Whoa! Hillary instructs top aid to violate security protocols surrounding classified email?

And there are judges, lawyers, intelligence experts and government officials who say there isn't enough (at least publicly known). Originally Posted by eatfibo

Really? Who are they? Where are they? Got a link? I would be interested in reading the recent opinion of any recognized "intelligence expert" who is willing to defend Hillary's handling of classified info and say "there isn't enough" to charge her. Show me one.

Really? Who are they? Where are they? Got a link? I would be interested in reading the recent opinion of any recognized "intelligence expert" who is willing to defend Hillary's handling of classified info and say "there isn't enough" to charge her. Show me one. Originally Posted by lustylad

Prosecutor for Petraeus. National director of National Security archive calls it "not a scandal." Top dem of Senate Intelligence committee. Legal expert for security clearance cases.

I addressed your question. So would you kindly address mine now?

Prosecutor ..... Originally Posted by eatfibo

The key "phrase" is ... "publicly known"...

There is sufficient probable cause to charger her in the information that has been released in the "public media"! All she has to have is a "classified" document on her private server, and those have been disclosed publicly, i.e. that classified emails were found on her private server.

There has been some quibbling over whether some were marked "classified" when she got them, and now there is an email exchange in which she is discussing removing the classification "heading" so she can receive them on her private server. Based on those two facts together with the finding of classified emails on her server is sufficient PC for charges.

All she has to have is a "classified" document on her private server, and those have been disclosed publicly, i.e. that classified emails were found on her private server. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Incorrect. There has to be sufficient evidence that she committed a crime. Having classified information on your server is not, in-and-of-itself, a crime.

There has been some quibbling over whether some were marked "classified" when she got them,

It's not quibbling, it is vital to your argument. If they weren't marked as classified and there was no reason for her to know the information was classified, then it means no crime occurred because there was no intent or no negligence. It could even be that the information was not classified at the time they passed through her server.

and now there is an email exchange in which she is discussing removing the classification "heading" so she can receive them on her private server.

(Emphasis mine) Incorrect. There is an email exchange about removing identifying heading. It's amazing that the email link has been posted numerous times in this thread, and I've already corrected this blatantly false misinterpretation before, yet you still make the mistake. You are buying into the media's spin. The fact of the matter is that we don't know (publicly) if what she is referring to was classified at the time. As another poster pointed out, the FBI probably already does.

Based on those two facts together with the finding of classified emails on her server is sufficient PC for charges.

Sorry. But nope.

Incorrect. There has to be sufficient evidence that she committed a crime. Having classified information on your server is not, in-and-of-itself, a crime.


It's not quibbling, it is vital to your argument. If they weren't marked as classified and there was no reason for her to know the information was classified, then it means no crime occurred because there was no intent or no negligence. It could even be that the information was not classified at the time they passed through her server.


(Emphasis mine) Incorrect. There is an email exchange about removing identifying heading. It's amazing that the email link has been posted numerous times in this thread, and I've already corrected this blatantly false misinterpretation before, yet you still make the mistake. You are buying into the media's spin. The fact of the matter is that we don't know (publicly) if what she is referring to was classified at the time. As another poster pointed out, the FBI probably already does.


Sorry. But nope. Originally Posted by eatfibo

the longer the investigation goes, the more likely the FBI is discovering new evidence. this is not a "much ado about nothing" political hack on the Hildebitch. it ain't no "Tempest in a Tea Pot" either. one proven instance of mishandling classified information is a felony charge. i think the FBI has enough now to charge her but wants to do a through review so they can present a strong case.

i doubt Obama would pardon her, in fact i don't think he can pardon her until after she has been convicted. He'll be out of a job before that happens.

http://www.newsmax.com/andrewnapolit.../28/id/711562/

"Can anyone doubt that Clinton has failed to safeguard state secrets? If her name were Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she'd have been indicted months ago. What remains of the rule of law in America? The FBI will soon tell us."

while i'll state that NewsMax is about as far right as VOX and Salon are left, the above statement is the opinion of a Superior Court Judge not some news hack.

from the wonderful state of Chris Christie as it happens. lol

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He is Fox News’ senior judicial analyst. Napolitano has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications. He is the author of the best-seller, "Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History." For more of Judge Napolitano's reports, Go Here Now.

the longer the investigation goes, the more likely the FBI is discovering new evidence. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The FBI has a habit of keeping information "close to the vest" and avoid "leaks"! There have been "leaks" in cases in which the FBI has been involved with the investigation, but the source of those leaks are customarily from their "local partners" and politicians. Everyone I've heard says COMEY is "straight"!

If they charge (and remember the U.S. Attorney's Office can have an indictment sealed with the supporting evidence until they decide to get a court order to "unseal" the indictment), then certain timelines kick in along with statutory/rule requirements with deadlines they have to meet. It pushes up the investigation and effectively "tables" certain aspects of it.

Unlike many local agencies the Feds "package" their deals to meet the standards imposed by the U.S. Attorney's Office overseeing the investigation BEFORE THE U.S. Attorney's Office seeks an INDICTMENT.... and then you won't see ALL THE EVIDENCE in the INDICTMENT (Example: Look up the Indictment of Bin Laden in 1998 ... did any of you see all that "evidence" listed in the media?... and that wasn't all of it.)

Prosecutor for Petraeus. National director of National Security archive calls it "not a scandal." Top dem of Senate Intelligence committee. Legal expert for security clearance cases.

I addressed your question. So would you kindly address mine now? Originally Posted by eatfibo

Misleading the readers is not a good way to start around here though I think this is not your first time here. Blanton was only talking about the idea of using a separate server in the link and nothing about the security issues. Also, I don't see the quote "not a scandal" in the story.

i think the FBI has enough now to charge her but wants to do a through review so they can present a strong case. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You "think." No one here knows. It's just what they want/think. That's my point. You could very well be right. But based on the facts as we know them, it is entirely likely that what you think is wrong.

i doubt Obama would pardon her, in fact i don't think he can pardon her until after she has been convicted. He'll be out of a job before that happens.

Well, I wouldn't want Obama to pardon her, but it is important that this gets dealt with quickly based on the fact that she is a serious candidate running for president. We have the right to know whether or not there is reason for us to disqualify her here.

while i'll state that NewsMax is about as far right as VOX and Salon are left, the above statement is the opinion of a Superior Court Judge not some news hack.

Previous Superior Court Judge. He stepped down 2 decades ago and has been making quite a good living for himself being a go-to analyst for one of the most biased mainstream media organizations. Let's not pretend that this guy is sitting on the bench, or simply a retired judge. He has been pushing the narrative of FoxNews, for his own profit, for a decade now. Don't fall into the trap that he doesn't have personal financial motives to push a certain belief.

And, in this article, he makes the same false assumptions that every here seems to be making as well:

"SAP is clothed in such secrecy that it cannot be received or opened accidentally. Clinton, who ensured all of her governmental emails came to her through her husband's server, a nonsecure nongovernmental venue, could only have received or viewed it from that server after inputting certain codes."

There is absolutely no evidence of this. None. All we know is that some SAP information was on the server. People have memories: someone who read it might have written something in the email that was considered classified. Remembering something does not require "inputting codes." Like many posters here, this is what he wants to be true, rather than the only logical conclusion from the facts.

Misleading the readers is not a good way to start around here though I think this is not your first time here. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I assure you, it is my first time here, at least in the political forums.

Blanton was only talking about the idea of using a separate server in the link and nothing about the security issues. Also, I don't see the quote "not a scandal" in the story.

You are correct, I misquoted and I apologize. It says it is "less a scandal than a wake-up call."

But you are also correct that I didn't properly vet that particular article. I linked to it based on other things I have read from him about the situation and I thought this was confirmation of it. But here is another link where he says "It's certainly not illegal, it's unclassified information," he said. "She has argued that she did not send [anything] classified, or marked classified. And I don't think they have come up with an example."

I apologize and my intent was not to "mislead," it was an honest mistake. It won't be my last, I assure you.

I have it on good authority from an unnamed source close to the investigation that the FBI will be asking for an indictment.

I have it on good authority from an unnamed source close to the investigation that the FBI will be asking for an indictment. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

If they recommend charges, the question will be whether or not the U.S. Attorney's Office (or DOJ assistant) will approve them and submit. The lawyer assigned to the case will have to review the evidence and the recommendation will go upstream at this level. Under their more recent internal guidelines they have to get "approval" in the DOJ for even sentencing departures and plea decisions if the defendant is not pleading to the "higher" count in the indictment. There is a lot of micro-management built into the "oversight" for the "apparent" purposes of "consistency" through the districts, but IMO it's more political in motivation.

The "advantage" to the locals is the buck gets passed upstream where the "buck" stays. It can also sit on someone's desk awaiting "approval" until "things blow over." Wasn't that what happened in the Chicago "Panther voter intimidation" charges from 2008?

The State Department: Hillary Clinton’s email correspondence contained ‘top secret’ material

The State Department has concluded there is "top secret" material in Hillary Clinton's email correspondence from the time she was secretary of state, indicating that some of her emails will never be released, even in heavily redacted form, because they are too sensitive for the public to view.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ate/?tid=sm_fb

.

The State Department: Hillary Clinton’s email correspondence contained ‘top secret’ material

The State Department has concluded there is "top secret" material in Hillary Clinton's email correspondence from the time she was secretary of state, indicating that some of her emails will never be released, even in heavily redacted form, because they are too sensitive for the public to view. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That was my understanding of the disclosures.

A problem is the misinformation is coming from mischaracterization and the "label" games, once it began to be revealed that she had lied about having classified documents on her private server. Her bullshit just kept getting worse and she struggled to justify why she had a private server, all the way up to then making the statements that she didn't see any emails "marked classified" ....... then the revelation comes that she requested the email headings to be removed so they would not be marked "classified" (which is why she was comfortable lying about them not being "marked" ... while not realizing that her emails about removing the headings would be discovered.)

Truth is easier to remember, so long as it wasn't too long ago. Perhaps that's why she "thought" she was dodging sniper fire on the tarmac with her daughter ... to demonstrate her "military experience" ... or she sought out a Marine recruiter at his "digs" when she was in college.

It's insulting that she actually believes the voters are dumb enough to believe her. Perhaps she consulted with Gruber also. Two words: "Martha Stewart"!

Watergate, deju vu. Only Hillary is now she's on the hot seat. How delicious!

Nothing will come of this....is my prediction.


.

Nothing will come of this....is my prediction.


. Originally Posted by WTF

I'll give you odds. Or I'll hold the vig.