FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary

No I care for a different reason. I dont care about Benghazi and I do not know if she broke any laws or not.

But let me ask you then, you think the issue is ridiculous. She had access to our nation's most important secrets. She was and is a public servant that was responsible for our foreign policy. Yet she has admitted that she did not maintain her correspondence in a responsible way. Also she has admitted to deleting correspondence AFTER a subpoena for correspondence. You say the issue is ridiculous why is the protection of our country's secrets ridiculous? Why is asking for accountability from out public servants ridiculous? Why is asking that our future president be responsible ridiculous? Why is asking that Mrs Clinton be treated as anyone else with that high of clearance ridiculous?

 

They have a separate system for handling classified information and the nation's most important secrets. Even if she used the .gov email address none of these details would be different about classified information. It will come down to what information was in those emails they said contained classified info. If it's deemed to not put our security at risk, nothing will happen of this and it will be a non issue. If they find some damning evidence of highly classified material that anyone should know is classified, then she'd be in trouble. Luckily, the information so far, is there hasn't been any of that.

 

I wished thay would just go back to bengahzi

 

But she deleted thousands of emails are we to just take every politician's word that they did nothing wrong? It is the deleting I have the biggest issue with her on. The addition of the whole server thing just compounds it. That and the fact that if I abused my security clearance and did what she did I would lose it at minimum and be disciplined in some way more then likely. She could have deleted anything and we will never know. So basicly it is about trust, accountability, and equal treatment. I dont care about Benghazi, the Republican agenda, her being a woman, or that she is a Clinton. she has shown me that I cannot trust her to safeguard our nations as president. Sanders I believe could do the job, Cruz and Kasitch as well. Trump you cannot trust either. So when you say it is ridiculous and only partisans would complain I say sir that you are wrong.

 

I want to preface this post with this… I'm not defending Clinton. I am answering your question with what I have learned after doing some intensive reading on the subject.

The law under which someone is prosecuted when they mishandle secret information is the Espionage Act. If the secret information concerns defense, it may not be given to someone without proper clearance. Most of what Clinton did in the State Department had nothing to do with defense and there is no evidence that she emailed defense secrets to anyone else, at least not that I have ever seen. If they had that kind of evidence, I believe she would have already been charged. It's binary. Either she sent defense secrets or she didn't. There have been no charges. So, the secret information she did deal with and could have mishandled would fall under a part of the Espionage Act that requires the prosecution to show that it was knowingly and deliberately mishandled. That's called "intent." Without intent in mishandling documents, no American has been prosecuted under that part Espionage Act in over 20 years, even if they mishandled secret documents. She has admitted to not archiving emails according to another department's regulations for the first three months as she assumed office. I don't believe she will be prosecuted for breaking that regulation because that department admits that there were many more departments with greater violations of that regulation than Clinton. I don't believe the FBI can prove that Clinton knowingly or deliberately gave secret information to someone not authorized to get that information. If they cannot prove that, they won't prosecute. A lawyer looking to make a name by taking Clinton down would have to have a slam-dunk case, with overwhelming evidence and proof of intent, or making the charge would be professional suicide. For all those reasons, I don't believe she will be prosecuted, despite the OP claiming the FBI has overwhelming evidence.

I'm sure you can Google, but this link has some detailed information that may be clearer than me. The part about "Gross Negligence" and the Supreme Court's decision on intent with the Espionage Act described in the link are important to why she isn't likely to be charged.

I hope this helps.

 

I knew most of that as I have stated I dont know if she broke the law or not. It is of lesser import to me then the obfuscation, carelessness, and favoritism of the whole situation. But thank you for the post.

 

18 U.S.C. 793(f)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793#sthash.9t9WXeTy.dpuf

Bolding mine.

To be clear that is a charge per instance. So take any document containing classified material and any time it was copied or abstracted, or moved in a non approved manner (say by abstracting the document by hand typing sections and then sending it over unsecured fax or email), and count those instances then add to them any time someone without clearance had access to those abstractions, copies, or moved documents without clearance.
That's a max of 10 years per instance and say how many of these documents were stored improperly again? Her own BOSS called it carelessness. She fits the elements.

