Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
That's why the FBI is focusing their investigation on the negligence portion of the law. Intentional or by neglect, the law says it doesn't matter.
It's not a matter of espionage. You need to be more specific and careful about what's being claimed here. There's a difference between forwarding information to foreign sources intentionally and mishandling classified information.
In the case of a potential Prez --- it's a serious matter if she placed her convenience over national security regulations.
And save me the junk about propaganda and people who know nothing. You've got several folks in this thread that know more about handling classified info than 98% of the rest of America. I worked in the Intelligence area for about 8 years. You would not believe the requirements put on folks to retain those clearances and trust. And having a political hack FLAUNT that trust -- is gonna burn us up more than you'd ever know..
You might want to ask Gen Petraeus about that, since he was charged with even less than Hillary is being accused of.That's why the FBI is focusing their investigation on the negligence portion of the law. Intentional or by neglect, the law says it doesn't matter.
Yeah, no reasonable person is going to consider that a crime, guy.
Hey, I also heard Hillary removed one of those "Do Not remove under penalty of Law" tags from her couch cushions. Maybe you can go after her for that.
Or you can try to nominate a non-crazy person to run against her on the issues.
You might want to ask Gen Petraeus about that, since he was charged with even less than Hillary is being accused of.
As usual you suck on the facts.
Hillary did exactly the same thing. More. She removed the entire email traffic, which contained classified material, to her private server. She shared some of this information with people lacking security clearance.You might want to ask Gen Petraeus about that, since he was charged with even less than Hillary is being accused of.
As usual you suck on the facts.
Petreaus did more than what Hillary is accused of. He removed indisputably classified documents from a secure locations and showed them to someone who had no authorization to see them.
Oh, yeah. And he didn't get hit with any kind of meaningful sanction. He got a slap on the wrist, which he happily took because he didn't want to go through a trial where he'd have to explain about all the women he was fucking who weren't Mrs. Petreaus.
But then again, you suck on facts. And basic human decency.
Incidentally, if Petreaus were to run for office tomorrow, I'd vote for him. He'd be a far better president than any of the clowns running from EITHER party.
That's why the FBI is focusing their investigation on the negligence portion of the law. Intentional or by neglect, the law says it doesn't matter.
Yeah, no reasonable person is going to consider that a crime, guy.
Hey, I also heard Hillary removed one of those "Do Not remove under penalty of Law" tags from her couch cushions. Maybe you can go after her for that.
Or you can try to nominate a non-crazy person to run against her on the issues.
The issue is not that Ms. Clinton had access classified information, it is that she mishandled classified information, which according the F.B.I. investigation did not happen.
The other issue is far simpler.
You want Hillary Goddamn Clinton to be guilty because she is Hillary Goddamn Clinton to be guilty because she is Hillary Goddamn Clinton and Hillary Goddamn Clinton has to be guilty.
There have now been Nine (09) separate investigations (including the recent F.B.I. investigation) and there has been no clear evidence of Ms. Clinton mishandling classified information.
You and the ConJobs, NeoNuts, RePugs and TeaHadists want Hillary Clinton for no other reason that she is Hillary Clinton. There does not have to a reason, there does not have any real guilt, you want Hillary Clinton to be guilty.
Your Clinton Derangement syndrome is on full blown overload.
Nine.....Nine.....Nine investigations and no proof has been found that Ms. Clinton mishandled classified information. There is no doubt she had access in the course of her duties as SecState. After NINE investigations and you people are just so very sure she did something, anything wrong because of nothing more than her name. It has nothing to do with the truth (no mishandling), its about her name and the fact that RePugs are scared bat shit crazy over her last name.
There was no investigation into Condie Rice and her private server and how she handled classified information not only as SecState but National Security Adviser and Ms. Rice admits she used a private server for her emails, just Colin Powell admits he used a private server as SecState. No investigation into how those two handled classified emails or use of a private server....only Clinton and Clinton has to be guilty because YOU want her to be guilty.
How could she possibly have functioned as SecState without seeing any classified material at all? It boggles the mind.So she got no classified material at all. Interesting. Maybe they were afraid she'd fuck it up?Again, and I hate to repeat myself. Whether the email was marked Classified or not is irrelevant. If it contained classified material she is in violation.
IF the material in question was not classified at the time it was received and/or transmitted, then there was no violation of law. If it was classified after the fact, meaning after transmission, no violation of law either.
That was NOT the issue.
She of course, in her duties as SecState read, received and transmitted classified material.
Ms. Clinton was accused by Republicans of knowing, willingly and with intent to do the same, mishandle classified information.
Ms. Clinton was accused of having in her possession, via a private server, classified information.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton mishandled classified information - the F.B.I.'s investigation found no such evidence.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton did intentionally and with intent did in fact deliberately possess, transmit or receive classified information while using a private server, the F.B.I. found no such evidence.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton did before or after the fact mishandle, transmit or receive classified information while using a private server, the F.B.I. found no evidence.
IF Ms. Clinton, in the course of her duties as SecState did in fact receive emails and then after receipt of such emails, did in fact forward them before such emails were classified, she did not violated any federal law.
