What Will Happen to Hillary Over the Mishandling of Classified Material?

[Skylar]

Or....she didn't violate the law.

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..

Your agreement or disagreement isn't a factor. And as you demonstrated with your claims about her having to be 're-cleared' for security clearance if she becomes president, you really don't know what you're talking about:

Nope.. She needs to be RE-CLEARED into the appropriate programs.,. The ones that she violated the trust of.
That should never happen.. No need to get legal on her ass. Just make certain the rules and procedures are respected and mean something.

Which is explicitly contradicted by the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security

"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf

There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.

"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

Thus, as president, she has clearance as she is the 'owner' of national intelligence. Your 'cased closed' hypothetical doesn't take this enormous detail into account. Rendering your hypothetical functionally meaningless. And likewise demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about on this issue.

Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.

Neither the LA Times nor AP are citing themselves. But lawyers that specialize in national security issues. With overwhelming consensus of those attorneys agreeing that no crime was committed. That you personally disagree is legally irrelevant.

She should NEVER AGAIN have access to security clearances. All the assertions you wanna make won't stop a showdown between a PREZ who is a KNOWN abuser of the process and the rest of the government charged with generating, acting on, and protecting those secrets. She needs to sign into every program she WANTS access to.. There is PROCESS for that. Because you are not just granted BLANKET access to ALL secure information.., AND --- because you need to be COUNCILED as to the scope of each "program", the details considered secure, etc..

That's certainly a personal opinion. But since you don't know what you're talking about regarding these issues, why would I ignore the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security....and instead believe you?

Why would I ignore the lawyers specializing in national security issues cited by the LA times....and instead believe you? Why would I ignore the lawyers cited by AP and instead believe you?

I can't think of a single reason.

She is not de facto "owner" of shit if she is not eligible for security vetting.. And there will be wars over sharing that program access with anybody who's already violated that trust.. As there should be for this unique situation...

Says you citing yourself. You're certainly welcome to a personal opinion. But you have yet to explain to me why I would care what you thought on the issue.

 

[flacaltenn]

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..

Your agreement or disagreement isn't a factor. And as you demonstrated with your claims about her having to be 're-cleared' for security clearance if she becomes president, you really don't know what you're talking about:

Nope.. She needs to be RE-CLEARED into the appropriate programs.,. The ones that she violated the trust of.
That should never happen.. No need to get legal on her ass. Just make certain the rules and procedures are respected and mean something.

Which is explicitly contradicted by the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security

"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf

There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.

"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

Thus, as president, she has clearance as she is the 'owner' of national intelligence. Your 'cased closed' hypothetical doesn't take this enormous detail into account. Rendering your hypothetical functionally meaningless. And likewise demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about on this issue.

Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.

Neither the LA Times nor AP are citing themselves. But lawyers that specialize in national security issues. With overwhelming consensus of those attorneys agreeing that no crime was committed. That you personally disagree is legally irrelevant.

She should NEVER AGAIN have access to security clearances. All the assertions you wanna make won't stop a showdown between a PREZ who is a KNOWN abuser of the process and the rest of the government charged with generating, acting on, and protecting those secrets. She needs to sign into every program she WANTS access to.. There is PROCESS for that. Because you are not just granted BLANKET access to ALL secure information.., AND --- because you need to be COUNCILED as to the scope of each "program", the details considered secure, etc..

That's certainly a personal opinion. But since you don't know what you're talking about regarding these issues, why would I ignore the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security....and instead believe you?

Why would I ignore the lawyers specializing in national security issues cited by the LA times....and instead believe you? Why would I ignore the lawyers cited by AP and instead believe you?

I can't think of a single reason.

She is not de facto "owner" of shit if she is not eligible for security vetting.. And there will be wars over sharing that program access with anybody who's already violated that trust.. As there should be for this unique situation...

Says you citing yourself. You're certainly welcome to a personal opinion. But you have yet to explain to me why I would care what you thought on the issue.

You have no idea what you're citing. It's a CRS report requested by Congress critters to clarify what rights THEY HAVE to classified info that the PREZ decides NOT to share with them. The quote you found is not a definitive statement on the vetting of a PRESIDENT for access to security clearances. It was ASSUMED that the prez was VETTABLE in the first place. .

CERTAINLY --- there would be a war with the agencies producing, using, and protecting those secrets. And maybe --- she'd have to fire 1/2 of them to be included in the special access programs that required highly restricted clearances.

