How the FBI Could Derail Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Run

[Care4all]

too bad these congress critters won't face impeachment... as they deserve imo.

 

[Clementine]

Why aren't libs ridiculing this investigation the way they are the Benghazi hearings?

Because no information about this investigation has been released to the public, whereas Gowdy build himself a public circus.

Hearings are always covered and Gowdy has no control. It's media that decides whether they want to make something into a circus or not.

The reason this dragged out was because Hillary handled the Benghazi matter very poorly, she and Obama lied about things from the start and then they refused to cooperate with the investigation when tough question starting getting asked.

 

[rightwinger]

Why aren't libs ridiculing this investigation the way they are the Benghazi hearings?

Because no information about this investigation has been released to the public, whereas Gowdy build himself a public circus.

Hearings are always covered and Gowdy has no control. It's media that decides whether they want to make something into a circus or not.

The reason this dragged out was because Hillary handled the Benghazi matter very poorly, she and Obama lied about things from the start and then they refused to cooperate with the investigation when tough question starting getting asked.

Just because you don't like the answers you are getting doesn't mean they are not cooperating

 

[OKTexas]

Tell that to David Petraeus, he did absolutely nothing compared to the hildabeast.

well, no, Petreaus showed classified material to someone who wasn't authorized to see it.

Mrs. Clinton kept material that wasn't classified on a device that the State Department cleared at the time.

So they aren't really comparable.

Right, when did they stop classifying current intelligence satellite photos? We know for a fact she had at least one such document on her unsecured server which was kept in locations not approved for storage of classified information. So keep up your denial, and you'll keep being wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

It never ceases to amaze me on how cavalier you regressivecrats can be about literally thousands of national security violations. State will be done reviewing her emails by the end of the year, I'd say by the end of March or early April the FBI will have their recommendations for charges ready. Let's see if your singing the same tune then.

And it never ceases to amaze how you dimwits continually buy into such blatant party propaganda. Educate yourself as to what is taking place in regards to the e-mails....from the source.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

 

[OKTexas]

It never ceases to amaze me on how cavalier you regressivecrats can be about literally thousands of national security violations. State will be done reviewing her emails by the end of the year, I'd say by the end of March or early April the FBI will have their recommendations for charges ready. Let's see if your singing the same tune then.

And it never ceases to amaze how you dimwits continually buy into such blatant party propaganda. Educate yourself as to what is taking place in regards to the e-mails....from the source.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

says who? you and the spinmeisters?

Why do you so easily believe the bull crud from these spinmeisters?

How about a link, to the government agency, (fbi) stating what you claim....is being investigated, pretty please.

FBI probes security of Clinton emails

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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....................

Yea you pussies are hoping and pulling for the FBI, because you know your sorry ass party of clowns can't stop her..

Funny how you so called Government haters love the Government when you want to stop Clinton..

I'll let you in on a little secret, Obama will pardon her just like drunk Bush did scooter libby

No Problem..

If you had an ounce of sense you wouldn't want another liar as President.

 

[OKTexas]

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....................

Yea you pussies are hoping and pulling for the FBI, because you know your sorry ass party of clowns can't stop her..

Funny how you so called Government haters love the Government when you want to stop Clinton..

I'll let you in on a little secret, Obama will pardon her just like drunk Bush did scooter libby

No Problem..

So you don't care that the bitch committed national security violations. I don't normally repost something I posted in another thread, but I'm going to just to save all the typing time. Here is a list of her minimum violations.

US law requires certain security arrangement and physical structures for a State Dept facility. If a facility doesn't meet the legal requirements, the Sec of State must sign a waiver of those requirements, they cannot delegate that responsibility by law. The hildabeast failed to provide the required waiver, but allowed the consulate to operate anyways. All that was admitted in the hearings.

We also know for a fact the hildabeast had a minimum of 400 sensitive and classified documents on her unsecured server, just having those documents outside of approved containers is a felony for EACH document. The law says it doesn't matter if this was done intentionally or by neglect.

Also having the server stored in an unsecured locations, like her basement, the bathroom closet in CO, the cloud base backup service and her lawyers office, are once again felony violations for EACH document. That gives us a total of 2,000 felony violations at this point.

Then you add another 1,200 violations by the FACT that the people at Platte River Tech, the company that did the cloud base backups and her lawyer had access to those documents without proper clearances. Once again these laws do not differentiate between intent and neglect. If my math is correct that is 3,800 individual felony violations so I was being kind in just saying 2,000.

BTW, I didn't get into the obstruction of justice when she told Platte River not to back up all her emails or the perjury she committed by signing the affidavit to the Federal Judge that she had turned over all work related emails when in fact she hadn't.

So your challenge grasshopper is to prove she had no classified documents on her server, keeping in mind that the law doesn't care if she intended to have them or had them through neglect, if she had even one, she's guilty.

You got that wrong.The challenge is yours to prove all your crazy accusations. There have been very many right wing claims, and you have proven none.

She admitted to having classified material on her server in the hearings, just that admission makes your BS moot.

No dumb ass. Some material has been classified retroactively since then. To blame her for having material that was not classified at the time would be like charging her for running a stop sign before it was installed.