Nothing new was found.
You reek of desperation.
The FBI would not have stepped in and quarantined all that data if there was NOTHING classified on her system. The system shows signs of phishing and potential hack attacks as well.There's a LOT we know and 400 messages that have been DEEMED classified identified. Ask Politico -- they acknowledged that. So has the NY Times. You're in denial..
Wait.How could she possibly have functioned as SecState without seeing any classified material at all? It boggles the mind.So she got no classified material at all. Interesting. Maybe they were afraid she'd fuck it up?Again, and I hate to repeat myself. Whether the email was marked Classified or not is irrelevant. If it contained classified material she is in violation.
IF the material in question was not classified at the time it was received and/or transmitted, then there was no violation of law. If it was classified after the fact, meaning after transmission, no violation of law either.
That was NOT the issue.
She of course, in her duties as SecState read, received and transmitted classified material.
Ms. Clinton was accused by Republicans of knowing, willingly and with intent to do the same, mishandle classified information.
Ms. Clinton was accused of having in her possession, via a private server, classified information.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton mishandled classified information - the F.B.I.'s investigation found no such evidence.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton did intentionally and with intent did in fact deliberately possess, transmit or receive classified information while using a private server, the F.B.I. found no such evidence.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton did before or after the fact mishandle, transmit or receive classified information while using a private server, the F.B.I. found no evidence.
IF Ms. Clinton, in the course of her duties as SecState did in fact receive emails and then after receipt of such emails, did in fact forward them before such emails were classified, she did not violated any federal law.
Nothing new was found.
Ms. Clinton cannot be held for handling material that was in fact NOT classified after she received/reviewed and/or transmitted said material. IF the material in fact NOT CLASSIFIED when she had it, she cannot be held responsible for actions taken after the fact.
You reek of desperation.
She wrote and received emails as part of her duty, correct?
She only operated off her private server, correct?
So by agreement she had to have classified emails on her private server, right? And that is a violation of the Records Act and numerous rules.
You reek of stupid.
How could she possibly have functioned as SecState without seeing any classified material at all? It boggles the mind.So she got no classified material at all. Interesting. Maybe they were afraid she'd fuck it up?IF the material in question was not classified at the time it was received and/or transmitted, then there was no violation of law. If it was classified after the fact, meaning after transmission, no violation of law either.
That was NOT the issue.
She of course, in her duties as SecState read, received and transmitted classified material.
Ms. Clinton was accused by Republicans of knowing, willingly and with intent to do the same, mishandle classified information.
Ms. Clinton was accused of having in her possession, via a private server, classified information.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton mishandled classified information - the F.B.I.'s investigation found no such evidence.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton did intentionally and with intent did in fact deliberately possess, transmit or receive classified information while using a private server, the F.B.I. found no such evidence.
There is no proof that Ms. Clinton did before or after the fact mishandle, transmit or receive classified information while using a private server, the F.B.I. found no evidence.
IF Ms. Clinton, in the course of her duties as SecState did in fact receive emails and then after receipt of such emails, did in fact forward them before such emails were classified, she did not violated any federal law.
Nothing new was found.
You reek of desperation.
The FBI would not have stepped in and quarantined all that data if there was NOTHING classified on her system. The system shows signs of phishing and potential hack attacks as well.There's a LOT we know and 400 messages that have been DEEMED classified identified. Ask Politico -- they acknowledged that. So has the NY Times. You're in denial..
Based on the F.B.I. report, Ms. Clinton did not mishandle classified information.
Live with it.
You're full of shit.All you have is conjecture, contention and supposition. You have no real physical proof to support your claims.
The F.B.I. found no evidence that former SecState Clinton mishandled classified information. You argument falls apart on that.
You want Ms. Clinton to be guilty. It does not if she was or is guilty. You want her to be guilty.
You're full of shit.All you have is conjecture, contention and supposition. You have no real physical proof to support your claims.
The F.B.I. found no evidence that former SecState Clinton mishandled classified information. You argument falls apart on that.
You want Ms. Clinton to be guilty. It does not if she was or is guilty. You want her to be guilty.
Articles: Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary?
November 9, 2015
Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary?
By Amil Imani and James Hyde
In an administration known for its disdain for accountability and appalling disregard for justice, FBI Director James Comey sets himself apart as a straight shooter and strong adherent of the equal application of the law. To those who know and/or have worked with him, Comey’s character is unimpeachable, his integrity unique, and his pursuit of justice determined, focused, and incorruptible in a capital where such traits are routinely eschewed.
According to Dr. Monica Crowley, quoted below, Comey is closely overseeing his crack cyber-forensic team, which has masterfully managed to do what many claimed couldn’t be done: they accessed the files on Hillary Clinton’s “wiped” email server. If they find ample evidence to indict her, as Crowley intimates below, and the Justice Department decides not to pursue charges, many political pundits foresee Comey resigning, or looking the other way when whatever illegal activity they found starts to leak.
