How the FBI Could Derail Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run

[MarcATL]

Actually, now that I read the law that you have presented, I'm left wondering what it is you think HRC did that was outside of that law. Perhaps you can highlight for me the relevant section of the law that you think she violated.

Primarily sections (e) & (f).

If you think she didn't have emails on her server that were born classified, read this article.
<<snip>>
But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
<<snip>>

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

So the next question is, does having foreign correspondence violate the law that is being discussed. I would say no, the law being discussed relates to US defense information.

Short answer, yes. Like the email exchange she had on the Benghazi attack with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on 9/12/11.

I've given you all the facts you need, so I'm done.

You call the New York Post and unnamed sources "facts".

Nobody is authorized to speak on the record about ongoing investigations, I think we'll know by the first of April if they are going to recommend charges. Then again they may say nothing if it's taken to a grand jury, until indictments are issued. And don't be surprised if it touches more than the hildabeast.

More unsubstantiated and empty promises from the far rightwing fringe.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

Primarily sections (e) & (f).

If you think she didn't have emails on her server that were born classified, read this article.
<<snip>>
But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
<<snip>>

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

So the next question is, does having foreign correspondence violate the law that is being discussed. I would say no, the law being discussed relates to US defense information.

Short answer, yes. Like the email exchange she had on the Benghazi attack with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on 9/12/11.

I've given you all the facts you need, so I'm done.

You call the New York Post and unnamed sources "facts".

Nobody is authorized to speak on the record about ongoing investigations, I think we'll know by the first of April if they are going to recommend charges. Then again they may say nothing if it's taken to a grand jury, until indictments are issued. And don't be surprised if it touches more than the hildabeast.

More unsubstantiated and empty promises from the far rightwing fringe.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

FOAD

 

[MarcATL]

The man I originally replied to, was man enough to admit he was wrong w/o being called out.

You are not a man, not even close.

I've got a box full of medals that say otherwise. What do you have?

Thanks for your service Joe.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

[

There was no disclosure in this case, so I guess you could call it a technical violation.

Abraham Lesnik, 62, of Los Angeles, pleaded guilty last week to a single felony count of unauthorized possession of classified information, which he took home from his job at a Boeing facility in El Segundo, Calif.

Secrets Case Called a Puzzle - The New York Sun

Translator Pleads Guilty to Taking Documents

Translator Pleads Guilty to Taking Documents

So you were at this for a WHOLE DAY, and this was the best you could come up with. Okay- quick takedown.

Okay. Your first case was Abraham Lesnik, a nutcase who worked for Boeing who took classified documents home with him. The reason why the FBI was looking at him at all was that it was suspected he was actually spying for Israel.

When they found out he was just some schlub who brought his work home with him, they didn't want to show they had wasted their time and tried to charge him with bullshit. The Judge saw right through it and gave him probation.

Josh Gerstein: Lesnik Gets Probation

So first case- No jail time for a technical violation, and the only reason why there was an investigation at all was because something more serious was suspected.

Your second case was equally weak. In the midst of the Panic over the "War on An Emotional State", we got all afraid that some of the few guys we could find who could speak Arabic might be playing for the other team.

So big whoop, you found a case where America totally violated the rights of Muslims. That's nothing to be proud of.

Mehalba had been hired as an Arabic translator by Titan Systems Corp., a San Diego-based defense contractor, in September 2002 and began working at the Guantanamo Bay facility in January 2003. As part of his work there, Mehalba was granted an interim security clearance and given access to classified documents.

He was arrested at Boston's Logan International Airport in September 2003 after returning from a family visit in Egypt.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Michael D. Ricciuti, chief of the anti-terrorism unit in Boston's FBI office, told the court Monday that Mehalba had denied he was carrying "government-related material," but was found with computer discs containing 725 government documents. The prosecutor said more than half were marked "secret."

So again, this is a LOT more serious on it's face than not having a proper server. They guy walked out of a SECURE Facility and brought documents to a foreign country.

And they only went after him because- again- they suspected espinoge. When they found all he had done was mishandled documents, they let him plead guilty and let him go.

So, dude, you have two pretty weak cases where they didn't go to prison for what they were accused of, and you think that's good enough to go after a former First Lady, Senator/Secretary of State because she had a server in her bathroom.