OR --- prior to the election --- the FBI merely has to issue a conclusion that Mrs. Clinton is NO LONGER capable of obtaining or applying for National Security clearances..

So -- Skylar -- If that declaration were made a month after the Dem Convention -- would you STILL support her?

I need an answer there..

 

[Redfish]

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

Sigh.....that's not the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime either. So we'll toss your accusation on the midden heap where it belongs.

Now to your newest accusation: that the Clinton's have a 'lot of dirt on Obama'. What's your evidence. Remembering of course that your latest baseless narrative is explicitly contradicted by your OLD baseless narrative of what may happen:

That the Obamas hate the clintons and Obama will let the FBI to indict.

1. the Obama's and Clintons hate each other
2. the FBI has indictable evidence that cannot be refuted
3. Hillary starts losing primaries
4. the media and the DNC turn on her, remember they hate her too
5. Obama lets the DOJ issue the indictment
6. the DNC scrambles and decides to run Biden

Does that mean Cruz will get Jeb Bushs supporters?

Which fact free, baseless narrative am I to believe Redfish? I choose 'none of the above'.

you can believe whatever you want, I don't give a shit what you believe.

Who do you think started the Obama birther movement? answer: the clintons
Who dropped it when she was offered the SecState job? answer: the Clintons.

 

[Fang]

What Will Happen to Hillary Over He Mishandling of Classified Material?

Absolutely nothing. A deal has been made and this matter has already been settled in Washington. Everything we see on the news now is for show. The system is rigged people.

 

[Skylar]

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..

Your agreement or disagreement isn't a factor. And as you demonstrated with your claims about her having to be 're-cleared' for security clearance if she becomes president, you really don't know what you're talking about:

Nope.. She needs to be RE-CLEARED into the appropriate programs.,. The ones that she violated the trust of.
That should never happen.. No need to get legal on her ass. Just make certain the rules and procedures are respected and mean something.

Which is explicitly contradicted by the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security

"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf

There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.

"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

Thus, as president, she has clearance as she is the 'owner' of national intelligence. Your 'cased closed' hypothetical doesn't take this enormous detail into account. Rendering your hypothetical functionally meaningless. And likewise demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about on this issue.

Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.

Neither the LA Times nor AP are citing themselves. But lawyers that specialize in national security issues. With overwhelming consensus of those attorneys agreeing that no crime was committed. That you personally disagree is legally irrelevant.

She should NEVER AGAIN have access to security clearances. All the assertions you wanna make won't stop a showdown between a PREZ who is a KNOWN abuser of the process and the rest of the government charged with generating, acting on, and protecting those secrets. She needs to sign into every program she WANTS access to.. There is PROCESS for that. Because you are not just granted BLANKET access to ALL secure information.., AND --- because you need to be COUNCILED as to the scope of each "program", the details considered secure, etc..

That's certainly a personal opinion. But since you don't know what you're talking about regarding these issues, why would I ignore the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security....and instead believe you?

Why would I ignore the lawyers specializing in national security issues cited by the LA times....and instead believe you? Why would I ignore the lawyers cited by AP and instead believe you?

I can't think of a single reason.

She is not de facto "owner" of shit if she is not eligible for security vetting.. And there will be wars over sharing that program access with anybody who's already violated that trust.. As there should be for this unique situation...

Says you citing yourself. You're certainly welcome to a personal opinion. But you have yet to explain to me why I would care what you thought on the issue.

You have no idea what you're citing. It's a CRS report requested by Congress critters to clarify what rights THEY HAVE to classified info that the PREZ decides NOT to share with them. The quote you found is not a definitive statement on the vetting of a PRESIDENT for access to security clearances. It was ASSUMED that the prez was VETTABLE in the first place. .

Says you. The Congressional Research Service says this:

"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf

There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.

"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."

Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005

You say that she has to be 're-cleared' and isn't the owner of national intelligence if president. The Congressional Research Services expert on National Security and Intelligence says she owns the national intelligence as president and by virtue of being president has access to everything collected by the Intelligence Community.

You can deny this if you'd like and insist that the CRS never said this. I'll just quote them again.

Why would I or any other rational person ignore the CRS on this issue....and instead believe you? Remember, you're nobody.

