FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary

Look, this sort of thing happens in legal cases all the time. The police paint the events one way, the defense paints the events another way. We then go to trial to figure out who is right.

In this case, you are claiming Hillary is clearly guilty, based on a single email that most people don't actually understand, and which gives no indication about what actually happened.

For instance, most people think that Hillary was asking to remove the classified headers and send classified information via nonsecure means.

She wasn't. She was asking if they could remove the classified material and send the unclassified part nonsecure.

Further, most people (yourself included) assume this actually happened.

But we have a plausible alternative explanation: That they eventually got the fax working, and sent it via secure fax, as they had wanted to do all along.

So not only is there likely no crime at all (Hillary was not suggesting sending classified information via unsecure means).

Even if she WAS asking about that, there is at least some evidence that the information ended up being sent via secure means after all. Meaning no crime was committed (though she could still be raked over the coals for suggesting what she suggested).

The point is, you don't have all the facts, and neither do I. So claiming that "Hillary is clearly guilty" based on what we know (and, as I've pointed out, based on a misunderstanding of what the email actually meant) is simply unsupportable. If the anonymous source turns out to be right, then Hillary wasn't guilty. So as long as that possibility exists, you can't claim she is "clearly guilty". Just like I can't claim she is "clearly innocent" based on that anonymous source.

I sometimes think conservatives are deeply uncomfortable with the words "I don't know."

 

If this had happened to any of us we would have been in prison a long time ago. Clinton will skate on this because ultimately this comes down to Obama telling Lynch to go ahead and pull the trigger, and that's not going to happen. Too bad, nothing would please me more than seeing her be lead away in a orange jumpsuit, and the country would be better off.

 

Thanks for clearing things up. I believe I understand your position to be that she probably won't be charged. If I read you correctly, then we agree on that, even if it is for different reasons. I read your post as believing that there is evidence to charge her, but the administration will see to it one way or the other that she isn't charged. In the event she is charged, the President will pardon her. My take is there isn't sufficient evidence to charge her based on the requirements of the Espionage Act and the Supreme Court ruling that requires intent and therefore she won't be charged. If she isn't charged, we'll both probably keep the same opinions and that's OK. We don't have to agree on anything, but it seems we do agree that she probably won't be charged.

 

I'm open to you showing that she meant something other than remove the headings, but seeing as how that is verbatim what she said I don't hold my breath.

So let's look at what Mrs. Clinton herself stated on the issue then shall we?
“This is another instance where what is common practice — I need information, I had some points I had to make and I was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture, but oftentimes there is a lot of information that isn’t at all classified,” Clinton said Sunday on "Face the Nation." “So whatever information can be appropriately transmitted unclassified often was. That’s true for every agency in the government and everybody that does business with the government.”

In the email marked June 17, 2011, Clinton told aide Jake Sullivan that she hadn’t yet received a set of talking points.

“They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax,” Sullivan says. “They’re working on it.”

Responded Clinton: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

The State Department release does not make clear what the contents of the email were or whether the information was classified. Clinton contends that she trusted Sullivan to respond appropriately.

“The important point here is that I had great confidence because I worked with Jake Sullivan for years,” Clinton said. “He is the most meticulous, careful person you could possibly do business with, and he knew exactly what was and wasn’t appropriate.” http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ng-aid-to-send-data-through-nonsecure-channel

You'll notice she does not actually say 1) that it was not classified material she was referring to 2) seems to imply that in fact it was and 3) stands on "Jake knows not to follow my literal instructions to simply remove the headings and send non-secure.".

That's not really very credible.

 

You don't even understand what intention means in this particular case. How ignorant.


The intention to deliberately expose classified email in a way that causes jeopardy to the country is
All that really matters and is exactly what is required contrary to your vast propaganda BS.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

"To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

You have no clue of the legal definition of Gross Negligence in a case like Hillary’s But let me enlighten you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gross_negligence

Gross Negligence:
A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.


