FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary

The DOJ's leadership is simply a puppet for the President. Example: No charges filed over Fast & Furious, no charges filed over the IRS targeting where there were clear violations of law. It's time for an independent special prosecutor.

 

Still no indictment. It must be a conspiracy!

 

LOL! Ah, the power of magical thinking.

 

Your's?

 

It's funny how out of touch with reality these people really are. Charges over Fast & Furious??? Lmao. These guys are crazy.

 

Your Honor, I'd like to call Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Stand...

Q: : And I want to ask you about her emails. You've been in government pretty much your whole life. Secretary Clinton has spent a good deal of time in government. I know there is lots of overclassification and people complain about that. But with your experience, if you read a document in an email, would you have a pretty good idea whether it should be marked Top Secret even if it wasn't?


ROBERT GATES: Sometimes not. The truth is, things are overclassified, and sometimes I would get something and it would be classified Secret or Top Secret.


RADDATZ: Even if it’s the highest classification?


GATES: And I would look at somebody and say, I'm about to tell a foreign leader what is on this piece of paper that's marked Top Secret. And that's going to do serious damage to the United States? Why are you giving it to me as a talking point if it's classified Top Secret? So it is tough sometimes. And if you don't have any markings on a piece of paper, it is tough sometimes to tell whether it's classified or not."

^ From the May 1 edition of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. ​

Your honor, the jury finds the defendant: Not Guilty.

Anyone still think she's going to be charged?

 

Then you have no problem with her having her day in court?

 

You need an indictment first and that will not happen. Sorry

 

That's because Obama has a corrupt administration. The results will be heard in November.

 

As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me bythe United States Government.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

Read the law:

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.


(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.


By the letter of the law, it doesn't matter when the material was classified.

 

If Hillary doesn't know what's classified or not by now, she has no business being President.

 

If they had that evidence they would have frog marched her already.

The veracity of the right for "guilt by accusation" never ceases to amaze me

 

Lmao. Just like in 2012 when Obama had no chance against Romney? Don't you guys ever get tired of being wrong? I personally hate being wrong and when I am wrong, I try to figure out why and change it. You know what they say about people who keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results...

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...y-falls-far-short-his-record-2008-crowds.html

There's some quality predictions in that thread you created in May 2012, lmao...

"All of his rallies will fall short from here on out. Obama will lose more and more support, he will lose to Romney by a decent margin, there will be riots of the black panthers and people in the occupy movement. The nation will finally get back to work, and people will enjoy living in the most free and prosperous nation again. Bank it."

"This picture was taken during Obama's speech....look.
Another sign that his support is a house of cards."

"Poor 'bots... they have such a hard time admitting they're backing a loser:"

 

Yes, that line states a tautology -- that classified material is classified, regardless of how it is marked. Duh.

However, take a look at the law you accuse Hillary of having violated. The crime is:


knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location


Note that you must KNOWINGLY do something. It's kind of hard to knowingly remove classified information if you have no idea the information is classified -- say, because it isn't marked.

Having a server intended for unclassified material does not violate that law. Unknowingly receiving classified information on that server does not violate the law. Generating material you don't think is classified (even if another agency later disagrees) does not violate the law.

 

No doubt. Even if she claims she didn't know they were classified, she's still in violation of the law as the responsible custodian for retaining those documents,.

 

Not really, like above... there has to be gross negligence or intent. If those documents are at all questionable on whether they need to be classified or not, nothing will happen to Hillary. It would have to be some major secrets or security information for there to be any consequences. Hillary will be fine. Your guys view of the law is not how the real world legal system views it. Thankfully.

 

I signed the same Agreement, yet I never violated the laws.

She knowingly removed material to an unauthorized server and then retained said documents illegally.

She was the responsible custodian for those documents. It's her responsibility to stay on top of classifications. She dropped the ball.

In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, *the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

 

Heh. Great post.

 

It shouldn't amaze you. This type of paranoid nonsense is all they have left.

 

Vince Foster!!!11!!

 

True.

Hell, the anti-Hillary conspiracy ran out of tinfoil hats in the last millennium.

 

Hell yes

If they really had anything TANGIBLE:

By now, the anniversary of her execution would be a National Holiday. Hillary Day.

 

Have you looked at a calendar? It's not 2012 anymore.

 

Innocent until proven guilty. Do you understand that fundamental precept, or is it irrelevant when hatred of an opposing position to yours is foremost? That last part was rhetorical, by the way...

 

No, there is no evidence of either.

It was legal for her to have a private email address. The fact that she ran it through her own server, rather than use a commercial service like Hotmail, is unusual but not legally relevant.

There is no evidence that she deliberately moved classified material to that server.

Really, the investigation ends there. The server was intended for unclassified documents, and there's no evidence that she knowingly placed classified documents there.

Separately, she could be reprimanded for not fully complying with the rules covering government records. But that's not a criminal thing; it's an administrative thing. The "punishment" tends to be "turn over the records and don't do that again."

Uh huh. You claim to have worked with classified documents, and yet you seem blithely unaware of how many innocuous things end up getting classified by someone, at some point, to the point that you can't just look at a document and go "Oh, this is obviously classified."

For instance, many of the Hillary emails that are now deemed "classified" are completely innocuous, and the "classified" part is something tiny -- like the subject line, or one of the recipients. Setting aside whether the email truly should be considered classified, in such cases the content itself wasn't classified, so now you're making claims like "Hillary should have known that subject line or recipient was classified, even though the content wasn't." It starts to get ridiculous.

There are guidelines for classifying material, but it always ends up being a matter of opinion. Hillary had classification authority. She generated a bunch of emails she didn't consider classified. Years later, another agency disagreed. That doesn't mean Hillary was wrong and the other agency is right. And it certainly doesn't mean she broke the law. Our security laws don't criminalize bureaucratic disagreements.