Clinton And Pratraus Cases Are Not The Same

Only the weak minded left would support her.

Of course, I have said it before and it is still true; Democrats expect their people to be lying criminals and they are never ever disappointed.

You go assup.

She is guilty of multiple lies/ perjury.
Comey said so himself.
I thinck I would believe the Director of the FBI before I would believe lying crooked Hillary

She is guilty of multiple lies/ perjury.
Comey said so himself.
I thinck I would believe the Director of the FBI before I would believe lying crooked Hillary Originally Posted by The2Dogs

... or "Assup" ... aka YouRong.

... or "Assup" ... aka YouRong. Originally Posted by LexusLover

....or EKIM...aka dingleberry picker.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

1. Petraus gave classified information to someone who was not authorized. Petreaus' girlfriend was the commander of an Army Military Intelligence unit, and she held a Top Secret security clearance in that capacity, flighty. Hildebeest surrendered access to Top Secret SAP material to her lawyers and to technicians who serviced her illegal, insecure server who did not have commensurate security clearances, flighty.

2. He did not turn over the classified information back to government. Hildebeest did not surrender her emails until nearly two years after they were subpoenaed by Congress -- in direct violation of Federal Records statutes and the FOIA, flighty.

3. He hid the classified information in the attic of his house. Hildebeest stored Top Secret SAP documents on her illegal and insecure server -- more insecure than a Gmail account -- stored in her basement. Then she turned over her unwiped servers to outside agencies -- hence, more people with no security clearances -- who provided even less security than hildebeest had, flighty.

4. He lied to the FBI when they were investigating him. Hildebeest lied to the American people and -- while under oath -- to Congress, flighty.

Hillary missed 3 paragraphs out of 60, 000 email chains that were marked with a "C". The classified material from SAP documents were illegally transcribed into her emails, flighty. Highly illegal, flighty, and Comey said that someone -- someone who is "responsible" -- at her level should have known that such information had no place in an insecure email, flighty.

1. Petreaus's mistress WAS NOT authorized to see the information that he gave her. The SAP information that was on her server was not labeled Classified or Top secret
by the staffer who sent it to her. It is not a crime to not know that something is classified if is not marked classified.

2. Colin Powell who worked for your hero Bush43 did not surrender his emails either.

3. What kind of security does classified hard copy documents have in the attic of someone's house? Did Petreaus borrow that idea from the Sopranos on HBO?

4. What was the lie? 3 paragraphs out of 60,000 email chains. No other document was labeled Classified or Top Secret that she received from the Staffer who sent her the information from a server on a nonsecure network. Should have known or not knowing is not a crime if the document is labeled incorrectly. At best, the staffer's who sent her documents that were classified but not marked classified should lose their authorization to handle classified information.

5. The person who sent J.D Barleycorn a document with Classified information with the wrong label was not prosecuted or demoted. JD posted on ECCIE that when he was in the Navy he received documents that had classified information, and it was not labeled "Classified".

.

1. Petreaus's mistress WAS NOT authorized to see the information that he gave her. Hildebeest's lawyers, IT personnel and server repositories WERE (plural) NOT authorized to see the information she gave them. The SAP information that was on her server was not labeled Classified or Top secret by the staffer who sent it to her. It is not a crime to not know that something is classified if is not marked classified.It is a crime, flighty. Scores of people have been prosecuted for it, flighty.

2. Colin Powell who worked for your hero Bush43 did not surrender his emails either. You lie, flighty. Powell left his emails on his State Department computer, flighty.

3. What kind of security does classified hard copy documents have in the attic of someone's house? Did Petreaus borrow that idea from the Sopranos on HBO? If you remember, flighty, Petreaus was investigated and heavily fined for what he did.

4. What was the lie? 3 paragraphs out of 60,000 email chains. No other document was labeled Classified or Top Secret that she received from the Staffer who sent her the information from a server on a nonsecure network. Should have known or not knowing is not a crime if the document is labeled incorrectly. At best, the staffer's who her documents that were classified but not marked classified should lose their authorization to handle classified information. If you remember, flighty, Comey said anyone else who did what hildebeest did could expect to be prosecuted, flighty; so, your notion that it's not a crime is complete and utter BS, according to Comey, flighty.

5. The person who sent J.D Barleycorn a document with Classified information with the wrong label not prosecuted or demoted. JD posted on ECCIE that when he was in the Navy he received documents that had classified information, and it was not labeled "Classified".You're stupid, and you're a liar, flighty.
Originally Posted by flghtr65

The Petraeus case is a lot worse than the case with Clinton.