Why would I ignore lawyers specializing in national security cited by the LA times.....and instead believe you? Again, you're nobody.

Why would I ignore the lawyers cited by AP......and instead believe you? Same thing as before. Plus, you don't know what you're talking about.

CERTAINLY --- there would be a war with the agencies producing, using, and protecting those secrets. And maybe --- she'd have to fire 1/2 of them to be included in the special access programs that required highly restricted clearances.

Says who? Remember, by virtue of being president she has access to all produced by the Intel community.

'Certainly', you realize that you citing yourself is essentially worthless.

OR --- prior to the election --- the FBI merely has to issue a conclusion that Mrs. Clinton is NO LONGER capable of obtaining or applying for National Security clearances..

So -- Skylar -- If that declaration were made a month after the Dem Convention -- would you STILL support her?

I need an answer there..

Would she need to apply or obtain national security clearances in order to be review intel material as president?

Nope. So why would it effect my support of her for president?

Remember......you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

And if they find that no crimes were committed by Hillary....will you acknowledge that no such crimes occured? If you're already committed to ignoring the FBI if they disagree with you......what's the point of you 'waiting to see what the FBI says'?

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

Sigh.....that's not the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime either. So we'll toss your accusation on the midden heap where it belongs.

Now to your newest accusation: that the Clinton's have a 'lot of dirt on Obama'. What's your evidence. Remembering of course that your latest baseless narrative is explicitly contradicted by your OLD baseless narrative of what may happen:

That the Obamas hate the clintons and Obama will let the FBI to indict.

1. the Obama's and Clintons hate each other
2. the FBI has indictable evidence that cannot be refuted
3. Hillary starts losing primaries
4. the media and the DNC turn on her, remember they hate her too
5. Obama lets the DOJ issue the indictment
6. the DNC scrambles and decides to run Biden

Does that mean Cruz will get Jeb Bushs supporters?

Which fact free, baseless narrative am I to believe Redfish? I choose 'none of the above'.

you can believe whatever you want, I don't give a shit what you believe.

I'm sorry, was I not supposed to post your OLD baseless narrative that contradicts your NEW baseless narrative?

Who do you think started the Obama birther movement? answer: the clintons

Says who?

Who dropped it when she was offered the SecState job? answer: the Clintons.

Says who?

You're accusation rich.....evidence poor. And even your conspiracy theories are a self contradictory mess.

 

[Redfish]

Lets let it play out. Let the FBI go public with what they have on her and her staffers. Let them offer immunity to the staffers and see what happens.

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

But to answer your question directly, If the FBI says that no crimes were committed after they finish the investigation, then I will agree that its over. BUT, even that will not overcome Hillary's history of lying and corruption.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

Sigh.....that's not the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime either. So we'll toss your accusation on the midden heap where it belongs.

Now to your newest accusation: that the Clinton's have a 'lot of dirt on Obama'. What's your evidence. Remembering of course that your latest baseless narrative is explicitly contradicted by your OLD baseless narrative of what may happen:

That the Obamas hate the clintons and Obama will let the FBI to indict.

1. the Obama's and Clintons hate each other
2. the FBI has indictable evidence that cannot be refuted
3. Hillary starts losing primaries
4. the media and the DNC turn on her, remember they hate her too
5. Obama lets the DOJ issue the indictment
6. the DNC scrambles and decides to run Biden

Does that mean Cruz will get Jeb Bushs supporters?

Which fact free, baseless narrative am I to believe Redfish? I choose 'none of the above'.

you can believe whatever you want, I don't give a shit what you believe.

I'm sorry, was I not supposed to post your OLD baseless narrative that contradicts your NEW baseless narrative?

Who do you think started the Obama birther movement? answer: the clintons

Says who?

Who dropped it when she was offered the SecState job? answer: the Clintons.

Says who?

You're accusation rich.....evidence poor. And even your conspiracy theories are a self contradictory mess.

geez dude, what planet do you live on? During the 08 primaries the Clinton campaign brought up the Obama birth certificate challenges, others jumped on it, but the Clinton campaign started it. They also brought up the "Obama is gay" accusation and the guy who claimed to have given barry a BJ in a taxi for money.

Now, don't you think the Clintons have that stuff sealed away somewhere ready to release it if obozo allows the DOJ to indict Hillary? Wake up, fool.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, that's not actually a quote of the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime.

