FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary

I'm just trying to help you guys out since you know more than the FBI. Or is it the FBI is biased? Hard to keep track of the conspiracies that cons come up with when things don't go their way.

 

The form I used was "Hillary is DEMONSTRABLY guilty of a particular crime, see statutory authority for elements of crime. Hillary is DEMONSTRABLY guilty of this particular crime because the facts state *provides facts supporting conclusion*. The fact that this is already in the public domain means the FBI knows about it already. Because it is demonstrable and supported by verified facts, this raises a presumption as to the reasoning motivating the FBI's feet dragging on this issue. That presumption is informed by the fact that there is an entire procedure for the appointment of special counsel and investigators for JUST THIS REASON ie to investigate executive branch officials for wrong doing, so you don't have the executive branch auditing itself which is prone to rampant abuse." Am I required to explain why that is or do you grasp that simple concept (why we have a process in place to independently investigate the executive branch instead of having it audit itself)?
I made a reasoned argument supported by evidence (H demonstrably guilty with statute and facts) and used that reasoning and general knowledge (such as the org chart of the executive branch, the process for appointment of independent counsel/investigators for just this purpose etc) to examine the current climate and make reasoned inferences as to possibly WHY this hasn't been moved on when it is quite clear.

Notice my wording in the post. "... it MIGHT have SOMETHING to do with..." <<< That's what we in the business call a clue. Pick it up. Run with it. I'm openly postulating an INFERENCE on that particular point, never claimed it was anything else and I encourage you to quote me if you disagree and I'll walk you through it slowly as I would a small child.

 

That wasn't from the FBI or anyone in the investigation. It was a .com site.

 

Yes, everything is a conspiracy to them. It's very weird. They are completely detached form the real world. They are DEMONSTRABLY wrong on just about everything. Especially when it comes to legal matters, haha.

 

Maybe we read the article differently, but it says that the document wasn't emailed, and apparently was sent by secure fax. As long as the document wasn't emailed, then all the hoopla over it doesn't really matter. Even Grassley said there was no indication the document was emailed. Making secure documents nonpapers and sending them unsecured is not illegal or even considered to be mishandling. It's done all the time. They have a procedure on how to make secure documents into nonpaper just for that reason. I think that's pretty definitive. If there was a problem with the quote "apparently was sent by secure FAX" being correct, I'm sure we would have heard about that by now. What is fairly certain is that it wasn't sent by email. The only reason email was considered to be an option was the secure FAX was giving them problems. It's logical to assume that if they didn't use the email alternative, they sent it by secure FAX.

 

1) sending a classified document outside of secure channels, whether that is by email, by fax, by word of mouth, by smoke signal, by carrier pigeon etc, violates the statute. Knowing about it and not reporting it, also violates the statute.
2) and why would we be hearing about it? That would be part of an ongoing FBI investigation not part of the email hoopla that they're releasing to the public. That was the whole email chain for that thread, the only publicly releasable portion in any format. There is NO information beyond that, no more recent articles, and the most recent article quoted (the CNN article) has a state dept flunky refusing to comment on the material, its status, and what happened with it. You article with the "apparently" is quoting a second hand source without a cite, whereas the CNN article has someone from state being openly questioned about it and deflecting quite clearly.

OR they could've texted it to her blackberry by text or an aide's blackberry by text, a private email we haven't seen of H or one of her aides, or sent it over unsecure fax.

 

But it wasn't sent by email. Even Grassley said so.

People in position to know and people not in position to know have speculated about all kinds of things. The document in question wasn't emailed. If it had been sent by some other form, surely someone would have speculated about that by now, but they haven't. Since the only reason it was to be sent by email was that the FAX machine wasn't working at the time, and it wasn't sent by email, it is logical to assume it was sent by FAX&#8230; and that was secure.

Whether or not someone at State was deflecting when talking about it is opinion.

All that is your speculation. There is no reason to think they sent the document any other way than FAX. The only reason an email alternative was even considered was because the FAX wasn't giving them trouble. Since it didn't go by email, it most likely went by the secure FAX they otherwise used.

When I look at this entire situation, I am not looking at it as a partisan. I'm looking at it from the legal standpoint.

 

Actually, a State Department official explicitly said that the document in question was likely sent by secure means:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-clinton-email-security-20160109-story.html


On Saturday, a State Department official who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the increasingly complicated review of Clinton's emails said the agency "checked its records and found no indication that the document in question was sent to Secretary Clinton using nonsecure fax or email."

The official, who demanded anonymity, said records instead turned up a secure fax transmission shortly after Clinton's email exchange with adviser Jake Sullivan on June 17, 2011. The implication was that this was the same document.

 

You are stating things as fact that are not. Same old (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Did you notice me say it was sent by email? Because if so you're reading posts I didn't write. Here's what I wrote again for clarity "1) sending a classified document outside of secure channels, whether that is by email, by fax, by word of mouth, by smoke signal, by carrier pigeon etc, violates the statute. Knowing about it and not reporting it, also violates the statute."

