Hillary May Be Charged Within 60 Days

[werepossum]

An ordinary citizen would not have been convicted, because an ordinary citizen wouldn't be the victim of an orchestrated smear campaign, one which hinges on no evidence of wrong-doing. This is like yet another Benghazi committee charged with looking for wrong-doing? How many committees were there so far? And none found any evidence of wrong-doing? I'm not a Hilary fan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go along with every accusation made against her without any evidence whatsoever.

Well, let's look at what we absolutely know. We know Mrs. Clinton did all her official business on her private server. We know there were numerous messages with classified information on that server. We know that she allowed access to people and companies who do not have proper clearance for classified information. Doesn't take a smear campaign to see evidence of wrongdoing and lawbreaking here. The only questions at this point are whether that rises to the level of prosecution and if so, whether she can politically crush that prosecution.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, let's look at what we absolutely know. We know Mrs. Clinton did all her official business on her private server.

We know she also did business via secured state dept servers.

We know there were numerous messages with classified information on that server.

We only know that the messages were classified after the fact. we do not know how such information came to reside on the server. We do not know how much of that is knee jerk secret squirrel bullshit.

We know that she allowed access to people and companies who do not have proper clearance for classified information.

We don't know that at all. Having physical access & access to the information are two different things.

Doesn't take a smear campaign to see evidence of wrongdoing and lawbreaking here. The only questions at this point are whether that rises to the level of prosecution and if so, whether she can politically crush that prosecution.

If/ then speculation of conspiracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, let's look at what we absolutely know. We know Mrs. Clinton did all her official business on her private server. We know there were numerous messages with classified information on that server. We know that she allowed access to people and companies who do not have proper clearance for classified information. Doesn't take a smear campaign to see evidence of wrongdoing and lawbreaking here. The only questions at this point are whether that rises to the level of prosecution and if so, whether she can politically crush that prosecution.

What you've said is true of almost every email server on the planet. I would not be at all surprised if your gmail archives contain classified information that you are not authorized to access. Did you knowingly do that though? Of course not.

I think that she definitely did something wrong by having a private email server. That's bullshit. Evidence of lawbreaking though? So far there is exactly zero that I have seen.

 

[boomerang]

Hillary's Fingerprints on Selection of Aides' Lawyer

 

[allisolm]

According to Hillary, the FBI hasn't even contacted her about their investigation. See USA Today article.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary's Fingerprints on Selection of Aides' Lawyer

More anonymously sourced bullshit with innuendo, this time a rehash of a politico piece by the American Stinker.

Believers gotta believe, obviously. well, at least with any story confirming personal bias.

 

[Jhhnn]

According to Hillary, the FBI hasn't even contacted her about their investigation. See USA Today article.

It's about time for her detractors to just scream Benghazi!, isn't it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's about time for her detractors to just scream Benghazi!, isn't it?

You're such a caricature...spewing the same crap over and over and over again as if your neural pathways have calcified. Time to get a new schtick.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're such a caricature...spewing the same crap over and over and over again as if your neural pathways have calcified. Time to get a new schtick.

Does it diminish your desire to believe that continuously re-hashed innuendo is somehow the truth?

Have you considered the idea that all of this just partisan political use of Brandolini's Law?

Like every fluffed up Repub driven scandal of the last 7 years?

 

[TeeJay1952]

I see you two as one person, split like Half Face, arguing with himself.Sort of like a three legged race with legs ties together in center. We have to learn to cooperate!

 

[Fern]

According to Hillary, the FBI hasn't even contacted her about their investigation. See USA Today article.

So what?

I've heard countless people (lawyers who handle such stuff, retired FBI official etc) say that the FBI doesn't contact people who they're investigating. It's not how they operate.

They also say upon completing the investigation the FBI may ask the person for an interview, but one may decline. (Martha Stewart's problem was that she accepted.)

They appear to be doing everything by the book.

Fern

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Has it been 60 days yet?