Please quote the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime. The actual FBI, if you don't mind. Not unsubstantiated rumors and 'anonymous sources'.

Fair enough. I'm glad that you'll accept the product of their investigation. If they indict, I'll accept that there is evidence of indictable offenses. Sound reasonable?

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

Sigh.....that's not the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime either. So we'll toss your accusation on the midden heap where it belongs.

Now to your newest accusation: that the Clinton's have a 'lot of dirt on Obama'. What's your evidence. Remembering of course that your latest baseless narrative is explicitly contradicted by your OLD baseless narrative of what may happen:

That the Obamas hate the clintons and Obama will let the FBI to indict.

1. the Obama's and Clintons hate each other
2. the FBI has indictable evidence that cannot be refuted
3. Hillary starts losing primaries
4. the media and the DNC turn on her, remember they hate her too
5. Obama lets the DOJ issue the indictment
6. the DNC scrambles and decides to run Biden

Does that mean Cruz will get Jeb Bushs supporters?

Which fact free, baseless narrative am I to believe Redfish? I choose 'none of the above'.

you can believe whatever you want, I don't give a shit what you believe.

I'm sorry, was I not supposed to post your OLD baseless narrative that contradicts your NEW baseless narrative?

Who do you think started the Obama birther movement? answer: the clintons

Says who?

Who dropped it when she was offered the SecState job? answer: the Clintons.

Says who?

You're accusation rich.....evidence poor. And even your conspiracy theories are a self contradictory mess.

geez dude, what planet do you live on? During the 08 primaries the Clinton campaign brought up the Obama birth certificate challenges, others jumped on it, but the Clinton campaign started it. They also brought up the "Obama is gay" accusation and the guy who claimed to have given barry a BJ in a taxi for money.

And by the 'Clinton campaign', you mean an anonymous email?

Now, don't you think the Clintons have that stuff sealed away somewhere ready to release it if obozo allows the DOJ to indict Hillary? Wake up, fool.

Laughing.....I think your conspiracies are a self contradictory mess. And that you can't actually back the bullshit you say.

And you keep proving me right.

 

[Redfish]

What Will Happen to Hillary Over He Mishandling of Classified Material?

Absolutely nothing. A deal has been made and this matter has already been settled in Washington. Everything we see on the news now is for show. The system is rigged people.

sadly, you are probably right. BUT, if Trump wins, the Clintons could be in deep shit.

 

[Redfish]

If would be reasonable if Obama did not control the DOJ. Don't forget, the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama, and they would release it all if he allowed an indictment.

Sigh.....that's not the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime either. So we'll toss your accusation on the midden heap where it belongs.

Now to your newest accusation: that the Clinton's have a 'lot of dirt on Obama'. What's your evidence. Remembering of course that your latest baseless narrative is explicitly contradicted by your OLD baseless narrative of what may happen:

That the Obamas hate the clintons and Obama will let the FBI to indict.

1. the Obama's and Clintons hate each other
2. the FBI has indictable evidence that cannot be refuted
3. Hillary starts losing primaries
4. the media and the DNC turn on her, remember they hate her too
5. Obama lets the DOJ issue the indictment
6. the DNC scrambles and decides to run Biden

Does that mean Cruz will get Jeb Bushs supporters?

Which fact free, baseless narrative am I to believe Redfish? I choose 'none of the above'.

you can believe whatever you want, I don't give a shit what you believe.

I'm sorry, was I not supposed to post your OLD baseless narrative that contradicts your NEW baseless narrative?

Who do you think started the Obama birther movement? answer: the clintons

Says who?

Who dropped it when she was offered the SecState job? answer: the Clintons.

Says who?

You're accusation rich.....evidence poor. And even your conspiracy theories are a self contradictory mess.

geez dude, what planet do you live on? During the 08 primaries the Clinton campaign brought up the Obama birth certificate challenges, others jumped on it, but the Clinton campaign started it. They also brought up the "Obama is gay" accusation and the guy who claimed to have given barry a BJ in a taxi for money.

And by the 'Clinton campaign', you mean an anonymous email?

Now, don't you think the Clintons have that stuff sealed away somewhere ready to release it if obozo allows the DOJ to indict Hillary? Wake up, fool.

Laughing.....I think your conspiracies are a self contradictory mess. And that you can't actually back the bullshit you say.

And you keep proving me right.