1. Petraeus gave classified information to someone who was not authorized.

2. He did not turn over the classified information back to government when he left the Army.

3. He hid the classified information in the attic of his house.

4. He lied to the FBI when they were investigating him.

Hillary missed 3 paragraphs out of 60, 000 email chains that were marked with a "C".

There two cases are totally different. That is why he was charged with a crime and Hillary was not.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...e88956382.html Originally Posted by flghtr65

arse u a idiot or just posting lik it?

Where do you get the idea she missed 3 paragraphs in 60K emails?

Did you read or listen to anything that FBI Director Comey said about her? She lied through her teeth, but Comey doesn't want to decide the next election himself. So he punted it to the American public to reject her.

If it was you or me, we would have been charged. And if she wasn't running for President - she would have been charged. Originally Posted by Revenant

remember that "you or me" part. have a nice day!

She lied under oath, nuff said. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

she wasn't under oath when FBI interviewed her

she wasn't under oath when FBI interviewed her Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Hildebeest was under oath when she lied to Congress. Chaffez said Congress was prepared to act on that fact.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The IG report on Clinton. From the link Colin Powell did not hand over his emails from his Yahoo account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pector-general

IBH, you're a liar and an idiot with no command of the facts.

From the link:

7. The report also criticizes Colin Powell’s handling of official emails during his tenure as secretary of state, saying it was also “not an appropriate method” for preserving emails that are part of the federal record. When asked to defend her email system, Clinton has said that her predecessors also used personal accounts.

The IG report on Clinton. From the link Colin Powell did not hand over his emails from his Yahoo account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pector-general

From the link:

7. The report also criticizes Colin Powell’s handling of official emails during his tenure as secretary of state, saying it was also “not an appropriate method” for preserving emails that are part of the federal record. When asked to defend her email system, Clinton has said that her predecessors also used personal accounts.
Originally Posted by flghtr65

Your article punctures your fantasy when it goes on to say that the rules governing emails had changed significantly by the time hildebeest took office and were "more sophisticated", flighty.



Plus, Powell used two computers, flighty -- and the one that he used to send and receive classified documents wasn't shared with lawyers and technicians who didn't have security clearances or risk serious exposure to foreign hackers the way hildebeest did.

Colin Powell: I used two computers at State

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he used two computers while leading the department, one for transmitting sensitive material and another for emailing “housekeeping stuff.”

(The Hill)

Fluffy, Hillary didn't turn over all the emails that she was required to submit, either. In fact, she actively destroyed thousands of them. So by your logic, she is guilty. Destruction of records is a prima facile case of obstruction of justice. Why can't you accept the the fact that Hillary is a criminal? She just gets away with everything.

she wasn't under oath when FBI interviewed her Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Was Martha Stewart "under oath" when she lied to Federal investigators?

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate."

Martha Stewart was also convicted under "conspiracy" to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
"Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees"

"Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

There is no "requirement" for the defendant to have been "under oath"!

The reason why that is a bogus analysis by the DOJ is that as a practical matter Federal (State and Local) investigators rarely have any present during interviews and contacts with citizens who can administer "the oath." Cummy knows that! And as a Federal Prosecutor (former) if that was his standard to initiate prosecutions, and he didn't put Hillarious-No-More under oath, then HE INTENTIONALLY FAILED TO DO SO TO AVOID HAVING TO RECOMMEND A PROSECUTION ... OR HE'S NOT COMPETENT TO BE THE HEAD OF THE FBI .... he can take his pick.

Regardless .... Hillarious-No-More was sworn when she appeared before Congress.

From the link Colin Powell did not hand over his emails from his Yahoo account. Originally Posted by flghtr65

So what?

The fool in front of you cuts the red light, so you go on through after that fool, cutting the red light ... and you tell the Judge ... the cop didn't stop the guy in front of you ... as a defense to you cutting the red light?

Good luck with that!

Now, let's crank it up "a notch" .... National Security and seeking to be THE POTUS!!!!!!!

Fluffy, Hillary didn't turn over all the emails that she was required to submit, either. In fact, she actively destroyed thousands of them. So by your logic, she is guilty. Destruction of records is a prima facile case of obstruction of justice. Why can't you accept the the fact that Hillary is a criminal? She just gets away with everything. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

it (destruction of records) shows intent..its one method prosecutors use to show intent

the thing comey hung his hat on