Yup, you are going to sell that to a jury said no prosecutor, ever.

ROTFLMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

This is a Federal case moron, it became a Federal case when the FBI got involved.

Next moronic comment.

No, it became a political case when the Fumbling Boobs and Idiots got involved.

You do get that they'd better be able to convince a jury she did something wrong, right? A jury of Washington residents who vote Democratic.

LoLing!

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Oh right, that would be the war she voted for. LMAO at your attempted deflection. This situation goes way beyond billies perjury. And you idiots still rejoice that your senators didn't vote to convict clinton when he admitted to felonious conduct, but then you regressivecrats have never been real big on upholding oaths of office.

Again, guy, until 2008, when your Boy Bush fucked up the economy, i was more right wing than you are.

Now I know better.

Anyway, point is, if Bush didn't go to jail for killing a hundred thousand people, Hillary isn't going to jail for putting a file in the wrong server.... I'm sorry, you just don't get that.

Glad that you finally saw the light, truly.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

depends what the foreign correspondence is? Hillary is in violation of life, but unfortunately democrats are all brain dead and could care less.

Actually it doesn't depend on what the foreign correspondence is, by State Dept protocol all exchanges, regardless of their content, with foreign officials are automatically classified at the time they are created.

Don't you even understand the law that you cited? The classified information has to be "respecting the national defense" and be damaging to the United States. So yeah it does depend on what the correspondence is.

She had intelligence satellite photos on her server, you don't get more national defense than that. But go ahead you're going to defend the criminal till she goes to jail. That says much more about you than anything.

ummm, no she didn't.

Hillary Clinton emails included very secret satellite images « Hot Air

LoLing at a palooka using HotAir.com as a source.

ROTFLMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Just think of this. If she is elected democrats will have to deal with another Clinton impeachment beginning on day 1.

 

[MarcATL]

it was not an email to the Egyptian Prime Minister, it was a gvt. recorded, secure phone conversation, so OKTex was wrong on that....it was not an email on Hillary's server.

i figured it was something like that... but OK Texas doesn't like facts. He's convinced Hillary did something wrong and wants her punished for it. Even though Bush's mob did far worse things and people actually DIED because of what they did.

He likes Bush, he doesn't like Hilary...you see.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

So tell us, why did you pay money to post that here on this free web site? And why did Ben Afflek have Hillary's e-mail and President Obama did not?

Obama saw Hillary on a daily basis. Why would he need her personal e-mail?

Because Obama did not see Hillary on a daily basis, you are not very intelligent, or you are in serious denial. In fact would she even have a blackberry to send e-mails to across the hall?

Is she in the White house there stupid? Your IQ is a negative number, you might even be as dumb as your hero Hillary.

PS. Next fool.

So he calls her on the phone when she's not around. His people call her people.

You guys are really grasping at straws when your best argument is 'Ben Affleck".

LoLing!

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

She had classified information on her server, FACT.
The server and its network were not certified for classified information, FACT.
The server was kept in areas not approved for storage of classified material, FACT.
She allowed people not authorized access to the server,
FACT.

Now read the damn law and see how it squares with these FACTS.

Guy, it's like you lived through the whole Lewinsky thing and you didn't learn a fucking hting from it.

This isn't like she lied about intelligence and 5000 guys got killed over weapons that didn't exist.

You know, something we OUGHT to care about.

Oh right, that would be the war she voted for. LMAO at your attempted deflection. This situation goes way beyond billies perjury. And you idiots still rejoice that your senators didn't vote to convict clinton when he admitted to felonious conduct, but then you regressivecrats have never been real big on upholding oaths of office.

You and others on the right are truly ridiculous.

There is no objective, documented, verifiable evidence of 'wrongdoing' on the part of Clinton.

What you might 'think', or 'believe,' or 'feel' is irrelevant.

Until such time as you can provide that objective, documented, verifiable evidence, your claims are partisan and without merit.

 

[OKTexas]

She had classified information on her server, FACT.
The server and its network were not certified for classified information, FACT.
The server was kept in areas not approved for storage of classified material, FACT.
She allowed people not authorized access to the server,
FACT.

Now read the damn law and see how it squares with these FACTS.

