Hillary Back In The Jackpot?

[Tom Horn]

First, the investigation into Clinton's emails has been closed. Unless some new evidence is found it will remain that way.

No "new evidence" is necessary. They could have thrown the book at the witch with what they had but decided to ignore. There are 5 felonies she clearly committed on her deleted emails alone and not a single word about "intent" in any of them. He walked right past what their Foundation was up to with Putin getting our uranium and Willy getting a check for $500k in Moscow. She was dead-banged but Comey decided to protect her.

 

[Richard-H]

Oh yeah...

One other aspect of the Clinton email investigation...

Since Clinton was the senior State Department official, it was up to her what was and was not classified - regarding State Department information. Only the President had higher authority. Other than that she had the authority to over ride anyone else's determination as to the classification level of the information. By definition anything she sent was declassified under her authority as Secretary of State.

Only if it contained information classified by some other department - like the Department of Defense - would she have been libel. Even then it would be somewhat doubtful.

 

[Tom Horn]

Oh yeah...

One other aspect of the Clinton email investigation...

Since Clinton was the senior State Department official, it was up to her what was and was not classified - regarding State Department information. Only the President had higher authority. Other than that she had the authority to over ride anyone else's determination as to the classification level of the information. By definition anything she sent was declassified under her authority as Secretary of State.

Only if it contained information classified by some other department - like the Department of Defense - would she have been libel. Even then it would be somewhat doubtful.

Idiotic....you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Richard-H]

Oh yeah...

One other aspect of the Clinton email investigation...

Since Clinton was the senior State Department official, it was up to her what was and was not classified - regarding State Department information. Only the President had higher authority. Other than that she had the authority to over ride anyone else's determination as to the classification level of the information. By definition anything she sent was declassified under her authority as Secretary of State.

Only if it contained information classified by some other department - like the Department of Defense - would she have been libel. Even then it would be somewhat doubtful.

Idiotic....you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you do not believe that the system of seniority applies to the determination of classification? Seriously?

Some pentagon clerk's determination cannot be over ridden by the President?

 

[bodecea]

With Comey the Clown out of the picture, Hillary best be careful with her little snarks aimed at the president. Although Trump isn't a vindictive man, there's only so much of her he's going to put up with. She claimed she had joined "the resistance" the other day and like all the other Rat elites, refused to condemn Soros' street thugs or campus Stalinists running roughshod over our First Amendment. Yesterday she said he fired the Director because "Comey was onto him".... Hopefully it's too late for her to unring that bell and the new FBI comes at her like a pack of ninjas.

President Trump’s decision to fire James Comey touched off widespread speculation in Washington over what will happen to the FBI’s Russia meddling probe – but the prospect of new leadership at the bureau also could hold implications for the ‘closed’ Hillary Clinton email case.

Brian Weidner, a veteran former FBI agent, suggested both the case and the immunity deals struck during that investigation could be revisited.

"I would be surprised if they did not review all the investigations regarding HRC and come up with [a] conclusion regarding prosecution. The statute of limitations hasn't come into play yet," he said in an email to Fox News.

Comey firing could spur new review of Clinton case, immunity deals, ex-agent says

This, most certainly, is the Deflection de Jure today for the RussianW.

 

[task0778]

That might depend on what is ruled as admissable evidence and what isn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure what might or might not be allowed for the grand jury to consider. Nor am I certain that the court could say with certainty who actually did what. Was it Hillary or someone else? Maybe at her direction? Got proof of that? Who is going to testify against her in court and say she told me to do this or that? My guess is nobody.

The first one they flipped.....none of those characters would face prison to protect the old witch.

I plead the 5th. That's all they gotta say, and I think that's what they'd all say. No reason for anybody to spill the beans and some good reasons not to. Would you want the Clintons and they accolytes after your ass? Your political futureowuld definitely be over, that's for sure.

 

[bodecea]

First, I wouldn't say that Trump isn't a vindictive man; yeah, I think he most definitely is. Second, while I believe Hillary should have faced an indictment and had her day in court like everyone else, she is also entitled to the same legal defense and rules of evidence as everyone else. My thinking is that she deliberately and willfully decided to send and receive classified information on an unprotected server, this making it hackable to pretty much anybody. And then lied about it and destroyed any evidence she could to preclude any prosecution. And for all that IMHO she should have been convicted, but the question is whether it could be proved in a court of law, and Comey was probably right when he said he didn't think most prosecutors wouldn't have brought the case to court due to a lack of usable evidence.

Not only would any prosecutor worth a ham sandwich have prosecuted her, but convicted her with ease. Comey was so hated at the Bureau for not moving on her that long-time friends walked past him in the hallways without making eye-contact. He gave immunity to 5 of her aides without anything in return! He refused to look at her Foundation which was so obviously a money-laundering and influence-peddling operation that a first year law student could have taken her apart on it. And no, Trump isn't a vindictive man but he keeps track of who's attacking him.

So.....where's those indictments?

 

[jc456]

Don's a whiney little bitch at the end of the day. Oh it's harder than I thought it would be. I liked my old life, all I did was sell the use of my name for rubes to fawn over. Who knew healthcare reform could be so complicated..

all factual shit.

 

[jc456]

The worse that things get for the Trump-traitor and his Trumptards, the more deflection threads they create. At least the Trumptards are obedient corrupt party hacks, if nothing else.

huh? worse? where?

 

[Richard-H]

Ah the massive DEFLECTION is awesome!

Trump fires Comey - hoping to derail the Russia investigation.

So, the wingnuts turn it into a debate about Clinton.

wiggle, wiggle, slippery and sleazy.....

 

[pismoe]

First, I wouldn't say that Trump isn't a vindictive man; yeah, I think he most definitely is. Second, while I believe Hillary should have faced an indictment and had her day in court like everyone else, she is also entitled to the same legal defense and rules of evidence as everyone else. My thinking is that she deliberately and willfully decided to send and receive classified information on an unprotected server, this making it hackable to pretty much anybody. And then lied about it and destroyed any evidence she could to preclude any prosecution. And for all that IMHO she should have been convicted, but the question is whether it could be proved in a court of law, and Comey was probably right when he said he didn't think most prosecutors wouldn't have brought the case to court due to a lack of usable evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------- from what i hear that decision was not 'comeys' decision to make Task !!

It was his job to make a recommendation though, and that's what he did. It was the DOJ's call whether to accept that recommendation which they did.

--------------------------------------------
and i think it was crooked Attorney General 'lynch' that went along with 'comey' recommendation Task .

 

[jc456]

Ah the massive DEFLECTION is awesome!

Trump fires Comey - hoping to derail the Russia investigation.

So, the wingnuts turn it into a debate about Clinton.

wiggle, wiggle, slippery and sleazy.....

what russia investigation? Name one thing found.

 

[task0778]

Oh yeah...

One other aspect of the Clinton email investigation...

Since Clinton was the senior State Department official, it was up to her what was and was not classified - regarding State Department information. Only the President had higher authority. Other than that she had the authority to over ride anyone else's determination as to the classification level of the information. By definition anything she sent was declassified under her authority as Secretary of State.

Only if it contained information classified by some other department - like the Department of Defense - would she have been libel. Even then it would be somewhat doubtful.

Idiotic....you have no idea what you're talking about.

So you do not believe that the system of seniority applies to the determination of classification? Seriously?

Some pentagon clerk's determination cannot be over ridden by the President?

Hillary did not have the authority to change any information that came from outside the State Dept from classified to unclassified, only the originating office can do that. BY LAW. Within State there are certain rules that say communications between the US Gov't and other gov'ts are classified, she doesn't get to change that either. And for a senior official to override the security classification of a document exposes them to some serious repercussions, maybe not legal ones but for sure political ones, up to and including losing your clearance and getting fired.

 

[Tom Horn]

I plead the 5th. That's all they gotta say, and I think that's what they'd all say. No reason for anybody to spill the beans and some good reasons not to. Would you want the Clintons and they accolytes after your ass? Your political futureowuld definitely be over, that's for sure.

Refusing to testify has never exonerated anybody...in fact it leads to more convictions than being caught lying in testimony. And you missed the point......if they FLIPPED Huma (and they could because she violated her immunity agreement by not disclosing the emails she sent to Weiner's computer) the dam would break with the rest of them playing CYA and begging for immunity.

 

[task0778]

First, I wouldn't say that Trump isn't a vindictive man; yeah, I think he most definitely is. Second, while I believe Hillary should have faced an indictment and had her day in court like everyone else, she is also entitled to the same legal defense and rules of evidence as everyone else. My thinking is that she deliberately and willfully decided to send and receive classified information on an unprotected server, this making it hackable to pretty much anybody. And then lied about it and destroyed any evidence she could to preclude any prosecution. And for all that IMHO she should have been convicted, but the question is whether it could be proved in a court of law, and Comey was probably right when he said he didn't think most prosecutors wouldn't have brought the case to court due to a lack of usable evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------- from what i hear that decision was not 'comeys' decision to make Task !!

