanted her personal emails to remain private, as anyone would want,” Mr. Fallon said.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting a criminal investigation into the possible loss or mishandling of classified information by Mrs. Clinton. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is expected to be interviewed in the coming weeks as part of that investigation.
The State Department’s disclosure Thursday that it was missing an email isn’t the first time gaps in Mrs. Clinton email record have surfaced. No emails from the first two months of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office have been given to the department.
A spokesperson for Mrs. Clinton said those emails weren’t hosted on her personal server and have been lost as part of a transition into government service.
In addition, Mrs. Clinton had several thousand emails deleted before she turned over the documents to the State Department. She has said any emails she deleted were purely personal in nature.
Corrections & Amplifications:
Hillary Clinton had several thousand emails deleted before she turned over the documents to the State Department. An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Mrs. Clinton had several emails deleted.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-failed-to-hand-over-key-email-to-state-department-1466738155
EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months
Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.
Drudge linked to
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/30/exclusive-state-department-wont-release-clinton-foundation-emails-for-27-months/
some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an effort to obstruct justice
Vindicated. ::)
Comey: FBI Recommends No Charges for Clinton in Email Probe
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Tuesday, 05 Jul 2016
There is no basis for criminal charges to be filed against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday.
Even so, he emphasized that Clinton and her staff were "reckless" and "extremely careless" in handling official and personal communications.
"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges," said Comey in a press conference, noting that there are obvious considerations like the strength of the evidence and the matter of using responsible decisions.
"They also consider the context of a person's actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past," said Comey. "In looking back at our investigations, into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."
Over the weekend, following the controversy surrounding a private meeting between U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, Lynch said that she would not remove herself from the case, but would likely follow the FBI's recommendations.
Comey said Tuesday that all decisions to prosecute cases rest with a prosecutor's office, and would have to involve "some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an effort to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
But, he said to be clear, the findings are not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person engaged in such activity would face no consequences, Comey said.
"To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions but that's not what we are deciding here," said Comey. "As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice to argue that no charges are appropriate in this case."
Comey said he knows there will be "intense public debate" in wake of the FBI's recommendation, and he can assure the American people that "the investigation was done honestly, confidently and independently."
And while only a small number of emails in Clinton's server contained information that they were classified, said Comey, those sending or receiving it should have known whether or not it was marked they were still "obligated to protect it. "
"The use of unclassified systems in particular was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the U.S. government," said Comey.
He said he did not coordinate the statement or review it first with the Department of Justice or with any other part of the government, and "they do not know what I am about to say."
The investigation began following a referral from the intelligence community's inspector general about Clinton's use of a personal email server and about whether classified information had been transmitted.
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system in violation of a federal statute that makes it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way," said Comey, and "for a second statute, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
While Comey referred to the use of one email server, over Clinton's four years as Secretary of State, she used "several different servers and administrators of those servers," and as new equipment was used, the older ones were decommissioned and email software was removed, while the content was saved.
"It was like removing the frame from a huge unfinished jigsaw puzzle and then dumping all the pieces on the floor," said Comey. "The effect was that millions of email fragments ended up in the servers unused or its lack space. We searched through all of it to understand what was there and what parts of the puzzle we could put back together again.
Investigators also read all of the 30,000 emails Clinton provided to the State Department in 2014, and where emails were assessed as containing classified information, the FBI referred the documents to the pertinent government agencies, Comey continued.
"From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received," said Comey.
"Eight of those chains contain information that was top-secret at the time they were sent, 36 of those chains contain secret information at the time and eight contain confidential information at the time."
The FBI also discovered thousands of other work-related emails that were not among those released in 2014, through messages that deleted or through archived accounts of other government employees.
There was no evidence that the work emails were intentionally deleted, he continued, and the assessment was that Clinton periodically deleted emails, like many other people do, and conceded that some of the additional work emails could be among those deleted as being personal by her attorneys.
And last, there was extensive work to determine if Clinton's email was compromised, and "although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," said Comey, including her use of email systems while in foreign countries.
"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain and its various configurations from 2009 was hacked successfully," said Comey.
"But given the nature of the system, and of the actors potentially involved, we assess it would be unlikely to see such direct efforts."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/comey-fbi-hillary-clinton/2016/07/05/id/737074/#ixzz4DYvrABCl
The entire transcript is surreal. Comey lays out in detail why Clinton should be indicted and then says they don't have a case.
Although this will provide fuel for a thousand fires until the election.
The entire transcript is surreal. Comey lays out in detail why Clinton should be indicted and then says they don't have a case.
Although this will provide fuel for a thousand fires until the election.
when zimmerman is found not guilty, it's "vindication".
when hilary isn't even charged, it's "this is bullshit".
Don't worry, there will be something else to whine about over Clinton now. There always is. Pretty sure the next thing will be because she is POTUS.
so if a normal person did what she did..........
Are you saying that you condone all of this? I'll give it to you that this is driven by political agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that she is guilty here, and if it were any normal joe they may see jail time over this.
I'm just curious if you are so blinded by your liberal bias that you miss the travesty of justice here. That's what your statement looks like anyhow
I've already answered this before.
It isn't my opinion that keeps her from being convicted of something. It's the inept GOP that convince anyone to charge her with anything after 8 attempts.
I warned you guys this thread was a big waste of time... ;D
They have been whining and trying for 30 years to charge/indict/convict her of something.
Benghazi = cleared
emails = cleared
so on and so on = cleared
She's guilty of everything but inept dimwitted Republicans can't close the deal on the charges. Or either she's innocent of everything and that's why the charges don't stick.
The thread title is "is hillary hiding something". I know you don't watch news if it doesn't involve a black politician, but the fbi director came out and said "yes, she's hiding something". The good thing is, after Obama is out of office, you can go to completely ignoring the highest level of politics again. Not that you comprehend now anyhow, but you don't have to pretend to have an interest anymore.
