DONE - GOING TO JAIL! -- Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release'

[Arianrhod]

IF the material in question was "NOT MARKED", then what specific crime was committed? Unless or until documents are classified, they are by definition NOT CLASSIFIED.

What specific law was broken and when. Material classified after the fact doe not an illegal action make.

Are you not white until you are marked white? Not black until you are marked black? She knows what is classified without it being marked.

Are you a document?

 

[bravoactual]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/u...lary-clinton-over-classified-emails.html?_r=0.

"The emails were not marked as classified when they passed through Mrs. Clinton's server ; in reviewing them recently, officials determined their content should be kept from the public. But have provided new ammunition over the weekend for critics who say Mrs. Clinton has been dishonest and put national security at risk"

Meaning their were NOT classified when they were sent to Ms. Clinton.

No violation of law occurred.

Also Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[bravoactual]

IF the material in question was "NOT MARKED", then what specific crime was committed? Unless or until documents are classified, they are by definition NOT CLASSIFIED.

What specific law was broken and when. Material classified after the fact doe not an illegal action make.

Are you not white until you are marked white? Not black until you are marked black? She knows what is classified without it being marked.

Are you a document?

Do you have a document?

What specific law was broken and when? Where is your proof/

 

[9aces]

How can liberals convince themselves Hillary can be trusted....really?!

During an interview in Iowa today she reportedly declared she has NO IDEA what 22 e-mails the Obama administration is holding & refusing to release under ANY circumstances because they are 'Dangerous'.

(To WHO? Natl Security or Obama? It is being reported they now know Obama e-mailed Hillary 18 times, the details of which have not been released. Are Obama's 18 e-mails among the 22 he refuses to release?)

After claiming not to know what e-mails they are she then later declared she was not the originator of any of them.

This is where you throw the 'Lying / BS' flag, hitting her in the forehead - if she has no clue what e-mails are being held then how can she guarantee she was not the originator of any of them? The fact is she contradicted herself.... It's hard to keep up with all the lies when you tell so many so often...

The 18 emails involving Obama are separate. Which I agree with the rationale not to release those, the president should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in consultation with his advisers.

Now of course, this does appear to contradict Obama's "I didn't know she had a private server" since it was used for this, but that's a minor point at best.

Hillary may not have any idea what those emails involve....she might not have the security clearance these days to see them.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[9aces]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/u...lary-clinton-over-classified-emails.html?_r=0.

"The emails were not marked as classified when they passed through Mrs. Clinton's server ; in reviewing them recently, officials determined their content should be kept from the public. But have provided new ammunition over the weekend for critics who say Mrs. Clinton has been dishonest and put national security at risk"

Meaning their were NOT classified when they were sent to Ms. Clinton.

No violation of law occurred.

Also Innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed, innocent until proven guilty.

However we have her words advising her personnel to strip off classified markings and send emails without. Remember that's in the information that has been released.

So the emails in those instances would have been classified when sent to her. The SAP items are particularly troubling, given the protocols involved just to view them. There's no defense of "I didn't know" because certain steps have to be taken just to view them. That information is not only "born classified", it's need to know only. To get those onto a private server would require they be copied (which is a security violation in and of itself) to send to it.

That's why this is really troubling.

 

[easyt65]

(Side note: Some of the same liberals declaring Hillary to be innocent until proven guilty are the same ones declaring yesterday that the militia members out west - who have not been arrested / brought to trial - are 'guilty', should be thrown in prison, and some even said they should be killed / deserve to die. Th e hypocrisy is amazingly vile.)

 

[rightwinger]

DeLay?
Washington Times?

Can you come up with more unreliable sources?

The only thing RW knows how to say when anyone posts anything negative about libs is 'Your source isn't valid' because that's all Obama, Hillary, and Alynski TAUGHT him to say.

Washington Times is a rightwing rag
Delay is a convicted criminal

and the Washington post is a left wing rag
Hillary is a corrupt lying bitch
whats your point?

The Washington Post is one of the most honored papers in our country. The Washington Times is a rag with no credibility

It is embarrassing for you to compare the two

What's embarrassing is your total indoctrination into the far left bullshit and lies. Do you have any brain cells that are still functioning?

Rather than trying to denigrate the source, how about posting something to actually defend your positions that Hillary "did nothing wrong" ?

As to the Washington Post, it is as far left as the NY Times. It is a propaganda rag for the dems and liberalism in general. it has zero credibility on political matters.

I always have to laugh when conservatives equate garbage like The Washington Times to The New York Times and Washington Post

 

[rightwinger]

IF the material in question was "NOT MARKED", then what specific crime was committed? Unless or until documents are classified, they are by definition NOT CLASSIFIED.

What specific law was broken and when. Material classified after the fact doe not an illegal action make.

Are you not white until you are marked white? Not black until you are marked black? She knows what is classified without it being marked.

How?

Especially since nobody considered it classified until five years later

 

[paperview]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/u...lary-clinton-over-classified-emails.html?_r=0.

"The emails were not marked as classified when they passed through Mrs. Clinton's server ; in reviewing them recently, officials determined their content should be kept from the public. But have provided new ammunition over the weekend for critics who say Mrs. Clinton has been dishonest and put national security at risk"

Meaning their were NOT classified when they were sent to Ms. Clinton.