It was his job to make a recommendation though, and that's what he did. It was the DOJ's call whether to accept that recommendation which they did.

--------------------------------------------
and i think it was crooked Attorney General 'lynch' that went along with 'comey' recommendation Task .

Yes. But that's beside the point isn't it? Should the DOJ pursue cases where the chances for a conviction are somewhat questionable? Of a major party presidential candidate? Do you do that unless your case is a pretty strong one? Comey thought not; we might question that decision or the timing or the manner in which he handled or mishandled the whole thing. I think she was guilty as hell, but proving it in a court of law is another matter.

 

[pismoe]

First, I wouldn't say that Trump isn't a vindictive man; yeah, I think he most definitely is. Second, while I believe Hillary should have faced an indictment and had her day in court like everyone else, she is also entitled to the same legal defense and rules of evidence as everyone else. My thinking is that she deliberately and willfully decided to send and receive classified information on an unprotected server, this making it hackable to pretty much anybody. And then lied about it and destroyed any evidence she could to preclude any prosecution. And for all that IMHO she should have been convicted, but the question is whether it could be proved in a court of law, and Comey was probably right when he said he didn't think most prosecutors wouldn't have brought the case to court due to a lack of usable evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------- from what i hear that decision was not 'comeys' decision to make Task !!

It was his job to make a recommendation though, and that's what he did. It was the DOJ's call whether to accept that recommendation which they did.

--------------------------------------------
and i think it was crooked Attorney General 'lynch' that went along with 'comey' recommendation Task .

Yes. But that's beside the point isn't it? Should the DOJ pursue cases where the chances for a conviction are somewhat questionable? Of a major party presidential candidate? Do you do that unless your case is a pretty strong one? Comey thought not; we might question that decision or the timing or the manner in which he handled or mishandled the whole thing. I think she was guilty as hell, but proving it in a court of law is another matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- let the Court of law make the decision is my opinion Task .

 

[task0778]

I plead the 5th. That's all they gotta say, and I think that's what they'd all say. No reason for anybody to spill the beans and some good reasons not to. Would you want the Clintons and they accolytes after your ass? Your political futureowuld definitely be over, that's for sure.

Refusing to testify has never exonerated anybody...in fact it leads to more convictions than being caught lying in testimony. And you missed the point......if they FLIPPED Huma (and they could because she violated her immunity agreement by not disclosing the emails she sent to Weiner's computer) the dam would break with the rest of them playing CYA and begging for immunity.

Refusing to testify never convicted anybody either. You're forgetting that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but it's all academic at this point. Maybe they reopen the case with a new FBI Director and a new AG, seems to me they've got a better case for obstruction of justice. But again, I'm not a lawyer

 

[task0778]

First, I wouldn't say that Trump isn't a vindictive man; yeah, I think he most definitely is. Second, while I believe Hillary should have faced an indictment and had her day in court like everyone else, she is also entitled to the same legal defense and rules of evidence as everyone else. My thinking is that she deliberately and willfully decided to send and receive classified information on an unprotected server, this making it hackable to pretty much anybody. And then lied about it and destroyed any evidence she could to preclude any prosecution. And for all that IMHO she should have been convicted, but the question is whether it could be proved in a court of law, and Comey was probably right when he said he didn't think most prosecutors wouldn't have brought the case to court due to a lack of usable evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------- from what i hear that decision was not 'comeys' decision to make Task !!

It was his job to make a recommendation though, and that's what he did. It was the DOJ's call whether to accept that recommendation which they did.

--------------------------------------------
and i think it was crooked Attorney General 'lynch' that went along with 'comey' recommendation Task .

Yes. But that's beside the point isn't it? Should the DOJ pursue cases where the chances for a conviction are somewhat questionable? Of a major party presidential candidate? Do you do that unless your case is a pretty strong one? Comey thought not; we might question that decision or the timing or the manner in which he handled or mishandled the whole thing. I think she was guilty as hell, but proving it in a court of law is another matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- let the Court of law make the decision is my opinion Task .

My opinion is that it's a bad idea to indict somebody if your case isn't strong enough to get a conviction. The opportunities for using the judicial system as a political weapon would be a misuse of their function, and we ought to be careful of that.