So the thread is pertinent and not a waste of time as your life is.......because she is hiding plenty
sigh...when are you going to finally get to 2000 posts???...I'm quite sure the sex board has more threads for you to explore and comment on.... 8)
It will likely happen before you give an intelligent rebuttal...Intelligent rebuttals are saved for intelligent posters....guys like you get the above
Intelligent rebuttals are saved for intelligent posters....guys like you get the above
In a wide-ranging appearance before the House oversight committee, Comey also said Clinton’s email practices put America’s secrets at risk and her actions constituted the “definition of carelessness.”
At the same time, Comey staunchly defended the bureau’s decision not to pursue charges. He also said, “We have no basis to conclude that [Clinton] lied to the FBI.”
Yet he acknowledged that lying under oath is a felony, as some Republicans point to statements she made last October before the House Benghazi committee. There, Clinton claimed that nothing she sent or received was marked classified.
Comey was asked about such claims, which she also made publicly, in a pointed exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
“That’s not true. … There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.
On her claim that she used one device, Comey also said, “She used multiple devices.”
And on her claim that she turned over all work-related emails, he said, “No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.”
They have been whining and trying for 30 years to charge/indict/convict her of something.
Benghazi = cleared
emails = cleared
so on and so on = cleared
She's guilty of everything but inept dimwitted Republicans can't close the deal on the charges. Or either she's innocent of everything and that's why the charges don't stick.
Comey's testimony in the House oversight committee is very interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/07/comey-testifies-clinton-email-claims-not-true-at-heated-hill-hearing.html
Watch the full testimony here:
https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/oversight-state-department/
I think this was one those Chief Justice Roberts "greater good" type decisions (with Obamacare
this says a lot about you, if you think obamacare is for the greater good.
::)
He said she lied on everything she told the public - is that ok with you? Yes or no.
he didn't exactly say that...if she had lied she would have been jailed..like Martha Stewart was for lying to the FBI......Hillary does have a right against self-incrimination......she never lied to the FBI....
However I do think she fudged the truth and was not forthcoming
What the heck does that mean? She lied. Meaning she said something that was false, which she knew was false at the time she said it. Repeatedly.
The FBI director never said she lied.....I think she fudged the truth which is my opinion....she does have a right against self-incrimination....not to mention Comey is a Republican...
get over it
Watch the clip w gowdy and Comey - she lied to you many times and you like a complete jackass liberal 95'er Beta twink - ate it up.
Deal with it
The FBI director never said she lied.....I think she fudged the truth which is my opinion....she does have a right against self-incrimination....not to mention Comey is a Republican...
get over it
"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."
So, are you saying this is fudging the truth? Maybe she is just senile and forgot the other devices
That seems a simple difference in terminology.
Such as one device at a time, where as he means one device for the entire period.
It's like me. I have one phone. However, I get a new phone every year and so have had 4 (or maybe 5) different phones over the past 4 years.
Not defending Clinton on this. I have no idea what the law truly was at the time and it seems to be pretty convoluted as to whether anyone actually does.
::) ::)
Come on bro - you are better than that.
Seriously.
What am I better than?
I'm seriously confused about it being a "crime".
I'm not saying she should be President, I'm not even saying she should be allowed to run. I'm saying it appears to be pretty convoluted as to whether or not she committed a "crime".
As she's not a member of the military, she's not beholden to military rules. She's a regular citizen.
If I did it, I would be fired, but I doubt they would charge me with a crime.
What am I better than?
I'm seriously confused about it being a "crime".
I'm not saying she should be President, I'm not even saying she should be allowed to run. I'm saying it appears to be pretty convoluted as to whether or not she committed a "crime".
As she's not a member of the military, she's not beholden to military rules. She's a regular citizen.
If I did it, I would be fired, but I doubt they would charge me with a crime.
Good analysis..this is my contention exactly......she is obviously stupid and careless...even reckless....but did it really rise to a crime???....even Comey said no.....
but i do get that some people will just never ever accept that she isn't honest
That is absolutely not what he said. You didn't even watch him speak or read the transcript
She isn't honest, moron. Stop defending people blindly. And let's not confuse not being convicted with innocence
I just gave 1 example that couldn't be debated as being a lie, but apparently I was wrong....that was likely also the more frivolous lie she told. There are plenty more, but I didn't care to link the entire transcript because no one would read it.
I would suspect they explained to her the nature of the question, but I'm not certain of this. I don't think it was asked and left up to the interpretation you suggest, but who knows
Also, the pic of her with 1 device in each hand at one time might clear that up a bit too...
While I expect that to be true, I don't have the entire transcript and to be honest, I already don't like her, so nothing in it would change my mind. As such I have a life and a job and can't spend my days sifting through every single word that was spoken.
I really don't know how you guys do it.
If all things were explained as you state, then I would expect someone would say something about how she lied on the stand and purjured herself.
It matters not to me.
Besides why are you guys worried? Trump is going to kick her ass in November right?
The FBI director never said she lied.....I think she fudged the truth which is my opinion....she does have a right against self-incrimination....not to mention Comey is a Republican...
get over it
That seems a simple difference in terminology.
Such as one device at a time, where as he means one device for the entire period.
It's like me. I have one phone. However, I get a new phone every year and so have had 4 (or maybe 5) different phones over the past 4 years.
Not defending Clinton on this. I have no idea what the law truly was at the time and it seems to be pretty convoluted as to whether anyone actually does.
What does "fudged the truth" mean? Did she lie or not?I can only fully answer that question if I read the full report....I felt she wasn't forthcoming which is what I meant by fudged the truth...I felt she parsed her words....however again....had she out and out lied, Comey would have charged her just like they did to Martha Stewart when she lied to the FBI
I can only fully answer that question if I read the full report....I felt she wasn't forthcoming which is what I meant by fudged the truth...I felt she parsed her words....however again....had she out and out lied, Comey would have charged her just like they did to Martha Stewart when she lied to the FBI
I can only fully answer that question if I read the full report....I felt she wasn't forthcoming which is what I meant by fudged the truth...I felt she parsed her words....however again....had she out and out lied, Comey would have charged her just like they did to Martha Stewart when she lied to the FBI
Spoken like a true believer. She said she never sent or received email that was marked classified at the time. That statement was false at the time she made it as confirmed by Comey. Was that a lie or "fudging the truth"?
