• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Emailgate Update - For Hillary No News is Good News. Sadly, there is New News. ;)

maxparrish said:
Dismal,

Don't you just hate it when the MSM verifies Fox exclusives? What was AP thinking? Now Bloomberg's Mark Halperin is reporting:

Bloomberg's Mark Halperin reported this morning on MSNBC that the White House is buzzing about the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton. Halperin also said that the FBI will likely interview Clinton....

"Yeah," said Bloomberg's Mark Halperin, "well, there are three things people are keying off of. There's a lot of chatter amongst FBI agents, many of whom have never been big fans of the Clintons, but a lot of FBI agents seem to be saying something is happening here. Second is, from a legal point of view, you look at some of the recent developments we've talked about here on the program, it's hard to see how the Justice Department, the FBI, doesn't want to interview Secretary Clinton. And that interview alone, short of an indictment, short of anything else, that would be a huge political development and would undermine confidence in some Democrats in the notion of going forward with Secretary Clinton. And the last thing is, there are some people in the White House are starting to talk about this. It's not clear whether they know what's happening or it's just their intuition but the body language among some Obama administration officials is, this is more serious and something is going to happen. Again, the timing of it could be if not cataclysmic pretty bad for Secretary Clinton...
Click to expand...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2000819/

I wonder if Bernie is still "sick tired of hearing about" Hillarys' "damn emails"?

drip...drip...drip
Click to expand...
Yes. Because the Bern is genuinely concerned with the state of the nation.

credoconsolans said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Story came out Friday afternoon.


Have a great weekend.
Click to expand...

And Department officials confirm that the info was NOT classified at the time the emails were created, but are investigating whether the info should have been.

Again, a non-story.
Click to expand...
But as an agency head, she had the authority/duty to make the determination as to whether or not the information was potentially damaging to the nation. And in that it was determined top secret, whoa! It's hard to talk yourself all the way down through secret, trough classified, to posed no potential damage to the nation. Shit fittin' to get ugly.
 
Must we start over, re-educating the forgetful? Ten months ago, long before any discussion of classified material, the following law-breaking was already established under federal codes effective in 2009.

44 US Code Section 3101
§1236.20
§1236.22
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation


1) As the head of a Federal agency Hillary Clinton intentionally ignored legally mandated duties of record-keeping. (Section 3101). In particular, she intentionally ignored the numerous requirements for an appropriate and secure record-keeping system for state department records that she generated (and received); instead using her own departmentally unapproved and insufficiently secured 'home-brewed' system as the keeper of all of her State Department records. (See 1236.20)

2)She ignored the additional requirements for managing her e-mail records, in particular by not preserving the record in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.(1236.22 (b))

3)She violated 18 U.S. Code § 2071 (Concealment, removal, or mutilation). The following sub-paragraphs apply:

(a) She "willfully and unlawfully concealed, removed, destroyed, or attempted to do so, or, with intent to do so took and carried away a record, document, or other thing, filed or deposited in a public office. ... (she is) subject to be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

(b) And she, "having the custody of any such record, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully concealed, removed, mutilates, or destroyed the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

Hillary Clinton willfully and unlawfully concealed, and attempted to conceal, her State Department records by intentionally using her exclusive and private email server for all her official email business, storing government records through her private email server, and not complying with record-keeping requirements. She intentionally did not follow procedure to provide copies of private emails to the State Department while she was head of the agency, nor return them promptly upon termination (until caught two years later under an FOIA).

On this basis alone, Ms. Clinton's concealment and conspiracy to conceal State Department records requires charges. Upon conviction she should receive a sentence, fine, and be barred from future office.

For a more extended and detailed look at the Federal Codes violated:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ndal-Blow-Over/page13&highlight=Hillary+Email
 
Last edited:
Or nothing should happen because the whole thing is a stupid non-event. One or the other.
 
Will Wiley said:
laughing dog said:
This delay is just more proof that the FBI, DOJ, the Justice League of America and Judge Dredd are corrupt.
Click to expand...

The timeline must have been extended.

Former federal prosecutor says Hillary could be indicted in the next 60 days as the FBI compiles 'overwhelming' evidence against her

'I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable,' he said.
'The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information,' DiGenova continued.
'The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sixty days? That takes us to April 1st

Appropriate.

Sixty seems to me to be quite a lot more than two. But perhaps that's just me.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html?ref=politics



The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.
Click to expand...

Move along. Nothing to see here.
 
Nice Squirrel said:
Hillary won't be indicted.
Click to expand...
I doubt Loretta Lynch would allow it, sure. But if a Republican wins the White House (rather probable if Hillary weasels her way into the nomination) expect an indictment by the new AG. Also, if she wins expect immediate impeachment proceedings by the House.
 
southernhybrid said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/politics/22-clinton-emails-deemed-too-classified-to-be-made-public.html?ref=politics



The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.
Click to expand...

Move along. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

What there is to see here is the NYT dutifully regurgitating Clinton talking points.
 
Derec said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Hillary won't be indicted.
Click to expand...
I doubt Loretta Lynch would allow it, sure. But if a Republican wins the White House (rather probable if Hillary weasels her way into the nomination) expect an indictment by the new AG. Also, if she wins expect immediate impeachment proceedings by the House.
Click to expand...
#1) A republican will most likely not be elected until a party realignment.
#2) The House will be putting democracy in danger if they immediately impeach her.
#3) She will cease to be a political threat if she loses the election and nothing will be done.
 
Derec said:
But if a Republican wins the White House (rather probable if Hillary weasels her way into the nomination) expect an indictment by the new AG.
Click to expand...
Why?
The only reason this is an issue is to keep her out of the White House. If she's not elected, the whole issue will die, just like all the screaming about the Ebola epidemic.

Also, if she wins expect immediate impeachment proceedings by the House.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Pointless obstructionism that highlights an entire party as sore losers is the Republican way.
 
You mean Obama's State Department which used to be run by Clinton and is still staffed by all the rabidly partisan loyalists she hired?
 
credoconsolans said:
dismal said:
What there is to see here is the NYT dutifully regurgitating Clinton talking points.
Click to expand...

So the State Department is now regurgitating Clinton talking points?

LOL
Click to expand...

The state department is withholding entire chains of Clinton emails because an independent review has found they contained highly confidential information. The Clintonian truth parsing comes in when it is emphasized that these documents were not marked classified. It really does not matter whether confidential information is marked classified. Indeed itbis criminal to remove classified markings, and negligent to handle classified information without marking it. This is why the FBI is now involved. To see how top secret information came to be on a private server without proper markings.
 
If Max thinks it is important, then it is political and not too important. If Sanders made it part of his campaign (and he didn't), it is not the meat of objections to Hillary Clinton. Our government uses classified to hide things from the people of this country and there should be very little that should be classified. Laws that constrict the perceptions of the people of this country regarding how it is conducting foreign affairs serve only the military industrial complex that charges our government excessively for its "services." What do we not understand about the principle that government should be transparent? Clinton's crimes are all being very carefully concealed from us, so I suspect she didn't leak too much. The bulk of her campaigning seems to be "Follow me! I'm blond, a WOMAN and you owe me the presidency." In the campaign, she has been obtuse and really has not offered even a clue of any changes she would attempt to make if she were elected president. In that aspect, she is exactly like the Republicans. I will not be voting for her ever, but not because of her emails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom