And The Truth Comes Out

It was great that finally someone had the guts to call her out on her emails and the fact that she was a TERRIBLE candidate! I understand that the Clinton Foundation investigation is still ongoing. The woman IS a crook, but it was the best the Dems had.....sad

 

The Cold War?

World War 2?

The Great Depression?

World War 1?

Reconstruction?

The Civil War?

America has been through some (*)(*)(*)(*) without ever clamoring for a dictator.

 

Yeah? Well, HE was the best that the Reps had? Seriously? How scary was all that?

 

And weak leadership tends towards acquiescence and surrender.

 

According to Hillary Clinton, the universe revolves around Hillary Clinton. Some of her supporters share that view, but everybody else understands that there's a lot more going on here. Should she be locked up? Yup. Is that what we should be focusing on? Nope.

Yeah. I'm still hoping the new AG finds enough Clinton Foundation issues to send the case out to a Grand Jury. But Obama still has a few weeks to pardon her...

 

Soothsayers and easy speakers can be quite the effective and adequate opponent. I was not particularly a ready fan of Obama, however, his presence and natural ease was evident. Trumps PR team will have their hands full and their hair pulled out, I imagine. It isn't spineless to be stingy with who we allow to provoke our harshest of word usage.

 

ummm.....

 

So, do you think Obama will still pardon her then?

 

I've apparently gained a different understanding toward Hillary's email situation. Could someone perhaps explain their interpretation of what is known without unnecessarily hijacking the OPs thread, or should I start a specific thread?

 

That's the sort of crap you get with a populist candidate.

 

Hey, if you like your health care plan you can keep it ! You like your doctor, don't worry you can keep him . What say you ?

 

As Donald Trump would say: "WRONG!"

Try again.

 

Prosecuting Hillary Clinton was a centerpiece of Trump's campaign, He pledged to appoint a special prosecutor and even promised Supreme Court nominees who would "go after Hillary". (Side note - he doesn't know how the USSC works.)
Now he admits that was just for show. Like pretty much everything else about his campaign.
Donald Trump is a fraud on every level - serial liar, crook, and fake president. And if you can't see that, I've got a really valuable Trump University diploma for you.

 

That is best analysis of Clinton's situation I have ever read, thanks. Most of us were more worried about Clinton getting in office than seeing she goes to jail, but I have no doubt Clinton will continue breaking laws as long as she's alive. When Obama broke our laws as well, then people around the country also started breaking our laws, illegal immigration, killing cops, rioting, etc. So from that aspect, our law enforcement people will likely have to do something about it, but it is because the criminals put themselves in that position in the first place, not because of some political disagreements.

Whether Trump does anything or not doesn't matter. What really matters NOW is, are we a nation of laws or not? And do those laws apply to everyone including the political elites? That's the questions the people, law enforcement and our government are forced to answer after Clinton's run for office.

Steve

 

No....FBI Director James Comey, who is (coincidentally?) the ONLY political appointee in the FBI, made a statement that has been criticized by DOZENS of actual FBI Field Agents (NOT political appointees!) who worked on the Clinton email case!

I can post that statement, but it's already on here in another thread. If you'd like, I can post it along with a complete explanation of exactly what it means and, more importantly, DOESN'T mean.

It is very long - so you likely won't read it anyway. I think you are making the same mistake as most other Clinton supporters -- you go into it WANTING believe her wholeheartedly and don't question her word. You have to be able to step outside of that mindset and deal with things like this objectively. From your comments, it seems like detailed information that doesn't fall in line with your agenda tends to cause a gag reflex and you reject it as yet another "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Am I in the ballpark there?


The bottom line of it is that Director Comey laid out a clear, concise case FOR prosecution...then turned around and said that no prosecutor would pursue it. THAT is what has the FBI Field Agents so incensed. They knew very well that other people - who are NOT named Hillary Clinton - have been prosecuted and are serving time for doing FAR LESS than what she has been proven to have done.

She violated State Dept. policy with her server setup AND federal law regarding the safeguarding of classified information - and Director Comey's statement even clarifies that very fact.

Here's what he said in that regard: "...seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters."

That is a violation of Federal LAW!

She had information on there that was of such a high level of classification that even members of Congress on an investigative committee CANNOT GET CLEARANCE TO VIEW IT!

This was on an UNSECURED SERVER! She would have had better security if she had used Gmail -- and Comey even said that specifically!

You really need to catch up on this...because you are WAY off-base if you think she is not guilty of violating the law! WAY OFF!


Director Comey, in his defense, is probably a good man - and I don't envy the position he is in. However, anyone who thinks he is immune to political influence from "above" is simply following the same old leftie pattern of burying his head in the sand in denial.


Wake up and smell the coffee!

It doesn't take "magical powers" to understand the law and discern right from wrong!

All it takes is the will to actually dig into the matter, educate yourself on the facts, and THEN form a realistic opinion that you can support with those facts.


You're not quite there yet.

 

Are you suggesting you can prove intent or gross negligence with the Hillary Clinton email server issue? Which law is it that she violated?

 

Is Trump POTUS yet o' wise one?

 

U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States

U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

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

U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”

U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television

U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 

People get excited in large crowds. But no, jailing Killary was not a priority issue.

 

In cases like this, INTENT OF DISCLOSURE IS NOT REQUIRED!

The very fact that information of this scope is on her system in the first place is a prosecutable offense.

That's a plain and simple fact that ANY experienced, reputable attorney can attest to...and people ARE doing Federal time for lesser offenses.


***DISCLAIMER: All information I am posting is readily available via the public domain and is not itself of a classified nature.*** (I need to mention that.)


We're not just talking about plain old classified information - not even the proven presence of TOP SECRET information - this is information that is from something called "Special Access Programs" (SAP).

I have worked a few SAPs in my career because I really do have certain skills that allowed me to be selected for access to information that is of a scope so high that most folks can't fathom the gravity of the damage that would occur if such information were to be released - even if inadvertently released.

SAP information is so highly classified that EVEN THE NAME of the particular program itself is classified at such a high level that members of Congress on an investigative committee cannot get access - to even the name!

SAP information is the very ultimate example of NEED TO KNOW ACCESS ONLY! It requires a completely separate process called a "read-on" that is FAR above regular classified information - even TOP SECRET.

That kind of information does not just happen to find its way onto an unclassified information system.

SAP information has to be intentionally and illegally revealed by someone on the program...disseminated intentionally and illegally to someone associated with Hillary Clinton...then it has to be intentionally and illegally transmitted after being modified to conceal its extremely-high classification.

Someone took that information, re-typed it onto their unclassified email system, and sent it - ILLEGALLY - to Hillary Clinton's private email address on her UNSECURED and UNAUTHORIZED home server.

Do know who did all this? Nope. I have been retired for a few years now. Even so, I still wouldn't know...nor could I reveal that if I did know.


As for gross negligence, according to James Comey himself:

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."


Now...he didn't say the words "gross negligence"...but I challenge anyone to take an objective look at just this factual information that I have posted - let alone the rest of it that I haven't even gotten to - and say with a straight face that Secretary Clinton was anything less than grossly negligent in her handling of this information.


It just doesn't pass the common sense test!


.

 

After exhaustive investigation, the FBI didn't prove she violated those laws. I'll grant you she violated a departmental procedure, but there is no proof of intent and no one (not one single person) has ever been convicted using the charge of gross negligence. Comey laid out a case for gross negligence, but then didn't recommend prosecution for it. That's because no one has ever been tried with that charge, much less found guilty. One former FBI agent was charged with it, but he plea bargained the charge away by admitting guilt to lying to federal agents.

One of the biggest mistakes people make legally with the server issue is that Clinton was a civilian and not subject to UCMJ. She was not subject to the very laws some say, "If I had done that, I'd be in jail." They would have been charged using UCMJ. not the Espionage Act. The FBI had to prove mens rea (intent,) and they couldn't. They had a case for "gross negligence," but no precedent. If Trump's statement that "it worked during the campaign but he doesn't care about it now," and Comey's statement that he didn't have proof of intent doesn't show you that there never was a case, I don't know what will. There was no proof of intent, and it would be precedent setting to charge Hillary Clinton with gross negligence, since that charge has never been used before. That is exactly what Comey meant when he said no prosecutor would take the case to court. He wasn't trying to prove some misdemeanor. If he couldn't prove a felony, there was going to be no trial.

 

Clinton was a civilian. She is not subject to UCMJ. She was subject to the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act, by ruling of the Supreme Court, does require mens rea, or intent. That is what Comey said. He had no evidence of intent. He had evidence of gross negligence, but no one has ever been tried using that charge. To charge her with that would be precedent setting and appear partisan. Therefore, no prosecutor would take the case to court.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no case, regardless of any common sense test.

 

We actually don't care. He's rid us of the beast and that's enough. BTW, when are they going to close Gitmo?

 

If you're referencing the case of Gorin v. United States, it's important to note that the Gorin Court did not limit “bad faith” to strictly obtaining national defense information with the “intent” to injure the United States.

It also considered "bad faith" to be obtaining national defense information while having “reason to believe” that the information could be used to injure the US.

No court since the Supreme Court’s decision has held that the Espionage Act requires the defendant to obtain, receive, or transmit national defense information with the specified intent to injure the US.

All of the various subsections of 19 USC 793 make clear that it is enough to have “reason to believe” information possessed by a defendant could be used to injure the US.

That makes satisfying the mens rea requirement much easier, as evidenced by its appearance in 793(a), 793(b) (“with like intent&#8221, 793(d), and 793(e).

It does not appear in 793(c) — but only because that provision, which deals with receiving or retaining information “connected with the national defense,” does not require even POTENTIAL injury to the US.


Bottom line: We could go back and forth and forth and back about Supreme Court cases all day long and ad infinitum...

I can look up precedent-setting case information as well - although I find it tedious and it has already given me a headache. (I'm not an attorney, NOR do I play one of PF!)


Let's just wait and see if Obama pardons her.

If he does...that'll be telling.


If he doesn't...I think a whole lot more will be revealed!


The Rule of Law applies to EVERYONE!

Even those who are named "Clinton"!

 

Of course you don't care. You don't care that you elected the most unprepared unfit ridiculous excuse for a president in our great country's history. You don't care about competency or honesty or basic human decency.
And now you get to spend the next 4 years making excuses for him. If he lasts that long.