Comey also explained that although she did indeed say that, he could not prove she did send the email with "intent"....meaning yes she did send somethigns out that she shouldn't have but did she lie, or was it due to faulty memory???....if you sent out 35,000 emails would you be able to remember what each one said if you were questioned????....
again...she did not lie criminally......or else she would be in jail now....did yshe fudge somethings like ALL politicians do????...of course
I don't know who you mean by "you guys"? I think this election is a joke and we have the worst 2 candidates to choose from since I started voting and probably much longer before that. If you don't have time to be fully informed, it seems odd that you would comment. That comes off as ignorant. You come on a political forum and take the time to read and comment, but when someone has an expectation that you are fully informed....you cite your life and job. I just finished buying a home and landscaping it on the side of a mountain. I also have a job that entails more overtime than most people will see. I don't use those as excuses, rather I just don't come on here and comment when I don't have the time.
Nor do I.
I come on here when I have time. Which hasn't been much the past couple of days.
No. I don't comment very much on things I haven't had time to research such as this topic.
Hence why I've asked many more questions than given answers when it comes to this email situation.
My previous post wasn't meant as an insult, rather a compliment. You are a quality poster, so I didn't like seeing you use what I perceived to be an excuse on the issue. I consider you a straight shooter like myself, even though we may disagree on issues from time to time
He wasn't talking about multiple phones. He was talking about a phone, iPad, and computer. That's what she had.
Comey also explained that although she did indeed say that, he could not prove she did send the email with "intent"....meaning yes she did send somethigns out that she shouldn't have but did she lie, or was it due to faulty memory???....if you sent out 35,000 emails would you be able to remember what each one said if you were questioned????....
again...she did not lie criminally......or else she would be in jail now....did yshe fudge somethings like ALL politicians do????...of course
So she "fudged the truth" and "did not lie criminally." You sound like Bill Clinton. ::)
So she "fudged the truth" and "did not lie criminally." You sound like Bill Clinton. ::)
In fairness to Bill, asking him about a BJ isn't even close to the same.
The lies Hillary is telling are much more dangerous.
Andre?
Hey, at least he added the word "criminally". That is about as honest answer as you will get from down low andre, regarding liberals
Andre isn't going to watch that video. It doesn't have black people in it
He gets no credit from me for that kind of ridiculous qualification. This stuff isn't complicated. She either told the truth or she didn't.
Or free stuff offered at the end like a phone
I'm not really concerned about which one of them told the more dangerous lies. It's really about what kind of honesty and integrity we should expect from someone seeking to become leader of the free world.
This coming from the great dishonest pontificator himself......you can catch almost any politician fudging the truth on anything......somke people accuse Bush of lying about Saudi involvement in 911....some people accuse Reagan of lying as to whether he knew about Iran/Contra.......again its hard to establish what exactly a lie is unless they are criminally charged.....is Trump lying about Trump University scaming students?????....what about his accusation that Ted Cruz's father helped in the Kennedy assasination???...is that a lie to you?????..should he be sued for slander???..of is it just his opinion????Did trump lie about how rich he is?????..or are you alloowed to overstate your income if you feel like it????
Al politicians fudge the truth...thats my assertion.....Again, Comey said there was no criminality.....why are you so angry about that????
STRANGE
I agree. More than what we are given the option for right now.
:-\
Nobody posting in this thread about Hillary's lying is "angry."
Your assertion is ridiculous. "Fudging the truth." LOL. Hillary lied. But at least she didn't "criminally lie." ::)
This is becoming a crybaby thread...move on :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Never fear. Hillary is likely to be our next president, so you'll have someone else to worship and make excuses for over the next four years. Again.
Never fear. Hillary is likely to be our next president, so you'll have someone else to worship and make excuses for over the next four years. Again.
Not worship at all...unlike you and a lot of the other crybabies on here I respect the president no matter who he or she may be..I don't blame the president for every disaster that happens in the world or in my personal life, and I don't take the word of people like ISIS, Putin, etc over my own president who represents us...the American people...
Even if Trump is our president I will still respect him.....though that will be awfully hard
You have spent the last eight years kneepadding President Obama, second only to 240 is back as Obama's biggest cheerleader on this board. And you'll be doing the same thing with Hillary. That's what braindead partisan hacks do.
Not worship at all...unlike you and a lot of the other crybabies on here I respect the president no matter who he or she may be..I don't blame the president for every disaster that happens in the world or in my personal life, and I don't take the word of people like ISIS, Putin, etc over my own president who represents us...the American people...
Even if Trump is our president I will still respect him.....though that will be awfully hard
You have spent the last eight years kneepadding President Obama, second only to 240 is back as Obama's biggest cheerleader on this board. And you'll be doing the same thing with Hillary. That's what braindead partisan hacks do.
Not Knepadding at all..I simply don't get hysterical and start blaming the POTUS for everything that goes wrong in the world as if he's our idealized substitute father like you do....
You've been on a hysterical tirade for years about Hillary...WHERE HAS THAT GOTTEN YOU???????????????....Hillary about to be elected president and Obama at 55% approval rating..yet you feel you know everything, oh great pontificator
STRANGE
Hysterical tirade? LOL! Stop acting like a lying weirdo.
I don't know everything. What I do know is Hillary is dishonest. Trump is a dangerous narcissist. And you are a braindead Obama (soon-to-be Hillary) disciple.
Dishonest in your eyes....not in the eyes of some and not in the eyes of the law......get over it......I wish we had better choices but it is what it is
Wait. Do you believe Hillary Clinton is honest?
Never said that.......she obviously is a treacherous sneak.......who lies (to the public) and fudges the truth...no doubt.....but she is not a criminal
You said "Dishonest in your eyes." Is Hillary Clinton dishonest in your eyes?
As a citizen judging her.....probably yes...but politically and criminally????.....NO
What kind of mealy-mouthed response is that? As a citizen you think she is "probably" dishonest? What the heck. Is she or not?
