FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary

LOL .. see what you wrote ? That I bolded ? We can disagree over how many were and weren't, although we both know that the FBI has a far greater handle on it than your speculation.

You just agreed that she was guilty. A Freudian slip perhaps, but matter-of-fact regardless. Don't feel bad about it. I agreed that Nixon should resign many moons ago, while he was my Commander in Chief. Kudos to you for getting this one right finally.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL ..... nope. The GOP had a great field, and the best has risen to the top. You just don't like it, but who cares ? Watch and learn.

 

The GOP had a great field????

They had TRUMP...and that's it!!!

Cruz was a complete idiot and a religious wack job....Kasic...probably spelled that wrong....was a SNOOZE....and the other's....well I can't even remember their names because they were so bland.

AA

 

You're babbling, Babs. I did not agree that she was guilty. I'm pointing out that she is NOT guilty of gross negligence. If you want to get into the weeds on claims about what was classified when, we can. But let's say that she was sent some classified information at her unclassified email address. If she was not aware that the information sent to her was classified, she is not going to be charged with anything just because she handled it as if it weren't classified. The person who SENT her the information might be charged, but I think that would be unlikely, too, unless there is evidence of a clear and deliberate effort to mishandle classified information.

 

Any year now... you just wait.

 

Hahahaha .. thanks for the chuckle. The standard is not "gross negligence". You let yourself slip and told the truth. Don't run from it. Give yourself an "atta boy" !!

 

I wonder if the FBI is aware of this thread. Perhaps if they employed some of the patriots in this thread, who seem to know more than anyone, hillary would be in jail already. Make sure you conspiracy theorists are submitting all of your evidence to the relevant authorities. Also, don't sweat it. You don't really look like desperate, intellectually bankrupt, partisan goofballs.

 

It's posted earlier in the thread.

 

Spoliation of evidence

The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.[1] Spoliation has two possible consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration (if convicted in a separate criminal proceeding) for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, or by other corrective measures, depending on the jurisdiction.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

 

So, Napolitano (obviously without any agenda or bias) "believes", presumably without seeing any evidence to support his assertion, that Clinton is guilty?
"...the FBI knows a lot more about it than I do".

What really impresses me, however, is the fact that despite nobody here having seen any evidence apart from whatever the media has speculated on itself, they are quick to condemn.

 

What law are we talking about? For most of the relevant laws, the standard is either "knowingly violated" or "gross negligence." Please cite the law in question, and what you think the standard is.

 

She like everyone else who receives a clearance, is given a briefing. She was a senator before sec state. She'd already HAD that briefing, then she was given ANOTHER one. She was moving classified docs through that server for months before she even put an ENCRYPTION on it. That's not reasonable by anyone's standards. She was taking classified documents outside of secure storage. That's not reasonable by anyone's standards and not allowed by statute.
She then entrusted the server, with all of that classified data on it, to a private company who backed it up with ANOTHER private company. That's not reasonable either.

 

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing serious ? "Knowingly violated" or "gross negligence" ?

So tell the cops that you didn't "know" you were breaking a law, and all is OK then !!!!!

 

Paul was decent until he chased the rabbit into the briar patch on Trump.

 

Some laws require knowledge and intent for it to be a crime. Pretty much ALL of the security statutes Clinton may have violated say you must KNOWINGLY do something bad, or display GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

Have you not actually read the laws in question? Or the legal/judicial history of their application? If not, why are you pontificating about them?

 

Well if it was that cut and dry there wouldn't NEED to be an FBI investigation and she would be in jail. Obviously you guys know more than the FBI so be sure and share with them your "expertise" to expedite this along

Good luck

- - - Updated - - -

Well if it was that cut and dry there wouldn't NEED to be an FBI investigation and she would be in jail. Obviously you guys know more than the FBI so be sure and share with them your "expertise" to expedite this along

Good luck

 

Or it might have something to do with the fact that the executive branch brings charges and the executive has no interest in having his party's front runner lopped off at the knees until after she gets the nod, at minimum? Imagine that: Political considerations holding up justice in a republic, especially when the person's name is "Clinton". Almost like that's not the first time that's happened before..... I seem to remember something about a certain person also named "Clinton" perjuring himself and not receiving any criminal penalty for it..........

 

What does that have to do with the FBIs recommendation though? If it was cut and dry the FBI wouldn't NEED to do an investigation and would just recommend to indict her. Alas, they have not.

So please, hurry up and share with the FBI your "expertise" and enlightenment of the events at hand so we can hurry up and get this all behind us so Hillary can be behind bars.

 

You don't read so well, do you? Tell the class Arx: Which branch of the government does the FBI belong to? (Executive Branch) Who controls the FBI? (President) Who brings indictments and charges? (DOJ under the President) Who gets to say what is classified and what is not (ie who can say "this is my decision and you're damn sure not going to the media with this (*)(*)(*)(*) or I'll bury you")? Is it the executive branch? (It is) That same branch led by that particular executive I mentioned in my previous post which you just quoted? (O yeah.) Eh?

 

Gotta love conservative logic. Hillary is OBVIOUSLY guilty of the most heinous crimes, so if the FBI doesn't recommend charges, it has to be because the FBI is politically compromised.

"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy. Look it up.

 

Did she not knowingly set up the server separate from the secured State Department ones ? Was the purpose of the server something other than to hold her emails ? You have already admitted that the emails contained information that was classified at the time.

Just watch.

 

So now the FBI is biased? You guys are nothing but conspiracy nuts. Let me guess though, if they did recommend to indict her you wouldn't be saying their biased. Gimme a break you guys are funny as hell. Is everything a conspiracy to you guys?

 

This is so gobsmackingly stupid. So since the investigation is ongoing, she must be innocent ....

 

Why would there be a need for a lengthy investigation if everything is cut and dry like you say it is. As I said before, hurry up and call the FBI with your expertise that don't have. That way we can get this behind us and Hillary can go to jail. Hurry up man.

 

Saying something gobsmackingly stupid twice does not somehow make it more credible.

 

She knowingly set up a server to handle unclassified emails, the same way her state.gov email address would have handled unclassified emails. That was and is legal.

She did not create any material she considered classified on that server. All the classification of the emails she created occurred years after their creation.

Of the allegedly classified material sent to her at that address, one of two things applied: a) the material was not considered classified at the time, or b) the information was not identified as classified.

In the former case, no violation occurred. You don't charge people just because, years later, some other agency disagrees with your assessment of whether material should be classified. As long as your classification assessment was done in good faith, there's no crime.

In the latter case, the person who could be liable for a violation is the sender, not Clinton. Security laws do not expect people to be mind readers.

Hey, that's what I've been saying for months. There's always a chance that the FBI investigation has turned up facts that aren't publicly known, and those facts could support charges of some sort.

The only thing I've pointed out is that nothing that is publicly known seems to rise to the level of a chargeable offense.

It's you guys who have been jumping to conclusions for years. You'd think, after being burned so often, you'd stop doing that.