Are you really so naïve that you don't know who wrote the "anonymous email" ?

Are you really so naïve that you think the Clinton foundation is not a front for funneling bribes to the Clintons? What exactly do you think Chelsea does to earn her 600K salary?

 

[Skylar]

Sigh.....that's not the FBI saying that Hillary committed any crime either. So we'll toss your accusation on the midden heap where it belongs.

Now to your newest accusation: that the Clinton's have a 'lot of dirt on Obama'. What's your evidence. Remembering of course that your latest baseless narrative is explicitly contradicted by your OLD baseless narrative of what may happen:

That the Obamas hate the clintons and Obama will let the FBI to indict.

Which fact free, baseless narrative am I to believe Redfish? I choose 'none of the above'.

you can believe whatever you want, I don't give a shit what you believe.

I'm sorry, was I not supposed to post your OLD baseless narrative that contradicts your NEW baseless narrative?

Who do you think started the Obama birther movement? answer: the clintons

Says who?

Who dropped it when she was offered the SecState job? answer: the Clintons.

Says who?

You're accusation rich.....evidence poor. And even your conspiracy theories are a self contradictory mess.

geez dude, what planet do you live on? During the 08 primaries the Clinton campaign brought up the Obama birth certificate challenges, others jumped on it, but the Clinton campaign started it. They also brought up the "Obama is gay" accusation and the guy who claimed to have given barry a BJ in a taxi for money.

And by the 'Clinton campaign', you mean an anonymous email?

Now, don't you think the Clintons have that stuff sealed away somewhere ready to release it if obozo allows the DOJ to indict Hillary? Wake up, fool.

Laughing.....I think your conspiracies are a self contradictory mess. And that you can't actually back the bullshit you say.

And you keep proving me right.

Are you really so naïve that you don't know who wrote the "anonymous email" ?

Are you really going to try and offer your imagination as evidence again? Really?

Are you really so naïve that you think the Clinton foundation is not a front for funneling bribes to the Clintons? What exactly do you think Chelsea does to earn her 600K salary?

I'm still waiting for you to back your conspiracy batshit about Clintons having dirt on Obama. And while you're wallowing in abject failure on your *last* baseless claim, you now you want to start a new conspiracy?

Its just conspiracy whack-a-mole. With you scurrying from one claim you can't back up to another claim you can't back up.

 

[Redfish]

you can believe whatever you want, I don't give a shit what you believe.

I'm sorry, was I not supposed to post your OLD baseless narrative that contradicts your NEW baseless narrative?

Who do you think started the Obama birther movement? answer: the clintons

Says who?

Who dropped it when she was offered the SecState job? answer: the Clintons.

Says who?

You're accusation rich.....evidence poor. And even your conspiracy theories are a self contradictory mess.

geez dude, what planet do you live on? During the 08 primaries the Clinton campaign brought up the Obama birth certificate challenges, others jumped on it, but the Clinton campaign started it. They also brought up the "Obama is gay" accusation and the guy who claimed to have given barry a BJ in a taxi for money.

And by the 'Clinton campaign', you mean an anonymous email?

Now, don't you think the Clintons have that stuff sealed away somewhere ready to release it if obozo allows the DOJ to indict Hillary? Wake up, fool.

Laughing.....I think your conspiracies are a self contradictory mess. And that you can't actually back the bullshit you say.

And you keep proving me right.

Are you really so naïve that you don't know who wrote the "anonymous email" ?

Are you really going to try and offer your imagination as evidence again? Really?

Are you really so naïve that you think the Clinton foundation is not a front for funneling bribes to the Clintons? What exactly do you think Chelsea does to earn her 600K salary?

I'm still waiting for you to back your conspiracy batshit about Clintons having dirt on Obama. And while you're wallowing in abject failure on your *last* baseless claim, you now you want to start a new conspiracy?

Its just conspiracy whack-a-mole. With you scurrying from one claim you can't back up to another claim you can't back up.

the Clintons were slinging the dirt in 08 until obozo started winning and promised Hillary the SecState job in exchange for her silence. If you think they don't have that dirt stored somewhere, you are hopelessly stupid.

As to backing it up, go back and look at the rhetoric from Hillary during the 08 primaries.

Its not my role here to educate the ignorant.

But we all understand who and what you are, you spend your entire existence with your head up a Clinton asshole.

 

[hadit]

Or....she didn't violate the law.