 

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793#sthash.9t9WXeTy.dpuf

The minimum is negligence actually.

 

From your link: " Yes, many laws are regularly used as swords well beyond their intended purpose and if we learn that she or her aides intentionally removed or even copied classified documents, removed the classification and sent them to her unsecured personal server, that could be a different story. We do know that in some of the released emails, her aides even discuss the need to steer away from classified information."

Remember those emails hildog sent to her staff directing them to remove the markings from a classified document and send it over fax?

 

If I am thinking of the same ones you are mentioning, they were actually sent by fax and not by email, so… no harm, no foul.

 

But of course she broke the law. How can one be Hillary Clinton and not break the law?

 

Incorrect. They were sent by UNSECURED fax which is just as out of bounds as email, especially since she directed them to do it. Classified stuff goes through a secured fax, which you're required to use, or a secured email system, same. Which she directed her staff not to use because she needed the info right the (*)(*)(*)(*) now and couldn't get to her secured system at that particular moment in time. http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/C05787519.pdf
Notice that the conversation isn't classified because they don't discuss anything the docs contain or discuss. Draw your attention to the headings however and their redaction. This is a conversation about redacted material and the headings are clipped using b5 which is the government's go to "we can't let people know about this" BS exemption from disclosure. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...aving-to-let-redaction-opportunity-slip.shtml
^ a decent article to point you in the right direction on b5.
b6 is for personnel info which is why some of those addresses are redacted.

 

Apparently we are talking about different things. I thought you meant what she was quoted as saying.. "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." That's what I thought you meant. In that case, it wasn't turned into a non paper and sent nonsecure, it was sent by secure fax and not emailed at all.

I've seen your links already. I don't see anything in them that would lead to an indictment, but time will tell if they do.

 

If the evidence is so "overwhelming", why isn't she already scheduled for lethal injection?

 

It's GROSS negligence, which is a really high bar to reach. Nothing we've seen so far rises to the level of gross negligence.

 

But nobody actually gets prosecuted for that...

 

Before the FBI completes it's investigation? How exactly would that happen?

- - - Updated - - -

Really NO ONE has ever been prosecuted for that and if she goes before a judge and tries to use that as a defense what do you believe he would say?

 

I think she cleared that bar from the get go, what do you call not just allowing but directing that classified information be transmitted to your private unsecured not even encrypted private server for a 3 month period? That means as simple text files anyone could open with Windows Notepad. I think that qualifies for gross negligence in the handling of classified information how about you?

How about refusing to go by the direction of all the intelligence agency that applied to NOT use a private server, to NOT use private equipment ESPECIALLY when traveling to a foreign country. We even have her in an interview somewhere discussing how they trained them all about not doing so. YET she insisted and willfully and with purpose did so. Yep, I'd call that gross negligence, how about you?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/

A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."

"I'm not going to speculate about whether the document being discussed was classified," this official added. "Generally speaking, I can say that just because a document is sent via a secure method doesn't mean that it's classified. Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified."

That article is a day after yours. The CBS article mentions a quote by the associated Press that "apparently" it wasn't a problem but there is no link and I was unable to locate that story. I was able to locate the CNN story above.
I'm not certain we've received the definitive answer on this.

 

Yeah...there is no chance Hillary will be indited.

ZERO.

AA

 

Having more than 2000 classified items of one sort or another in multiple unsecured locations isn't gross negligence?

 

Maybe nobody in govt and not recently would be more accurate. Why would she go before a judge when she wont even be charged?

 

Nope.

Especially because reasonable people disagree over what should be classified, and pretty much all the documents Clinton handled were not considered classified at the time. If she handled the documents more or less appropriately given her view of them, then there is no gross negligence.

 

I still predict Hillary won't be indicted.

Btw--Is it just me or have the talking points in this thread been posted a thousand other times already at PF?

 

It is an unfortunate tactic by both parties to raise time and time again any possible chance of inappropriate behavior by the other parties candidate even if there is no real evidence to prove such.

The candidates we have to chose from SUCK!!

AA