Most observers agree that going after General David Petraeus, a true national treasure, for having some “Confidential” -- not “Top Secret” -- documents stored in a desk drawer, but not pressing charges on Clinton if she sent and received “Top Secret” documents would be seen as, at best, a blatant double standard, and at worst the same kind of collusive corruption we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.
But has the FBI found criminal offenses in their quest for justice? Apparently so. During an appearance on the "O’Reilly Factor", Dr. Monica Crowley was granted an extremely rare waiver: she was allowed to cite “anonymous sources” on the progress of the investigation. She had managed to find two unnamed investigation insiders, who gave her solid information that should result in an indictment of Mrs. Clinton for violations stemming from the use of her private email server.
According to Crowley:
“As of now, at least 671 emails that Mrs. Clinton sent or received through her private server contained classified material. Of those, at least four emails are extremely problematic in this investigation. Of those, two reached the highest classified designation which is Top Secret. One of those, which has been publicly disclosed, contained satellite data about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. I am told that that particular document is an open and shut violation. I am also told that FBI Director James Comey is personally overseeing and directing this investigation, and as of now they do have enough to build a case against her if they so choose on two grounds: One, gross negligence of the mishandling of classified data, and two, obstruction [of justice] -- multiple counts.”
“…you are talking about classified material that may or may not have been stamped classified at the time, but that material, in intelligence circles, is known as ‘born classified’ at the time [it was sent or received], meaning that the information contained therein was so sensitive that it was assumed to be classified, and as secretary of state, she must have known that.”
Wow, you popped your head right back up your ass again! Who saw that coming? You don't like the source? Tough shit, junior.You're full of shit.All you have is conjecture, contention and supposition. You have no real physical proof to support your claims.
The F.B.I. found no evidence that former SecState Clinton mishandled classified information. You argument falls apart on that.
You want Ms. Clinton to be guilty. It does not if she was or is guilty. You want her to be guilty.
Articles: Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary?
November 9, 2015
Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary?
By Amil Imani and James Hyde
In an administration known for its disdain for accountability and appalling disregard for justice, FBI Director James Comey sets himself apart as a straight shooter and strong adherent of the equal application of the law. To those who know and/or have worked with him, Comey’s character is unimpeachable, his integrity unique, and his pursuit of justice determined, focused, and incorruptible in a capital where such traits are routinely eschewed.
According to Dr. Monica Crowley, quoted below, Comey is closely overseeing his crack cyber-forensic team, which has masterfully managed to do what many claimed couldn’t be done: they accessed the files on Hillary Clinton’s “wiped” email server. If they find ample evidence to indict her, as Crowley intimates below, and the Justice Department decides not to pursue charges, many political pundits foresee Comey resigning, or looking the other way when whatever illegal activity they found starts to leak.
Most observers agree that going after General David Petraeus, a true national treasure, for having some “Confidential” -- not “Top Secret” -- documents stored in a desk drawer, but not pressing charges on Clinton if she sent and received “Top Secret” documents would be seen as, at best, a blatant double standard, and at worst the same kind of collusive corruption we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.
But has the FBI found criminal offenses in their quest for justice? Apparently so. During an appearance on the "O’Reilly Factor", Dr. Monica Crowley was granted an extremely rare waiver: she was allowed to cite “anonymous sources” on the progress of the investigation. She had managed to find two unnamed investigation insiders, who gave her solid information that should result in an indictment of Mrs. Clinton for violations stemming from the use of her private email server.
According to Crowley:
“As of now, at least 671 emails that Mrs. Clinton sent or received through her private server contained classified material. Of those, at least four emails are extremely problematic in this investigation. Of those, two reached the highest classified designation which is Top Secret. One of those, which has been publicly disclosed, contained satellite data about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. I am told that that particular document is an open and shut violation. I am also told that FBI Director James Comey is personally overseeing and directing this investigation, and as of now they do have enough to build a case against her if they so choose on two grounds: One, gross negligence of the mishandling of classified data, and two, obstruction [of justice] -- multiple counts.”
“…you are talking about classified material that may or may not have been stamped classified at the time, but that material, in intelligence circles, is known as ‘born classified’ at the time [it was sent or received], meaning that the information contained therein was so sensitive that it was assumed to be classified, and as secretary of state, she must have known that.”
The F.B.I. determined no mishandling of emails.
Wow, your a RWNJ ConJob. Wow, you went to RWNJ website and found a RWNJ article.
How often does that happen?
F.B .I. found mishandling.
Your reeking again.
Hillary did exactly the same thing. More. She removed the entire email traffic, which contained classified material, to her private server. She shared some of this information with people lacking security clearance.
Do you think she functioned as SecState without seeing any classified info on emails?
Nope .. Nine Benghazi panels.. Most of which were Broadway productions at the State Dept and friendly panels.
Topic was NOT mishandling classified material.. The reason there are so many -- is that the govt is broken and Congress cannot even compel the agencies to turn over material for investigation. We can't continue to operate that way..
All you have is conjecture, contention and supposition. You have no real physical proof to support your claims.
The F.B.I. found no evidence that former SecState Clinton mishandled classified information. You argument falls apart on that.
You want Ms. Clinton to be guilty. It does not if she was or is guilty. You want her to be guilty.