And what do you mean by "politically"? She is "politically" honest? What the heck does that mean?
not mealy mouthed at all..i simply don't have access to all evidence against her to make a fair judgment....We depend on entities like the FBI to discern whether Hillary broke the law..they said she didn't...we have to live with that....unfortunately you refuse to do that and you continue on this quest to God knows where
as for being politically honest..you know what that means..its when you don't come out and say things as a politician and youplay games with nuance..which is what I believe she did.....but all politicians do this...hence my "politically honest " statement....
can you remember one politician who when in trouble came out and said things in a a way which didn't fudge the truth???
No, in fact we don't have to live with that. When we see injustices committed by our politicians, we have every right to speak up if we feel they are operating above the law. You may have missed this part of history, but America was born on defecting from/opposing what was felt to be an Unjust government
YAAAYYYY..!!!!!..you're up to 800 posts!!!!!!..keep up the good work!!!
not mealy mouthed at all..i simply don't have access to all evidence against her to make a fair judgment....We depend on entities like the FBI to discern whether Hillary broke the law..they said she didn't...we have to live with that....unfortunately you refuse to do that and you continue on this quest to God knows where
as for being politically honest..you know what that means..its when you don't come out and say things as a politician and youplay games with nuance..which is what I believe she did.....but all politicians do this...hence my "politically honest " statement....
can you remember one politician who when in trouble came out and said things in a a way which didn't fudge the truth???
for some reason your clips are not playing on my computer, but yes she admitted she lied about being under fire......but we are not talking about that...we are focusing on emails....Comey said she was sloppy, stupid, and careless...but didn't say she was criminal
for some reason your clips are not playing on my computer, but yes she admitted she lied about being under fire......but we are not talking about that...we are focusing on emails....Comey said she was sloppy, stupid, and careless...but didn't say she was criminal
FALSE! He said she lied about all the shit she told to the public.
FALSE! He said she lied about all the shit she told to the public.
for some reason your clips are not playing on my computer, but yes she admitted she lied about being under fire......but we are not talking about that...we are focusing on emails....Comey said she was sloppy, stupid, and careless...but didn't say she was criminal
if you held up any politician to this test you would have no one running...lying and fudging the truth is common in a society where you have to be proven guilty..no one is going to self-incriminate themselve to please the public.....you wouldn't do it either
Can you provide a link to where she has ever admitted she lied. I can't recall one, but you just said she admitted she lied about this. I'm a bit skeptical
Can you provide a link to where she has ever admitted she lied. I can't recall one, but you just said she admitted she lied about this. I'm a bit skeptical
ok....I did some research because I couldn't remember the exact public quote....she "acknowledged that I made a mistake" and said she "misspoke" in terms of her being under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia........so like usual she didn't say she was sorry....but from politicians this is the best you're going to get from them when they fuck up :D
So you were right in that she never said she was actually "sorry" but at the time it seemed like thats what she was saying...in politician speak anyway.
I agree with your earlier point that she has to lie on this email thing, because she would perjure herself otherwise. I also agree it's the norm for all politicians liberal and conservative alike. The thing is, it shouldn't be. We should expect more from our elected officials and idiots like LurkerNoMore that defend hillary's lies and act completely oblivious to the problem will let it continue. Hillary is an arrogant piece of shit, not so different from Trump if we are to be honest.
Look at that. You and I had a civil exchange that didn't involve me insulting you or you requesting 2k posts from me
Another lie to the FBI which they let her sake on
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/fbi-admits-hillary-used-bleachbit-software-designed-hide-traces-deleted-emails/
What do they mean by "unsuccessful attempts" I wonder.
This is a good question. I would like to understand what they are saying as well.
"We decide what's relevant — not the Department of Justice, not the FBI," Chaffetz said. "We are entitled to the full file."
Clinton IT specialist ignores subpoena for House hearing; other witnesses plead 5th
Published September 13, 2016
FoxNews.com
The former State Department IT specialist who set up Hillary Clinton’s private server ignored a subpoena to appear Tuesday before a House committee hearing, while other tech experts who helped maintain the system asserted their Fifth Amendment right not to testify – frustrating Republican lawmakers trying to dig deeper into the former secretary of state’s email setup.
House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said he’ll now consider a “full range of options” to address IT aide Bryan Pagliano’s “failure” to attend.
“He should be here. … It is not optional,” Chaffetz said. “His attendance is required here.”
Pagliano is considered a vital witness in the Clinton email case. He spoke previously to the FBI under immunity, telling the bureau there were no successful security breaches of the server. Pagliano also refused to answer questions last year before a House panel investigating the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. His lawyers said at the time that Pagliano did not want to relinquish his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.
Republicans on Tuesday questioned why Pagliano would avoid the latest hearing if he had immunity, though Democrats pushed back. According to Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Pagliano’s lawyer said the request was an “abuse of process.”
Two other officials from Platte River Networks, Bill Thornton and Paul Combetta, did comply with subpoenas to appear. However, when it came time to answer questions, they pleaded the Fifth. The Denver-based technology company maintained Clinton’s server when it was moved from her Chappaqua, New York, home to a data center in northern New Jersey.
Combetta took the Fifth six times and Thornton took the Fifth four times, before both witnesses were excused.
After each question, they recited a variation of the line: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer and assert my Fifth Amendment constitutional privilege.”
Cummings said he could “understand” why they were not addressing questions.
But Chaffetz voiced frustration when Thornton declined to even answer whether he’d been questioned by the FBI. GOP lawmakers have wanted to question tech officials on the deletion of email records and other alleged attempts to destroy devices.
Chaffetz also said there will be consequences for Pagliano's refusal to appear and for "thumbing his nose at Congress." He didn't specify what the penalties would be but said, "We're not letting go of this."
A letter from Pagliano's attorney released by the committee says Pagliano will continue to assert his constitutional right not to testify.
The only witness remaining after the unfruitful initial questioning was Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who answered lawmakers’ questions.
During that process, he confirmed that he had access to the Clinton server but did not hold a security clearance.