 

[werepossum]

What you've said is true of almost every email server on the planet. I would not be at all surprised if your gmail archives contain classified information that you are not authorized to access. Did you knowingly do that though? Of course not.

I think that she definitely did something wrong by having a private email server. That's bullshit. Evidence of lawbreaking though? So far there is exactly zero that I have seen.

You really want to argue that Mrs. Clinton is so fundamentally incompetent that she had no idea she was handling classified documents? Or that she's merely an innocent victim of circumstances, as I would be if my gmail archives contained classified information?

Had Mrs. Clinton used the State Department system, she'd obviously be off the hook. However, she chose to use a non-secure private server. Therefore every violation is by her choice. Now, I don't expect that she'll be charged with anything, but there is absolutely no doubt that she broke the law.

Hillary's Fingerprints on Selection of Aides' Lawyer

Wouldn't be surprised. Conspiracy theories aside, obviously Obama has no vested interest in prosecuting the Democrat nominee a scant few months before the convention.

So what?

I've heard countless people (lawyers who handle such stuff, retired FBI official etc) say that the FBI doesn't contact people who they're investigating. It's not how they operate.

They also say upon completing the investigation the FBI may ask the person for an interview, but one may decline. (Martha Stewart's problem was that she accepted.)

They appear to be doing everything by the book.

Fern

I'd be very surprised if the FBI does anything other than by the book on this case.

 

[Jhhnn]

So what?

I've heard countless people (lawyers who handle such stuff, retired FBI official etc) say that the FBI doesn't contact people who they're investigating. It's not how they operate.

They also say upon completing the investigation the FBI may ask the person for an interview, but one may decline. (Martha Stewart's problem was that she accepted.)

They appear to be doing everything by the book.

Fern

Please. You're just another guy on the internet claiming to know more than others on the basis of non-confirmable anecdote.

It's obvious bullshit. Sometimes bullshit is true & sometimes it isn't but it's still bullshit.

 

[allisolm]

I've heard countless people (lawyers who handle such stuff, retired FBI official etc) say that the FBI doesn't contact people who they're investigating. It's not how they operate.

They also say upon completing the investigation the FBI may ask the person for an interview, but one may decline.

Well, that could be one reason they're called the Federal Bureau of Investigation rather than the Federal Bureau of Interviews.

 

[Jhhnn]

You really want to argue that Mrs. Clinton is so fundamentally incompetent that she had no idea she was handling classified documents? Or that she's merely an innocent victim of circumstances, as I would be if my gmail archives contained classified information?

Had Mrs. Clinton used the State Department system, she'd obviously be off the hook. However, she chose to use a non-secure private server. Therefore every violation is by her choice. Now, I don't expect that she'll be charged with anything, but there is absolutely no doubt that she broke the law.

The server isn't the issue. The issue is that the information was on the open internet at all. If the server were the issue she'd already be busted. That's beyond obvious & highly inconvenient to your argument.

Wouldn't be surprised. Conspiracy theories aside, obviously Obama has no vested interest in prosecuting the Democrat nominee a scant few months before the convention.

You assume the same sort of moral fiber as exemplified by Scooter Libby's commuted sentence.

I'd be very surprised if the FBI does anything other than by the book on this case.

And you'll keep playing by the propagandists' handbook- endless repetition of bullshit reinforces the notion that it's true.

 

[Fern]

Please. You're just another guy on the internet claiming to know more than others on the basis of non-confirmable anecdote.

It's obvious bullshit. Sometimes bullshit is true & sometimes it isn't but it's still bullshit.

I'm not claiming to know more others etc. I've never claimed to personally know the FBI practices or that I have worked there or that I have myself undergone an investigation.

I do however, apparently, watch and read more news sites than many here.

I tend to think that observations from people who work(ed) in the system have value due to their long experience and familiarity with the practices/procedures.

As regards quotes/info from anonymous officials - ever heard of Deep Throat? Anonymous sources have a decent track record in this country. Nothing wrong with those, particularly when you have two that independently confirm the info.