If she were a commoner or Republican, she would go to prison for her acts.

That the law does not apply to the party elite is understood.

Most likely no. They wouldn't.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

And the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of lawyers specializing in national security issues is.......Clinton did neither.

You disagree. Um.....so?

Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..

Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.

If someone were to leave a classified briefing at a Hotel desk for 10 minutes ---- that's a breach of security and needs to be reported. No need to prove --- it was "transferred" to anyone..

The company she hired to administer the server was not cleared to handle classified information. And what level of access does a server administrator have to the data stored on a server? I worked for a non-profit that worked on a government contract, and I had to get a security clearance because I had access to the data, and that was just for healthcare information. Should not people who have god level privilege on a server that houses all the email communications of the Secretary of State have an even higher clearance?

 

[Fang]

What Will Happen to Hillary Over He Mishandling of Classified Material?

Absolutely nothing. A deal has been made and this matter has already been settled in Washington. Everything we see on the news now is for show. The system is rigged people.

sadly, you are probably right. BUT, if Trump wins, the Clintons could be in deep shit.

I hated talk of Obama going after President Bush and I'd hate to see Trump go after the Clintons. It's a mess America doesn't need and sets a horrible precedent in politics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The lawyers consulted by AP said the same thing as the lawyers consultd by the LA Times; there was no crime.

Repetition does not add credence.

The Times defends the party, it is all they do. They are not a news outfit, just a party propaganda rag.

If the Times prints something that happens to be accurate, it is purely coincidentatl.

You ignore both. And all the lawyers specializing in national security they consulted,

insisting you know better.

But why would I ignore them and instead believe you?

Lawyers that are party members and favorable to the party.

Look up "confirmation bias."

 

[Uncensored2008]

false premise. The FBI has already said that crimes were committed. The only question is whether obozo will let the DOJ indict, and I think we all know how that will go down.

Have they? I hadn't read that, I know the FBI has intensified the investigation, a clear indication that they have something, but missed the announcement that they were ready to ask for an indictment.

Lynch is as corrupt as Holder, she will never uphold the law.

 

[bripat9643]

That's why I NEVER trust an expert.....

By "legal expert" he means "leftwing political hack."

No, I mean legal experts.

Experts see little chance of charges in Clinton email case

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Asked earlier this month whether she'd be indicted over her use of a private email server as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton responded, "It's not going to happen."

Though Republicans characterized her response as hubris, several legal experts interviewed by The Associated Press agreed with the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

News from The Associated Press

I don't pull my legal experts from Fox News or MSNBC. Just plain ol' AP

The AP is a gang of leftwing douche bag hacks. Case closed.

Keep those eyes screwed shut then.

That is what reading the AP does for you, keep you ignorant and in the dark.

 

[bripat9643]

What Will Happen to Hillary Over He Mishandling of Classified Material?

Absolutely nothing. A deal has been made and this matter has already been settled in Washington. Everything we see on the news now is for show. The system is rigged people.

sadly, you are probably right. BUT, if Trump wins, the Clintons could be in deep shit.

I hated talk of Obama going after President Bush and I'd hate to see Trump go after the Clintons. It's a mess America doesn't need and sets a horrible precedent in politics.

The Clintons are criminals. They belong in prison.

 

[Uncensored2008]

George Clooney will hold a fund raiser and pay her fines.

Obscene Fundraiser for Hillary?

The democrats are the party of the elite. The elite take care of their own.

 

[Uncensored2008]

mishandling any information has yet to be proven ..

I digress ....


Has Hillary gone to jail yet?

You know that laws don't apply to party members of rank.

You serve the party, but are a peon. If you were charged with a crime, and you went to a witness of that crime and threatened them, a credible threat that you had to power to follow through with, and this was known by prosecutors, you would go to prison for a term of 25 years to life.

When Bill Clinton was impeached, he was caught on tape threatening a 62 year old black woman, Betty Currie, that she better perjure herself, or he would fire her, and make sure that she lost her pension.

On tape, no question, no wiggle room, flat out witness tampering.

Did Bill Clinton go to prison for this? Well no, America found out that we are basically the USSR under Stalin, laws are a farce, a club to beat the commoners into submission with. Party members are subject to no law save loyalty to the party.

You support this, you applaud this, because you think the party will give you a few scraps.

Yeah, that DOES mean your are a fucking retard.