The email issue has shadowed Clinton's candidacy, and Republicans have been steadfast in focusing on her use of a private server for government business, with several high-profile hearings leading up to the election. Democrats insist the sole purpose of the hearings is to undermine Clinton's bid for the presidency.
Chaffetz on Monday escalated the GOP's battle with the FBI after its decision in July not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her use of the private email system by serving a top FBI official with a subpoena for the full case file. Chaffetz and other Republicans on the panel said the bureau has withheld summaries of interviews with witnesses and unnecessarily blacked out material from documents sent last month.
“We are entitled to the full file," he said.
Dismissing the "emergency" hearing held late on a Monday, Cummings said: "As far as I can tell, the only `emergency' is that the election is less than two months away."
Chaffetz issued the subpoena to Jason Herring, the acting assistant FBI director for congressional affairs. Herring and six other Obama administration officials appeared before the committee to discuss the investigative files. The witnesses on several occasions said they could not answer the questions from lawmakers in an open forum.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/13/clinton-it-expert-ignores-subpoena-skips-house-hearing-other-witnesses-plead-5th.html
Clinton granted two more weeks to respond to email questions in court case
The Hill ^ | 09/14/16 | Julian Hattem
Posted on 09/14/2016 11:40:20 AM PDT by detective
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has been granted a two-week extension to respond to a series of written questions about her use of a personal email server while secretary of State as part of a court case probing whether the system thwarted open records law.
Clinton’s legal team asked the conservative watchdog organization involved in the lawsuit, Judicial Watch, for the extra time last week, due to her obligations for the presidential campaign and the unavailability of lawyers, among other reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Clinton email wiper appears to have asked online how to hide 'VIP' info
By Maxim Lott
Published September 20, 2016
FoxNews.com
Archived comments unearthed by citizen-detectives on Reddit indicate that Paul Combetta -- the tech specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails from her server -- may have sought advice on the website for how to hide a certain “VIP’s” email address.
One archived comment from July 24, 2014 – during the same month that the State Department first asked Clinton aide Cheryl Mills to turn over the former secretary of state’s work-related emails from her personal server – shows Reddit user “stonetear” asking others on the site:
“Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email… Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?”
Multiple Reddit users at the time responded that it was not possible, saying Microsoft does not include an option to change addresses on existing emails because altering them could be used by people to evade court-ordered discovery procedures.
One wrote: “[If Microsoft Exchange] allowed this, it could result in major legal issues. There may be ways to hack a solution, but I am not aware of any.”
User “stonetear” responded: “The issue is that these emails involve the private email address of someone you'd recognize, and we're trying to replace it with a placeholder address as to not expose it.”
Reddit user “stonetear” appears to be a username used by Paul Combetta, the tech specialist with Platte River Networks who ultimately deleted Clinton’s emails and reportedly has received immunity from the Justice Department. Reddit users typically do not link real names to their accounts, but the website Etsy shows the profile “stonetear,” created in 2011, is registered to the name Paul Combetta. The email address stonetear@gmail.com is also linked to Combetta’s name, and the domain name combetta.com is registered under that email.
The connections have caught the attention of Capitol Hill. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told The Hill that the House oversight committee is now reviewing the Reddit posts.
The “stonetear” Reddit user frequently asked for and gave tech advice regarding servers over the years.
On Monday, as users on Reddit uncovered the old comments asking for tech advice, user “stonetear” began deleting every one of his comments and posts – but not before other Reddit users managed to archive them using the website “archive.is,” which allows anyone to archive a webpage (the archived page is then hosted on archive.is indefinitely, even if someone later deletes or alters the original.)
On Monday morning, one Reddit poster wrote “He's actually deleting his comments in real tim[e] right here.” Another made a video of the comments being deleted on the screen as he refreshed the page.
User “stonetear” made several comments in 2014 that line up with the Clinton scandal timeline.
According to the FBI report on Clinton’s email issues, Clinton aide Mills told the FBI that Hillary Clinton decided in December 2014 that she did not need emails older than 60 days, and Mills asked someone to implement that. The name of the person she asked was redacted by the FBI but later determined by The New York Times to be Paul Combetta.
“Stonetear” posted on Reddit that same month – on Dec. 10, 2014 – asking about how to set up a server which would automatically delete all emails after 60 days:
“I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder… All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days… How would I go about this?”
Nobody on Reddit responded to stonetear’s question.
The FBI report notes that in late March, the person the Times identified as Combetta realized he had in fact failed to implement the 60-day deletion policy as requested: “In a follow-up FBI interview… he believed he had an ‘oh shit’ moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox.”
The FBI report goes on to note he also used “Bleachbit” to make sure some backups were permanently deleted, and that several different backups were deleted at that time.
Combetta was reportedly granted immunity in exchange for answering their questions. However, when asked questions by Congress, Combetta invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer their questions.
Platte River Networks, where Paul Combetta worked, declined to comment to FoxNews.com and declined to comment about whether Combetta still works there. An email to Combetta’s address went unreturned Tuesday.
Other postings from “stonetear,” meanwhile, indicate he isn’t a fan of conservatives. On a post titled “Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman comes out in favor of gay marriage after son comes out as gay,” “stonetear” left this comment:
“Typical of conservatives in general... it's bad or evil or undesirable until it happens in their own family/life/neighborhood.”
Another post shows him asking for programming code that would automatically delete thousands of emails from a server. That post was from Aug. 26, 2013 – almost two years before Combetta actually deleted Clinton’s emails but just three months after the Clintons had hired the company Combetta worked for to run their server.
In another comment on Oct. 14, 2014, Combetta responded to another user who had asked about a server problem they were having by suggesting their error may be due to someone on their server trying to hide something:
“This is probably diving into paranoia,” he said, before going into his theory about their problem. “Just thinking outside the box. Plus I like devious shit like this :)” he wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/20/clinton-email-wiper-appears-to-have-asked-online-how-to-hide-vip-info.html
Lol at calling it corrupt because they can't use stolen property to help them politically.