Guy, it's like you lived through the whole Lewinsky thing and you didn't learn a fucking hting from it.

This isn't like she lied about intelligence and 5000 guys got killed over weapons that didn't exist.

You know, something we OUGHT to care about.

Oh right, that would be the war she voted for. LMAO at your attempted deflection. This situation goes way beyond billies perjury. And you idiots still rejoice that your senators didn't vote to convict clinton when he admitted to felonious conduct, but then you regressivecrats have never been real big on upholding oaths of office.

You and others on the right are truly ridiculous.

There is no objective, documented, verifiable evidence of 'wrongdoing' on the part of Clinton.

What you might 'think', or 'believe,' or 'feel' is irrelevant.

Until such time as you can provide that objective, documented, verifiable evidence, your claims are partisan and without merit.

That also pertains to you regressivecrats mindless deflection and pointless defense of this administrations lawless activities, but you never let that stop you. So just fuck off and hold your breath waiting for the FBIs recommended criminal charges.

 

[JoeB131]

Everything you say is babble, you live in some odd world where you believe that the secretary of state is really the Presidents secretary and is always in the White House. This is just your stupidity shining thru,

I live in a world where Hillary did the exact same thing Colin Powell did. Except Colin Powell wasn't ever accused of doing anything wrong, even though he mysteriously "erased" all his e-mail when Congress started asking questions like 'Where are those WMD's you went to war over."

 

[JoeB131]

Former first lady means shit, wow she was married to a guy that got elected, but her being a senator and SOS, means she has had more exposure to classified material than the average worker and should have known fucking better. She received the same briefings on what was required to be sent over secure networks everyone else in the dept did. She willfully ignored the same requirements she forced an ambassador out for. The bitch has no excuses.

Guy, you are moving the goalposts again. Your claim was people went to jail for what she did. I asked you to prove someone went to jail for that. The best you could find were two guys who were suspected of espionage who got probation for mishandling information because the investigators couldn't prove their cases.

Yes, the fact that she is a former First Lady REALLY DOES COUNT. When someone is ranked "The Most Admired Woman in America" for years on end, you really, really, really better have a strong case that she did something a reasonable person would think was wrong.

Oh, what's this stuff about an ambassador being fired? I notice you didn't put a name on that one, as someone might google it and find you are totally misrepresenting the issue.

So to further embarrass you..

U.S. Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration resigns over ‘differences’ with Washington


The audit by the State Department Office of Inspector General found that Gration repeatedly violated diplomatic security protocols at the embassy by using unsecured Internet connections despite warnings, according to a former State Department Africa Bureau official who has seen a draft of the report.

Embassy staffers complained about his lack of interpersonal skills and confrontational style, which generated low morale, the former official said.

A former major general in the Air Force, Gration had prided himself on his leadership and team-building skills, and his staff’s perceptions of him were a huge blow, the former official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he still works in Washington.

So let's review, shall we. He got in trouble not for using his own server, but unsecured connections in a foreign country. He also got in trouble because apparently his staff hated his guts because he was the kind of pompous asshole you normally get in the officers' corp.

Oh, yeah, and he didn't got to jail. He wasn't even fired. He resigned because a report was going to say bad stuff about his leadership style.

So again- more weak tea.

This is kind of depressingly familiar, actually. When the Wingnuts (and I was one of them at the time) wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for the horrid crime of lying about a blow job, we had to desperately try to find a case where that happened... and came up with these kind of fake analogies.

 

[Redfish]

Why are Republicans so focused on "derailing" Hillarys presidential run?

Why don't they just try to beat her on the issues?

Because they can't.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

totally wrong, when both sides are given equal time, the consevative viewpoint always wins. Why? because it is based on facts and logical thinking whereas the liberal viewpoint is based on feeeeeeeelings and fantasy.
But lets have a debate between clinton and trump, a real debate where the real issues are addressed and the history of each person is brought out.

He wil destroy her.

 

[Redfish]

She had classified information on her server, FACT.
The server and its network were not certified for classified information, FACT.
The server was kept in areas not approved for storage of classified material, FACT.
She allowed people not authorized access to the server,
FACT.

Now read the damn law and see how it squares with these FACTS.

Guy, it's like you lived through the whole Lewinsky thing and you didn't learn a fucking hting from it.