And of course all designations of what is considered truly classified are up in the air. Even the so called SAPs are being given a second look at.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/u...p-secret-in-hillary-clintons-emails.html?_r=0

"At the same time, the officials said, some of the classifications being sought for the emails fall into a gray area between public knowledge and secrecy. In such instances, the original source of the information — and thus the level of its classification — can be
disputed, and has been, vigorously at times, they said. Other emails have been the subject of rigorous debate over what constitutes a secret and what the nation’s diplomats can say about intelligence matters as they grapple with international crises".

Id' say between your propaganda and your ignorance your case is shot

 

Lolz at intentions. You are in for a world of hurt.

 

And Bush 41 didn't know what a supermarket scanner was. It's called being old and sheltered. It doesn't disqualify anyone from being prez.

 

It does that for all unusual names. You're not very observant, are you?

 

Before I even viewed the link I said to myself, "Oh lord. Professor Peabody is listening to Fox News again. Clicked the link and saw it.

The big question is what the Right wants. Hillary or Bernie. Because there is no chance in hell a Right Winger can debate Bernie without looking like Hitler.

 

Hillary's already locked the nomination with all of her "super delegates". Bernie's done unless her runs as an independent, which I currently encourage him to.

 

Fox news quotes a Fox flunky without telling the readers he's a Fox flunky.

Classic RW propaganda.

 

No it doesn't disqualify her, I have no problem with the Dems pushing an old sheltered candidate onto the left.

 

IF the FBI had overwhelming evidence they would be using it to do their Job. Thus far it would seem they have found nothing to proceed with and thus do not act....sounds to me like wishful thinking and conspiracy theory tossed in for fun.

 

''FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary ''



It has even more to do the same for traitor Bush in the Downing Street Memo but never used it.

 

Their job is to investigate and then advise the DoJ.

 

Yeah but commiting numerous security breaches will disqualify her from being prez. She may be old and stupid but that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that she is stupid and dangerous.

 

Is that all ya got?

 

No there is absolute evidence especially the first three months when there was not even basic encryption and they were passing through the WWW as simple text files any could have read simply by opening them with a text editor. And it does not matter if there is evidence anyone did, it is irrelevent to the crime the fact it we will NEVER know but I have yet to hear one security expert say it was not likely at all.

And now I see you are trying to shift your argument to "well there weren't very many", well that's all it takes.

So now that you acknowledge there was classified information on her non SCI server that she purposely used to avoid proper oversight.........why would you ever support her for President?

 

She was interested in selling influence, making money which is ALL she has EVER been concerned with. But not with the statutory requirements of archiving their official communications and protecting classified information.

So if Trump decides to use his trump.com system you any of her other defenders will have any complaints right?

And yet her server did not even have basic encryption the first three months and the question is not whether it was more secure that the State Department routine system but more secure than a proper SCI system in a SCIF. Are you claiming it was?

- - - Updated - - -

It was just given to you and has been known about for months, you know your simple dismissals of the facts based on your ignorance of them does not refute them.

 

You're still lying I see. You literally have no clue what encryption she had. But you're a conservative, so lying is no issue for ya.

 

It is sometime a long and confusing story to explain and is not explored unless asked.
BTW
There are several other expressions which are in communion with the Church with priest's with rights.

 

So your argument is that because we once had a President who was "old and sheltered" that we should have another who is not only "old and sheltered" but a criminal, scoundrel, and liar?

Bush may have been impressed by a grocery scanner, but Hilary thought (lied?) she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire - quite a difference.

 

The law doesn't make exceptions for inadvertently mishandling top secret information and systems.

Anyone who has a cursory understanding of how the US government treats top secret information and systems knows that Clinton has committed a litany of serious crimes.

And if she were anyone else, she would have been thrown in prison a long time ago.

But because she's politically connected, she has been able to evade responsibility for her criminal behavior.

Which just goes to show that the law only applies to the little people.

 

The mishandling of classified information certainly does.

 

So, let the DOJ file charges if she's done anything criminally wrong. What's the big deal?