Most of Clinton’s Recovered Emails Will Be Released After Election Day
Group seeking Clinton emails calls process ‘absolutely corrupt’
http://www.wsj.com/articles/most-of-clintons-recovered-emails-will-be-released-after-election-day-1474650119
Comey: Cheryl Mills' laptop contained 'some' classified information
Published September 28, 2016
FoxNews.com
FBI Director James Comey testified Wednesday that former Hillary Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and another top aide had “some” classified material on laptops they turned over to the bureau in its probe of Clinton's private server use as secretary of state -- yet the aides still received immunity.
Comey made the acknowledgment while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, where Republicans had tough questions about a newly revealed set of immunity deals in the Clinton case.
The director claimed the findings did not constitute a crime but declined to directly answer a question on whether having classified material on a laptop or other private electronic device was against federal regulations.
“You’d have to know the circumstances,” Comey told committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
Details about Mills and agency lawyer Heather Samuelson being granted immunity were first reported last week.
GOP lawmakers fumed at Wednesday's hearing that the bureau was too lax with those arrangements. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., lamented what he called the "DOJ immunity-producing machine," though Comey disagreed with that assessment.
Committee member Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican and former judge, asked Comey on Wednesday how and why Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity when investigators suspected they, like Clinton, had mishandled classified electronic information.
“You granted immunity to people you needed to make a case, if a case was going to be made?” Gohmert asked.
Comey explained that part of the process includes a “queen for a day” procedure in which investigators talk to witnesses or potential witnesses to hear what they might say when testifying before deciding on whether to grant immunity.
The presidential campaign for Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has defended the so-called “limited immunity,” saying it’s “fairly routine" in such investigations.
Comey on Wednesday referred to the deal as “act of production” immunity and said it assures those who cooperate that anything uncovered in their files outside the scope of the investigation cannot be used against them.
Comey also said the immunity was granted by the Justice Department. He called the immunity deal “fairly common” and suggested that Mills’ lawyer asked for the protection.
The FBI’s two-year investigation into the private server found numerous Clinton server emails contained classified information and she was “extremely careless.”
However, the agency concluded the investigation without recommending criminal prosecution, and the Justice Department closed the case this summer.
"It seems clear that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies involving the passing of classified information through her private email server. The FBI, however, declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable bases," Goodlatte said Wednesday. "We, as Congress and the American people, are troubled how such gross negligence is not punished."
Mills’ testimony in the FBI investigation and potential testimony before Congress was not covered in the immunity deal.
Five people were granted some form of immunity in the case including Mills, Samuelson, and former agency IT specialist Bryan Pagliano.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/28/comey-cheryl-mills-laptop-contained-some-classified-information.html
FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal, sources say
Published October 03, 2016
FoxNews.com
Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.
Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public -- in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.
The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search.
“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.
“Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?” Goodlatte asks.
The immunity deals for Mills and Samuelson, made as part of the FBI’s probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server when she served as secretary of state, apparently included a series of “side agreements” that were negotiated by Samuelson and Mills’ attorney Beth Wilkinson.
The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought against Clinton or her staff.
Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.
Committee aides also asked why the FBI and DOJ would enter into a voluntary negotiation to begin with, when the laptops could be obtained condition-free via a subpoena.
The letter also asked why the DOJ agreed to limit their search of the laptops to files before Jan. 31, 2015, which would “give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.”
Aides expressed shock at the parameter, saying it is especially troubling as Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.
“You’re essentially extending immunity to everyone,” one aide said.
The letter to Lynch sought to determine how many documents were blocked from FBI investigators because they fell outside of the date range agreed to by the DOJ.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-laptops-clinton-aides-with-immunity-deal-sources-say.html
Author: AG Lynch Had 'Secret' Meetings at White House About Email Probe
Oct 04, 2016 // 10:31am
As seen on Fox & Friends
Ed Klein, author of Guilty as Sin, said on Fox & Friends that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was going to the White House for "secret" meetings to keep the president up to date on the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.
He said that despite assurances to the public that the FBI would be conducting an independent investigation, Lynch was working with the White House on a "strategy" to make sure the former secretary of state would not face charges.
"[Lynch] was secretly going to the White House with FBI documents and filling in Valerie Jarrett and the President about what was going on so that they could get a strategy to make sure that [Clinton] would not be indicted," said Klein, citing sources inside the Obama administration, others that were in the Clinton administration and sources "very close to" Jarrett, Obama's top adviser.
Klein explained that originally, Obama wanted all documents concerning Clinton's emails to be turned over to the FBI and wanted her to face indictment so that Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren could become the Democratic nominee.
"[Obama] and Bill Clinton are blood feud guys. They really dislike each other and his feeling was if the Clintons got in the White House, the Obamas would be marginalized," said Klein, adding that Obama changed course when he realized he was "stuck with" Clinton as the nominee against Donald Trump.
Klein was then asked about Clinton's health in light of her recent bout of pneumonia and a near-collapse in public following a 9/11 commemoration.
According to his sources, Klein said Mrs. Clinton suffers from a heart valve problem that hasn't been corrected because she did not want health questions to dog her presidential run.
"She has a tendency, as we all know, to blood clot, so if she faints because of her low blood pressure and hits her head, she could have a blood clot that could be fatal," he added.
Watch the interview above and past Fox News appearances by Ed Klein, here.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/04/author-ed-klein-ag-lynch-had-secret-meetings-white-house-about-email-probe
Outrageous.
So who would investigate Lynch in this case? The FBI? And if there was a case for her prosecution, who would prosecute her?
Glad the Republicans have control of the House and the Senate! They will keep Obama in check! ::)
This is outrageous. To hell with them all. :-X
The complaint quotes a 2015 Washington Post report that said, “Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation.”
Thoughts?
I'll actually buy that. Our regulations are currently lagging about 10 years behind with shit like this, and that loophole will most likely be closed after Hillary is elected.
We may soon find out if Hillary was hiding something.
It would not surprise me one bit if Obama pardons Clinton.
White House coordinated with State Department, Clinton campaign on email issue, documents show
Published October 07, 2016
The Wall Street Journal
Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.
Their discussion included a request from the White House communications director to her counterpart at the State Department to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement.