This isn't like she lied about intelligence and 5000 guys got killed over weapons that didn't exist.

You know, something we OUGHT to care about.

Oh right, that would be the war she voted for. LMAO at your attempted deflection. This situation goes way beyond billies perjury. And you idiots still rejoice that your senators didn't vote to convict clinton when he admitted to felonious conduct, but then you regressivecrats have never been real big on upholding oaths of office.

You and others on the right are truly ridiculous.

There is no objective, documented, verifiable evidence of 'wrongdoing' on the part of Clinton.

What you might 'think', or 'believe,' or 'feel' is irrelevant.


They both lied under oath, its called perjury. If you did it you would be in jail.

I do not understand why you want to excuse their lawbreaking. Are you that brainwashed?
Until such time as you can provide that objective, documented, verifiable evidence, your claims are partisan and without merit.

 

[MarcATL]

Why are Republicans so focused on "derailing" Hillarys presidential run?

Why don't they just try to beat her on the issues?

Because they can't.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

totally wrong, when both sides are given equal time, the consevative viewpoint always wins. Why? because it is based on facts and logical thinking whereas the liberal viewpoint is based on feeeeeeeelings and fantasy.
But lets have a debate between clinton and trump, a real debate where the real issues are addressed and the history of each person is brought out.

He wil destroy her.

I personally welcome that debate.

Honestly, I've had the suspicion that T-Rump may be a Democrat operative sent by the Clintons. Remember, he DID call Bill Clinton first BEFORE he decided to run. That is a well documented fact.

So yeah, I welcome that debate.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[Redfish]

Why are Republicans so focused on "derailing" Hillarys presidential run?

Why don't they just try to beat her on the issues?

Because they can't.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

totally wrong, when both sides are given equal time, the consevative viewpoint always wins. Why? because it is based on facts and logical thinking whereas the liberal viewpoint is based on feeeeeeeelings and fantasy.
But lets have a debate between clinton and trump, a real debate where the real issues are addressed and the history of each person is brought out.

He wil destroy her.

I personally welcome that debate.

Honestly, I've had the suspicion that T-Rump may be a Democrat operative sent by the Clintons. Remember, he DID call Bill Clinton first BEFORE he decided to run. That is a well documented fact.

So yeah, I welcome that debate.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Me too. I hope we get to see it. But I really think that the dem plan is that around January Obama will authorize the AG to indict hillary, then Biden will jump in to save the dem party, and then lose to Trump in the general.

What you need to understand is that the dem power brokers hate the clintons as much as the conservatives hate them.

 

[MarcATL]

Why are Republicans so focused on "derailing" Hillarys presidential run?

Why don't they just try to beat her on the issues?

Because they can't.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

totally wrong, when both sides are given equal time, the consevative viewpoint always wins. Why? because it is based on facts and logical thinking whereas the liberal viewpoint is based on feeeeeeeelings and fantasy.
But lets have a debate between clinton and trump, a real debate where the real issues are addressed and the history of each person is brought out.

He wil destroy her.

I personally welcome that debate.

Honestly, I've had the suspicion that T-Rump may be a Democrat operative sent by the Clintons. Remember, he DID call Bill Clinton first BEFORE he decided to run. That is a well documented fact.

So yeah, I welcome that debate.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Me too. I hope we get to see it. But I really think that the dem plan is that around January Obama will authorize the AG to indict hillary, then Biden will jump in to save the dem party, and then lose to Trump in the general.

What you need to understand is that the dem power brokers hate the clintons as much as the conservatives hate them.

You are living in fantasy land.

The "Dem power brokers" are all lined up behind Clinton. They can't wait for her to become the first female POTUS.

Where is your PROOF that they hate her?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[JimH52]

How the FBI Could Derail Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run So Mrs. Clinton, you swore under oath that you never sent a classified e-mail, and that you turned over all e-mails. The FBI will decide this, they would be done already, but everyday they get more that was not there yesterday....................

How's that shilling against Hillary Clinton paying these days? I've been watching your posting history. Anti-Hillary thread...Anti-Hillary thread...Anti-Hillary thread................silence for a few days.......rinse and repeat.

Because they are very scared of Hillary....TERRIFIED!