Not the FAX machine, the SECURED FAX MACHINE which is a particular special machine and line they use to fax classified documents. I believe the first one was called a telex machine, IDK what they call them now but they aren't your normal office fax machine hooked up to any old line. They have a secured machine for sending secure documents.... such as the ones we've been discussing.

"It is logical to assume"..... and below you're dogging on me for speculation? On the exact thing YOU are speculating upon? When I'm simply suggesting other entirely plausible alternatives such as "they sent it on a private email we don't have" or "they sent it to a device we don't have from a device we likewise don't have" like a personal cell phone, or that they used an unsecured fax machine to send it again perfectly plausible as offices are filled with them, yes even government offices because not everything goes on the secure system. If the secured fax wasn't working they were informed to get that info to her through another source. ANY SOURCE that was NOT the secured fax and NOT her secured email would be a violation unless it was hand delivered by someone with clearance according to the procedures for same. Secured faxes have records, monitoring the traffic and being able to analyze it after the fact being key to securing them in the first place. I wonder why no exculpating record has been produced from the secured fax to put this buggaboo to rest? I find that odd, strange even, from a legal standpoint.

As to deflecting: have you read the CNN article? When you are asked a direct question and your answer is not "yes because" or "no because" and instead is "I'm not going to answer that in any fashion, or speculate in any fashion" that's deflection.
What do YOU call it when someone "answers" a question by not answering the question? I call it deflection. Do you call it stonewalling? Would it help you if I changed the term?
As to opinion: yes it is my opinion that he was deflecting *or whatever term you'd like to settle on to describe the behavior*. Was that not clear? Did I say "As a matter of objective fact....." or something like that? Odd.... I don't remember doing that and its not in any of my posts....

Yeah totally no reason to think she'd have them send the doc in any manner other than the secured fax, because its not like she directed the guy to send it non-secure if he couldn't get the fax working..... o wait....
See how that DOES provide a REASON to think they sent the document some other way than secured fax? Perhaps it was sent from personal aide email to personal aide email and simply typed, printed, and never saved. Perhaps it was sent transcribed in personal cell communications or on unsecured fax. There are multiple ways it could've been sent, they were directed to get the info to her right the (*)(*)(*)(*) now, and to do it unsecured if they had to. That provides plenty of reason to think it could've been sent unsecured.

And what makes you think I'm looking at it as a partisan? As you say even grassely a top pub leader has made pronouncements on this. I've apparently received my marching orders as a partizan, therefore. Why do I disobey my masters then? Perhaps I'm not a partisan? Perhaps I too am viewing this from a legal standpoint? Perish the thought. No I simply must be motivated by partisan politics. It couldn't be that I take actual legal issue with the secretary of state directing one of her staffers to send something non secured, of keeping classified documents in violation of the law, of disseminating same in violation of the law (remember she had all that info on her server and she gave the server into unsecured custody), then of consistently lying about it (see how she's had to change her story every single time new information comes out)... No no, I must be some sort of partisan taking my orders from the top.

 

So you're going on the record right now as saying "any time a news article cites an unnamed source who totally says just what they need them to, that's perfectly believable"?
I would like a clear answer on this because it will effect my response.

 

You made a statement of fact. Now you try to couch that. What is it NO ONE is ever prosecuted or not? And why would she not be charged simply because someone else wasn't charged and if she does get charge who long do you think it will take a judge to say "motion dismissed"?

How about stopping with the specious defenses?

 

Documents and emails are not classified, information is classified and she was trained in what information is or isn't classified and no there is not this great disagreement over it. Classified information WAS on her unsecured server, including our HIGHEST classified information which is classified AT BIRTH and it was there BECAUSE of her own actions and directions. And that bolded part, all it takes is one classified document. You just admitted there were more than just one and in fact quite a few. Why is that not a crime?

- - - Updated - - -

And the premise of that conclusion is what exactly? And even if she is not indicted are you saying she should still be elected president after her total recklessness with our national security that has been demonstrated?

 

It's not a defense, it's helping you avoid too much disappointment.

 

You, as per normal, respond to a detailed post with a one-line dismissal. Why should anyone take you seriously?

 

No. But it's what we have to go on at the moment. You guys are all "There is clear evidence Hillary broke the law!", even though we have an explanation that no, she didn't. That should at least give you pause before making your claims.

Which is why I've said all along to wait for the FBI report, because thus far there is no clear evidence Hillary did anything illegal. But that's not good enough for you guys: you jump straight to the conviction phase, without bothering with the intervening investigation portion.

- - - Updated - - -

Your misunderstanding of the classification process and the laws regarding classified material has been explained to you multiple times. At this point I just shrug my shoulders and say "wait for the FBI report. You will be disappointed unless the FBI has uncovered additional information that is not currently public."

 

I meant no disrespect and do not want to turn this discussion into an argument. I also did not intend to upset you in any way or give you marching orders. This issue, the reporting on it , and the discussion of it, have become quite partisan. I've attempted to look at it from a non-partisan standpoint. I wasn't accusing you of being a partisan. I hope you can see the difference.