In another instance, a top State Department official assured an attorney for Mrs. Clinton that, contrary to media reports, a department official hadn’t told Congress that Mrs. Clinton erred in using a private email account.
The previously unreported emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. The RNC provided to The Wall Street Journal only some of the emails, leaving it unclear what was in the remaining documents. The RNC said it released only emails relevant to the communication between the White House and State Department.
Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs, and strategy at the nonpartisan advocacy group Issue One and an expert on ethics and campaign finance, said the email exchange would probably raise no legal concerns because federal law permits members of the White House staff to engage in some political activity.
Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement has dogged her campaign for months, with Republicans and other critics saying it shows a carelessness with government secrets and undermines her claim to good judgment. Donald Trump’s campaign posted a statement on his website last month saying the Obama White House knew Mrs. Clinton was using a private email server.
Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged the arrangement was a mistake, but she has rejected the notion that national secrets were placed at risk. Her campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment about the new email disclosures.
The emails highlight the revolving door between the State Department, the White House and the Clinton campaign in early 2015 as Mrs. Clinton geared up to run for president.
Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/07/white-house-coordinated-with-state-department-clinton-campaign-on-email-issue-documents-show.html
At this point in time, this seems like a waste of resources, time and energy....all of which the tax paying public pays for.
Favor factory? Huma emails reveal Clinton allies seeking jobs, meetings
By Brooke Singman Published August 02, 2017 Fox News
Newly obtained emails from Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin reveal friends of the Clinton Foundation and political allies seeking personal favors from the Clinton State Department, Judicial Watch said Wednesday.
The batch of documents shows well-connected players, including a Clinton library donor, inquiring about meetings and job openings -- and Clinton aides carefully tending to those requests. The emails were among 1,606 pages the conservative watchdog group got from the State Department as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
“Pay to play, classified information mishandling, influence peddling, cover ups—these new emails show why the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s conduct must be resumed,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/02/favor-factory-huma-emails-reveal-clinton-allies-seeking-jobs-meetings.html
At first they came up with "extremely careless", then they claimed "no records were found" for the Clinton-Lynch meeting (even though somehow they later discovered records) and now they cite a supposed "lack of public interest".
FBI shuts down request for files on Hillary Clinton by citing lack of public interest
By Alex Pappas Published August 29, 2017 Fox News
Why the FBI shut down a Hillary Clinton email request
The FBI is declining to turn over files related to its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by arguing a lack of public interest in the matter.
Ty Clevenger, an attorney in New York City, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in March of 2016 asking for a variety of documents from the FBI and the Justice Department, including correspondence exchanged with Congress about the Clinton email investigation.
But in a letter sent this week and obtained by Fox News, the head of the FBI’s Records Management Division told Clevenger that the bureau has “determined you have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/29/fbi-shuts-down-request-for-files-on-hillary-clinton-by-citing-lack-public-interest.html
Comey began drafting 'exoneration statement' before interviewing Clinton, senators say
By Alex Pappas Published August 31, 2017 Fox News
Then-FBI Director James Comey began drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in the investigation into her private email use before interviewing key witnesses, including Clinton herself, two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.
“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation,” Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote in a letter this week to the FBI. “The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”
Grassley and Graham said they learned about Comey’s draft "exoneration statement" after reviewing transcripts of interviews with top Comey aides.
“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,” the senators said.
They added, “That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/comey-began-drafting-exoneration-statement-before-interviewing-clinton-senators-say.html
New evidence unveils disturbing facts about Hillary's email scandal
In breaking news, the American Center for Law and Justice or ACLJ (Jay Sekulow's organization, not related to his role as the President's attorney), has obtained actual copies of the immunity agreements pertaining to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in the Hillary email scandal. This was a stunning litigation win, hard-fought after years of litigation by the ACLJ attorneys, who were unable to extract the documents through the normal FOIA processes, due to a lack of cooperation by the government.
In reviewing what the agreements uncovered, keep in mind that Cheryl Mills was Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff at the State Department and then bizarrely, she subsequently served as Clinton’s attorney, representing her in the email scandal. Heather Samuelson worked on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, and then became a Senior Advisor to her at the State Department, as well as the White House liaison. Somehow, she also became one of Clinton's personal attorneys during the email scandal.
The immunity agreements issued by the government, were crafted so that the agencies could extract information from the parties, despite the fact that this is not necessary because DOJ has the power to require that the information be turned over. Clinton kept classified emails on a private server in violation of Federal law, and the immunity agreements reveal that both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were actively involved in the cover-up of these emails as well as in the destruction of evidence. According to Jordon Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, it is extremely unusual for someone involved in a criminal cover up, who needs an immunity deal to ensure the evasion of jail time, later becomes the attorney representing the other potential criminal or co-conspirator.
The agreements issued were with DOJ and the FBI. They asserted that Mills and Samuelson would turn over the computers to them, but stipulated that they weren't turning over "custody and control". This critical point is a legal and factual bunch of bunk. The FOIA statute applies to information in the agencies' "custody and control". Anything not in their custody or control cannot be FOIA'd. It is impossible to have an agency physically have a computer and not have it in their "custody or control." Custody and control is not something that suspects have to expressly give over or agree to give over. When they give over the evidence, then obviously, as a matter of fact, they are also giving the agency "custody and control" over that evidence. Suspects cannot withhold "custody and control" by mere words or lack of consent, as consent is not required. In other words, these agreements are extremely flawed and whomever signed off on them should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted. It is clear that the purpose of this clause was to make the arguably illegal activities of Mills and Samuelson out of the reach of FOIA --- in other words, it would be withheld from the public. This is the very definition of corruption.
Additionally, the immunity agreements were broad in scope. There were numerous charges that the agreements gave them immunity from including potential violations of the Federal Records Act, the Classified Information Act and the Espionage Act. According to the ACLJ, nobody has ever gotten immunity from the Espionage Act before. Normally, immunity is for lesser crimes like obstruction of justice, but not espionage. If Mills and Samuelson were charged and convicted of every crime from which they received immunity, they would be potentially subject to twenty-eight years in jail each.