Two intelligence IG's said many of the documents she had were born classified, like satellite photos. By State Dept protocol the email she admitted sending the Egyptian Foreign Minister on 9/12/11 was classified the moment she sent it. So just keep eating the pablum she's feeding you and smile when it gives you the shits.

Try reading this:

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 

[Tehon]

It never ceases to amaze me on how cavalier you regressivecrats can be about literally thousands of national security violations. State will be done reviewing her emails by the end of the year, I'd say by the end of March or early April the FBI will have their recommendations for charges ready. Let's see if your singing the same tune then.

And it never ceases to amaze how you dimwits continually buy into such blatant party propaganda. Educate yourself as to what is taking place in regards to the e-mails....from the source.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

 

[Tehon]

It never ceases to amaze me on how cavalier you regressivecrats can be about literally thousands of national security violations. State will be done reviewing her emails by the end of the year, I'd say by the end of March or early April the FBI will have their recommendations for charges ready. Let's see if your singing the same tune then.

And it never ceases to amaze how you dimwits continually buy into such blatant party propaganda. Educate yourself as to what is taking place in regards to the e-mails....from the source.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

says who? you and the spinmeisters?

Why do you so easily believe the bull crud from these spinmeisters?

How about a link, to the government agency, (fbi) stating what you claim....is being investigated, pretty please.

FBI probes security of Clinton emails

Your link does nothing to support your assertions. All it does is explains that the FBI started it's review of the e-mails as directed by the Inspector General of the Intelligence community. I already provided you with a link to the source documents containing the directives. If you take the time to read them you will see that you are completely misrepresenting what the FBI is doing and you will see how foolish you look. Dupe.

Again:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

 

[OKTexas]

It never ceases to amaze me on how cavalier you regressivecrats can be about literally thousands of national security violations. State will be done reviewing her emails by the end of the year, I'd say by the end of March or early April the FBI will have their recommendations for charges ready. Let's see if your singing the same tune then.

And it never ceases to amaze how you dimwits continually buy into such blatant party propaganda. Educate yourself as to what is taking place in regards to the e-mails....from the source.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

 

[Tehon]

And it never ceases to amaze how you dimwits continually buy into such blatant party propaganda. Educate yourself as to what is taking place in regards to the e-mails....from the source.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

That's great that you can provide a link to the law but you haven't proven your supposed "facts" with any legitimate sources. The FBI, as I have shown through government documents, is not investigating HRC for any wrongdoing. That is a fact, backed up by legitimate government documents that you can't refute.

 

[Tehon]

And it never ceases to amaze how you dimwits continually buy into such blatant party propaganda. Educate yourself as to what is taking place in regards to the e-mails....from the source.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

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.

 

[Care4all]

AP: Top secret Clinton emails include drone talk


The two emails got those markings after consultations with the CIA and other agencies where the material originated, officials said. Some officials said they believed the designations were a stretch — a knee-jerk move in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification.

The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn’t detail the full contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level.

Clinton didn’t transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes direct reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.


on the first email,

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article about the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While that program is technically top secret, it is well-known and often reported on. Former CIA director Leon Panetta and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have openly discussed it.

-----------------------

...a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more problematic, officials said, (However) Nothing in the message is “lifted” from classified documents, they said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls “parallel reporting” — receiving information the government considers secret through “open source” channels.

So it appears this could be a bunch of Hoop dee doo about nothing....and it's been two and a half months, so the State Dept and Intelligence agencies have probably finished duking it out over the classification status.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe you should educate yourself, the way State is releasing information under a FOIA has nothing to do with the way the hildabeast retained classified information on an unsecured server, transmitted that information over an unsecured network or how she allowed access to that server to persons not authorized to access classified information. That is what the FBI is investigating.

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

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

 

[Rexx Taylor]

im not concerned, Hillarys brain is going to expire by the spring (just like when Bidens Brain expired in 2008),,,by the time she starts debating Carson she will think its 1992.

 

[Tehon]

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

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

Just as it relates to the law you can forget about section (e). As SoS she was certainly authorized, so that section wouldn't pertain. As far as (f) is concerned, I suppose you would have to prove gross negligence and also that classified information was lost, stolen or destroyed. Has that been proven.

Of course it is all made moot by the fact that the FBI isn't even investigating her for criminal violations. Aside from my links, has it not dawned on you that the FBI is part of the Justice Dept. Need I say more.

 

[Tehon]

And do you have official proof to back up your claims?

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

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.

 

[Bassman007]

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

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.

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

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, but you refuse to accept any evidence, so feel free to google classified information on the hildabeast server, descriptions are available all over the place.

You can not provide anything to back up your claims, that is why you won't, for that reason and no other.

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.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

You can keep say no, no, no and you will still be wrong.

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

Just as it relates to the law you can forget about section (e). As SoS she was certainly authorized, so that section wouldn't pertain. As far as (f) is concerned, I suppose you would have to prove gross negligence and also that classified information was lost, stolen or destroyed. Has that been proven.

Of course it is all made moot by the fact that the FBI isn't even investigating her for criminal violations. Aside from my links, has it not dawned on you that the FBI is part of the Justice Dept. Need I say more.

First gross negligence is not required, just negligence.
Second:

FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’

http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/