I've stated my opinion on this matter several times. Whether she did something irresponsible with secure documents or not, what matters is what can be proven in court and the decision on whether to indict Clinton on this issue comes down to whether they have the evidence to prove it. My opinion is that the FBI doesn't have sufficient evidence to indict her, even if she mishandled documents. I've also stated several times that if they have enough evidence to indict her, I think she should be tried. From your posts, I understood you to believe that they had evidence to indict and thought we saw the issue from different perspectives. You can clear that up with a simple.. "yes, I think she'll be indicted," or "no, she won't."

Perhaps you are not partisan, as you posted. Perhaps you are looking at the legal aspects of this case and we just see it from different perspectives. I'm not a gambler, but if I were, I'd bet on Clinton not being indicted because of the things I have read about this situation. I feel certain that if you have read the same documents in the same way I have, you'd bet the same way I would. One way or another, we'll soon find out whether she will be charged or not.

 

Ah so unnamed sources are not reliable when you don't want them to be reliable and are reliable when you do want them to be.
Having your cake and eating it too, got it. You know there was a state dept source who DID go ON record and he didn't answer the question. See my earlier post with the cnn link.

 

Um, no. That's not what I said.

I'm not saying the unnamed source is automatically true. All I'm saying is that it provides an explanation of what happened in that particular instance, that doesn't involve illegal activity.

Maybe the unnamed source is lying. Maybe they're telling the truth. I DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DO YOU.

Point is, with a plausible alternative explanation out there, you can't claim that Hillary clearly broke the law. Because if the unnamed source is telling the truth, then she didn't.

Which is why we should wait for the FBI report before jumping to conclusions.

But you can't do that, can you?

 

You need to read the news more. The evidence is out there already.

 

Hillary was married to a man who had the highest classification.

Then she joined the club known as the US Senate.

Senators are told in meetings, what classified means. They deal with classified materials. They can't plead how ignorant they are of classified materials. She took the job at State. Even there they are told what is classified.

State takes no chances they will leak classified, even when the material does not state classified. If her department was so lax, as not to mark it classified prior to her eyes seeing it, she ran a lousy operation.

She did not use the Government site. She set up a personal site. She got far more than e mails of a personal nature.

Stop acting as if she is innocent.

But will Obama charge her?

This poster wonders. They are ultra political.

 

Red Herring. They can't release documents from an ongoing investigation, but you knew that. Try Judicial Watch they have lots of released documents.

 

I wanted to clear up any implications left hanging. If you say you weren't implying them then that is the end of it.

Of course what matters is what can be proven. No way to make a charge stick if you can't prove it. However you're forgetting partisanship, which exists in spades in all parts of our government but especially in higher echelons (like the presidency), and the fact that it would be far from the first time a president of any stripe (dem, rep, demo-rep, whig, federalist anti federalist etc) has swept something under the rug. The DOJ is his creature, as is the FBI. It is not outside the realm of the possible or the plausible for the president to exercise control over either of those organs of the executive branch, and it wouldn't be the first time a president has done so.

I think its pretty demonstrable that there is plenty already to charge and convict her on. It is less than demonstrable but still a logical conclusion that the feet dragging so far has been at the direction of the boss (president) for one reason or another. The conclusion forks at that point into multiple propositions, but I find it quite reasonable to assert that this hasn't been resolved one way or the other because the president has some card he's yet to play. Whether that is "wait til hillary knocks bernie out then hit her with this and pardon her in exchange for her dropping out and endorsing someone I pick" or "stonewall this entirely" or some 3rd option it seems clear that he's got a hand in it in some respect.

Do I think she SHOULD be indicted? Absolutely for reasons already expressed. Do I think she WILL be indicted? Likely not, but if she IS indicted it will be to be almost immediately pardoned when she drops out and endorses someone else. She'll certainly never see the inside of a cell if that's what you mean. Do I think if she is NOT indicted that that is proof positive that the executive branch had no evidence to use against her? I do not, for reasons already expressed.

 

Um ... okay. I have never argued that Hillary was not aware of the laws regarding classified material, or that not being aware of such laws was a get-out-of-jail free card.

You are simply making this up. In the real world, stuff is routinely over-classified, and there is routine disagreement over whether certain things should be classified. Clinton, for instance, was empowered to decide for herself whether anything she created was classified. She would only be charged if she did something egregious, equivalent to deciding that our nuclear launch codes didn't need to be classified.

Another agency coming along years later and saying "we think this should have been classified", doesn't mean it's a slam-dunk that it should have been classified, nor that Clinton did anything wrong when she looked at it and decided it wasn't classified.

Every organization has its incompetents. The point is, in terms of the law, Clinton isn't liable for stuff that someone else sent her.

Um, yes. I have never said otherwise. The point is that both email addresses were considered unsecure, in terms of classified information. Replacing one unsecure email with another one doesn't make any difference at all.

Another person who is begging the question.

 

Putting in "an unnamed source who spoke on condition of anonymity said just what fits my article" is not a source. Its not proof one way or the other. Its not a plausible alternative because no one will face consequences for it if they're lying because it is by its very nature entirely unverifiable. An ACTUAL PERSON going on the record about THIS SPECIFIC communication would be at least a point in your favor but you couldn't even find that. No one has taken or will take responsibility for this statement