After Clinton illegally sent classified emails on a private server and cell phones (and by the way, people have gone to jail for this even when they did so accidentally because it's that serious), and after Mills and Samuelson purposely worked to cover up and conceal both the emails and the destruction of evidence, and after they were given a sweetheart deal that nobody in history has ever gotten, they became the attorneys for Clinton, representing her in the email case. This shouldn't be allowed because it is a conflict of interests, and not only gives the appearance of impropriety, but indeed, constitutes actual impropriety.
Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the timeframe parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails. To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails. As Congressman Jim Jordan referenced during the Mueller hearings recently, the FBI used bleachBit to purge the server so the information could never be accessed in the future and used hammers to smash the cell phones involved. In other words, the FBI and DOJ participated in the destruction of the evidence. In effect, this constitutes is a conspiracy between the Obama DOJ (under Loretta Lynch) and the Comey-led FBI to cover up Clinton’s crimes.
Shortly thereafter, Comey came out publicly and held a press conference exonerating Clinton from any criminal activity, knowing full well that she was never thoroughly investigated, and that his own agency had participated in the destruction of evidence.
To reiterate Comey’s assertions, he stated that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified and sensitive information, but not "grossly negligent", even though the definition of grossly negligent is extremely careless. Gross negligence is the language in the statute necessary to prosecute someone who does this and Comey inaccurately professed that no prosecutor would pursue a case based on these facts, even though those with lesser evidence have indeed been charged.
Currently, there are investigations taking place pertaining to the Clinton email scandal cover-up, as well as the origins of the Trump investigation by the Mueller team, including the roots of the FISA applications. All of the documents uncovered by the ACLJ’s legal win will constitute valuable evidence for AG Bill Barr, the IG and others. Many who follow what is really going on, on a day to day basis have been repeatedly disappointed in the biased and one-sided investigations and the cover-up or blatant disregard of critical facts implicating the pro-Clinton, anti-Trump teams. But Bill Barr and his team are fairly new to the process. He and others, including John Durham, will finally have the opportunity to get to the bottom of all this --- and finally disclose the real collusion, corruption, and obstruction. There’s still hope.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274484/new-evidence-unveils-disturbing-facts-about-deborah-weiss
HILLARY HEALTH EXCLUSIVE: Witness Reveals in 2016 Presidential Campaign Hillary Used a WHEELCHAIR, Couldn’t Walk a Block and Had a “Med Bag” with Her at All Times
Gateway Pundit ^ | 02/15/22 | Joe Hoft
Posted on 2/15/2022, 6:28:52 PM by AnthonySoprano
Based on new evidence uncovered today, Hillary Clinton was carted all over in a wheelchair during her 2016 Presidential campaign. She couldn’t walk a city block and she had a “med bag” near her at all times. We wrote on August 15, 2016 that Hillary was so exhausted that she was taking weekends off. This article caught fire and was the top story at Drudge that day. (Snip) I was the (LE) supervisor assigned to the hotel she [Hillary] was staying at… Everything was enclosed. Walkways within the hotel were enclosed with tarps. And that Scooby van that everybody calls, we were talking about it and there were secret service agents there and they were talking like, ‘Oh yeah, they have it specially made for her. It’s curb height because she can’t step up or down. They want it right at the curb so she can walk right in to it.’
[During a walkthrough a week or so before the event with the Secret Service, Police and hotel staff] We were walking around and where she was going to practice her debate was at the other end of the hotel in a conference room… It’s like a whole block away…The Secret Service agents looked at us and said, ‘she can’t do this… She can’t walk
Snip
I’m in the communications center and there’s some bickering on the radio because you can hear Secret Service talking and they’re bickering back and forth. I’m not thinking much about it. So they get there. And of course, when they get there the hotel shuts down completely… Wherever you are you’re locked down completely and you can’t leave because Hillary doesn’t want to see you…Nobody is supposed to see her. She doesn’t want to look at anybody.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Clinton cornered: Hillary refuses to answer questions about Durham revelation she paid to spy on the Trump campaign as she arrives at daughter Chelsea's Manhattan home ahead of the New York Democratic Convention
Daily Mail ^ | 2/15/2022 | Laura Collins
Posted on 2/15/2022, 12:28:52
Hillary Clinton refused to answer questions about allegations that her allies spied on the Trump campaign as the controversy continued to engulf her Tuesday.
Exclusive pictures and video obtained by DailyMail.com show a stoney faced Clinton silently waving away repeated questions of whether she spied on Donald Trump.
She refused to say when or if she planned to comment. Clinton was arriving at her daughter Chelsea’s Manhattan apartment mid morning.
Wearing a blue coat and black pants, she looked strained behind her black face mask as she stoically ran the gauntlet of questions.
The former first lady and secretary of state is slated as the keynote speaker at Thursday's New York state Democratic convention.
It comes after a Friday court filing by Special Counsel John Durham which alleged Clinton's 2016 campaign paid a tech firm to infiltrate Trump Tower servers and later White House servers in a bid to establish a link between Trump and Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
LOCK HER UP!
Hillary Clinton: Putin Motivated to Invade Ukraine by Trump, January 6
Breitbart ^ | 02/25/2022 | Wendell Husebo
Posted on 2/25/2022, 1:23:50 PM
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a Friday Atlantic op-ed blamed Russia’s assault on Ukraine on former President Donald Trump, tying Vladimir Putin’s ongoing invasion to the January 6 Capitol riot.
In an opinion piece that used the word “democracy” 47 times, Clinton claimed Putin, the “implacable enemy of democracy,” attacked Ukraine in part because “Republican leaders are abandoning core tenets of American democracy even as the stakes in the global contest between democracy and autocracy are clearer and higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Thank God she is not POTUS.
Who cares what Hilary does, how she acts, whether or not her expression is strained, and what she says. This is 2022, she's old news.
Who cares what Hilary does, how she acts, whether or not her expression is strained, and what she says. This is 2022, she's old news.
Who cares what Hilary does, how she acts, whether or not her expression is strained, and what she says. This is 2022, she's old news.