Hillary's emails

[Reck]

Looking too much into nothing does not produce a 9+ month investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If there was nothing it would have been dead on arrival for the FBI. This isn't like the Benghazi bull that can be dragged out for years by congress for political reasons. Pull your head out of your ass.

And in that span of time they haven't found anything that she did wrong. By their own admission.

The interviews, we’re told, are focused on whether classified information was mishandled, and the security of the server. So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation, but, again, the investigation is not over.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-repor...investigation/

But hey, like the quote says. The investigation is not over.....LOL

Maybe wait another 9 months.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And in that span of time they haven't found anything that she did wrong. By their own admission.



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-repor...investigation/

But hey, like the quote says. The investigation is not over.....LOL

Maybe wait another 9 months.

Do you even bother to read a thing posted by others in this thread. More hand holding, here you go.

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.


CNN decides to go with "no evidence." Wonder why?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2df_story.html

When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.


The Felony statute at at Sec. 793 enumerates six separate crimes. The first three, (a)-(c), require the prosecution to show intent to violate the law and to cause harm to the national security. However, two, subsection (e) and (f) apply merely on the basis of mishandling classified materials without actual intent to or the effect of exposing secrets or to violate the law. The standard articulated in (e) is even lower, requiring merely that the defendant acted knowing that unauthorized release "could" cause harm to the national security. That is a much lower standard of proof than proving someone intended to such harm.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And in that span of time they haven't found anything that she did wrong. By their own admission.



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-repor...investigation/

"So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation"

From your own ing article


"A news editor would be hard-pressed to allow a reporter to describe Republican lawmakers and aids as “US officials.” What that means is that this is likely an agency leak, likely from the State Department"

[Reck]

"So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation"

From your own ing article


"A news editor would be hard-pressed to allow a reporter to describe Republican lawmakers and aids as “US officials.” What that means is that this is likely an agency leak, likely from the State Department"

And? Does it make the quote less true? This hobby of yours is not a healthy one.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And? Does it make the quote less true? This hobby of yours is not a healthy one.

Coming from the same State Department that has been dragging its feet the entire time and mysteriously finding thousands more emails while also losing 4 years of emails from a witness granted immunity? Yes, I'd confidently say it's bull .


And then we have this quote you continue to ignore.

"Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2df_story.html

Trying to walk you through this is a waste of time though. I want you to read this and understand it. From the State Department's own admissions about top secret emails Clinton has already broken the

18 Us Code Section 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any do ent, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

[Reck]

Coming from the same State Department that has been dragging its feet the entire time and mysteriously finding thousands more emails while also losing 4 years of emails from a witness granted immunity? Yes, I'd confidently say it's bull .


And then we have this quote you continue to ignore.

"Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2df_story.html

Trying to walk you through this is a waste of time though. I want you to read this and understand it. From the State Department's own admissions about top secret emails Clinton has already broken the

18 Us Code Section 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any do ent, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

Why do you keep reposting the scant evidence bit? Do you not know what that means? It means we haven't found , or else we would have Hillary in cuffs by now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why do you keep reposting the scant evidence bit? Do you not know what that means? It means we haven't found , or else we would have Hillary in cuffs by now.

I have to keep repeating it because you are too ing stupid to understand scant does not mean hasn't found . Finding scant would in fact be finding .
"When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules"

The reason she isn't in cuffs is because the investigation is ongoing and the FBI knows after they recommend an indictment they'll be going up against Obama's attorney general. They need an airtight case to force Lynch to indict. This isn't rocket science.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why do you keep reposting the scant evidence bit? Do you not know what that means? It means we haven't found , or else we would have Hillary in cuffs by now.

Here is found

"Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret."

[Reck]

Here is found

"Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret."

Retroactively classified which means they were labeled top secret after the fact. They weren't classified when she sent them. We have been through this.

And no, scant means that what they have "found" is akin to finding porn on my harddrive. Its something..but is it illegal? No.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Retroactively classified which means they were labeled top secret after the fact. They weren't classified when she sent them. We have been through this.

And no, scant means that what they have "found" is akin to finding porn on my harddrive. Its something..but is it illegal? No.

Yes we have been through, yes you are wrong, and yes you still need your hand held.

But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821


Do you need a copy of the NDA she signed again? Reck

[Spurtacular]

I'm not implying that dragging her emails out is wrong. Just saying it's being done.

No, you're just using words like "dragging" to pout.

[Spurtacular]

yeah, I can't imagine criminal charges here just for using this account. I'm just more interested in what Hillary was doing by using personal email for government business.

Surely it was mostly convenience because she wouldn't be that careless if she were trying to cover up something....right?

Yea, surely. Cos why rely on strong firewalls to transmit highly classified information. That's obviously conveninient.

2016's cuck

[Spurtacular]

There's a possibility there could be something damaging in the emails to the staff, but probably not the kind of thing Republicans have been pimping all this time.

Apparently Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use gubmit servers exclusively, so the use of private email doesn't seem like that much of a revelation.

Chump was really hoping.

[Spurtacular]

Unfortunately, I don't see enough outrage out there about this other than the usual suspects, which is disappointing. I was hoping this would kill her candidacy.

It would have if the Dems had any ing sense.

[Spurtacular]

could have said this from the start instead of dancing around and answering questions with questions, unless the attention pleases you

Your getting pissy about it pleases me.

Mentor and mentee in a tizzy

[Spurtacular]

bonerrific owning heads.

Tranny reck getting behind bonnerrific.
2016's tranny

[Blake]

After you get some sleep, get some sunshine and fresh air.

[Pavlov]

Chump was really hoping.

Mentor and mentee in a tizzy

you really spend a lot of time researching our posts.

[Spurtacular]

you really spend a lot of time researching our posts.

Not nearly as much as you spend lashing out because you can't own your .

[Blake]

Not nearly as much as you spend lashing out because you can't own your .

You need to take a break from this board. It's pretty sad.

[Spurtacular]

You need to take a break from this board. It's pretty sad.

I don't take counsel from cucks. This has been repeatedly told to you before. What are you failing to understand?

[Pavlov]

Not nearly as much as you spend lashing out because you can't own your .

Not even close.

[Spurtacular]

Not even close.

Glad you agree.

[Pavlov]

Glad you agree.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough for you.

You spend way more time researching men here than anyone else spends doing anything here.

[Blake]

I don't take counsel from cucks. This has been repeatedly told to you before. What are you failing to understand?

It's just plain common sense.

Anyone that spent that much time in the wee hours of the morning doing grudge research against other people on a sports message board needs to take a step back and assess life.

Common sense.