No violation of law occurred.

Also Innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed, innocent until proven guilty.

However we have her words advising her personnel to strip off classified markings and send emails without. Remember that's in the information that has been released.
....

No you don't

 

[easyt65]

RW, Hillary did not sign a legally required govt document. That's a crime. GUILTY!

Hillary lied under oath about the number of devices she used. That is Perjury. GUILTY!

Hillary's server was not configured as required by the law, was entrusted to a company whose employees did not have the security clearances or authorization required. Those are crimes. GUILTY.

Hillary failed to turn over everything required according to the law to the State Department. That is a crime. GUILTY.

Crimes that have nothing to do with specific e-mails have been identified.

...more than enough to call for a Grand Jury so THEY can decide if she should be indicted. If she truly is innocent, why not let a Grand Jury decide if an indictment is warranted? Why are liberals so frightened to allow the justice system to decide instead of partisans / politicians?

 

[easyt65]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/u...lary-clinton-over-classified-emails.html?_r=0.

"The emails were not marked as classified when they passed through Mrs. Clinton's server ; in reviewing them recently, officials determined their content should be kept from the public. But have provided new ammunition over the weekend for critics who say Mrs. Clinton has been dishonest and put national security at risk"

Meaning their were NOT classified when they were sent to Ms. Clinton.

No violation of law occurred.

Also Innocent until proven guilty.

Indeed, innocent until proven guilty.

However we have her words advising her personnel to strip off classified markings and send emails without. Remember that's in the information that has been released.
....

No you don't

You're right - we don't. We have several of her subordinates saying that's what she did.

 

[JoeB131]

(Side note: Some of the same liberals declaring Hillary to be innocent until proven guilty are the same ones declaring yesterday that the militia members out west - who have not been arrested / brought to trial - are 'guilty', should be thrown in prison, and some even said they should be killed / deserve to die. Th e hypocrisy is amazingly vile.)

Since the redneck militia members stated they intended to break the law and announced who they were, can't feel too bad when they get what's coming to them.

Frankly, I think law enforcement was too lenient with these guys. It's not like they were a 12 year old playing with a toy gun. But they were white.

 

[easyt65]

Thanks for making my point, Joe.

 

[JoeB131]

Crimes that have nothing to do with specific e-mails have been identified.

...more than enough to call for a Grand Jury so THEY can decide if she should be indicted. If she truly is innocent, why not let a Grand Jury decide if an indictment is warranted? Why are liberals so frightened to allow the justice system to decide instead of partisans / politicians?

Guy, out here in the real world, no one is going to throw you in jail over getting an e-mail or how many devices you have any more than they were going to throw anyone in jail because they lied about getting a blow job.

IT seems to me Hillary has asked for these 22 E-mails to be declassified, and the FBI are the ones insisting on keeping them secret but trust us, this is really, really serious, guys....

 

[Timmy]

Can I get a link to the actual laws that were broken?

And wouldnt anyone who emailed hillary also be just as guilty ?

 

[JoeB131]

Thanks for making my point, Joe.

The only point you have is at the top of your head, Zippy.

Here's the thing. If Hillary did EVERYTHING you said she did, so fucking what?

Nobody died because she didn't have the right e-mail server. Unlike Bush's lies about WMD's.

 

[Timmy]

(Side note: Some of the same liberals declaring Hillary to be innocent until proven guilty are the same ones declaring yesterday that the militia members out west - who have not been arrested / brought to trial - are 'guilty', should be thrown in prison, and some even said they should be killed / deserve to die. Th e hypocrisy is amazingly vile.)

Since the redneck militia members stated they intended to break the law and announced who they were, can't feel too bad when they get what's coming to them.

Frankly, I think law enforcement was too lenient with these guys. It's not like they were a 12 year old playing with a toy gun. But they were white.

Bit of a legal paradox.

How can you prove HILLARY did something wrong if you can't allow the emails into evidence because they are "super secret " .

 

[JoeB131]

Can I get a link to the actual laws that were broken?

And wouldnt anyone who emailed hillary also be just as guilty ?

That's a very good point. No one charged Petreaus' mistress for seeing the classified documents. It seems the person who is guilty of something is whoever copy and pasted the "classified" (not really) info off the SAP Server, not whoever was on the e-mail chain that eventually found its way into Hillary's inbox. That also begs the question, does everyone else on the e-mail chain who got the e-mail also guilty of a crime? What if someone resent it with a video of a cute kitten attached? Are they guilty of a crime.

 

[easyt65]

Scooter Libby was jailed for perjury for mis-remembering dates, nothing that had to do with Bush. He was thrown in jail by the POS Holder who was caught perpetrating 3 Felony Counts of Perjury in an attempt to cover up Obama's Fast & Furious scandal.

In your liberal 'real' world the 'conservative' went to jail for perjury for less than Hillary was caught lying about and far less than Holder's crimes of perjury.

Holder was protected by a politically corrupt and crimjnal DOJ and President, the same 2 that will protect Hillary.