However, I would strongly suggest that readers try to suss out what agency said anonymous source is from. I notice the more 'damning' info has been attributed to anonymous sources in the FBI. The State Dept has also had an investigation and those sources have tended to downplay the situation. I'm interest only in the FBI investigation so State Dept sources don't interest me as they're uninformed wrt the FBI. (Some news articled have little worth as they make it impossible to identify which agency the source is from.)

Another source I think worthy of attention is practicing attorneys specializing in the classified info laws and defending those accused in court. These are not employees of cable networks etc, but will occasionally appear and answer questions. To gain knowledge of an issue or topic you can get it from education and experience, or you can ask questions of those who do. Their info should not be dismissed out of hand.

You, OTOH, have done really nothing more than repeat Hillary's talking point here, usually without acknowledging her and her campaign as the source. Not only does every source I've listed above contradict her talking points but given her and her campaign's subjectivity their pronouncements must be taken with a bucket of salt. (I'm being very nice here, given her proven penchant for prevarication an interstellar cargo ship full of salt would be more appropriate.)

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not claiming to know more others etc. I've never claimed to personally know the FBI practices or that I have worked there or that I have myself undergone an investigation.

I do however, apparently, watch and read more news sites than many here.

I tend to think that observations from people who work(ed) in the system have value due to their long experience and familiarity with the practices/procedures.

As regards quotes/info from anonymous officials - ever heard of Deep Throat? Anonymous sources have a decent track record in this country. Nothing wrong with those, particularly when you have two that independently confirm the info.

However, I would strongly suggest that readers try to suss out what agency said anonymous source is from. I notice the more 'damning' info has been attributed to anonymous sources in the FBI. The State Dept has also had an investigation and those sources have tended to downplay the situation. I'm interest only in the FBI investigation so State Dept sources don't interest me as they're uninformed wrt the FBI. (Some news articled have little worth as they make it impossible to identify which agency the source is from.)

Another source I think worthy of attention is practicing attorneys specializing in the classified info laws and defending those accused in court. These are not employees of cable networks etc, but will occasionally appear and answer questions. To gain knowledge of an issue or topic you can get it from education and experience, or you can ask questions of those who do. Their info should not be dismissed out of hand.

You, OTOH, have done really nothing more than repeat Hillary's talking point here, usually without acknowledging her and her campaign as the source. Not only does every source I've listed above contradict her talking points but given her and her campaign's subjectivity their pronouncements must be taken with a bucket of salt. (I'm being very nice here, given her proven penchant for prevarication an interstellar cargo ship full of salt would be more appropriate.)

Fern

Gotta love the "every source I've listed above" bit when you merely alluded to having them. That's all DiGenova did 90 days ago when he laid out his 60 day prediction as a sure thing.

I'll be very pleased when the FBI wraps this up & issues their findings. Until then, it's all scurrilous bullshit all the time.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well, that could be one reason they're called the Federal Bureau of Investigation rather than the Federal Bureau of Interviews.

It's not the Federal Bureau of Security Reviews?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Gotta love the "every source I've listed above" bit when you merely alluded to having them. That's all DiGenova did 90 days ago when he laid out his 60 day prediction as a sure thing.

I'll be very pleased when the FBI wraps this up & issues their findings. Until then, it's all scurrilous bullshit all the time.

Talking about scurrilous bullshit...he said the investigation was nearing an end and suggested 60 days...he never say it was a sure thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Talking about scurrilous bullshit...he said the investigation was nearing an end and suggested 60 days...he never say it was a sure thing.

You're actually right about that. My mistake.

It's still bullshit-

"I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable," DiGenova said.

 

[IGBT]

BREAKING NEWS: SANDERS PROJECTED TO WIN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN WISCONSIN
Cruz has early lead in GOP race..hillary looses another one but still ahead in Super Delegates!! The "fix" is in. Hurray!!

 

[Jhhnn]

BREAKING NEWS: SANDERS PROJECTED TO WIN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN WISCONSIN
Cruz has early lead in GOP race..hillary looses another one but still ahead in Super Delegates!! The "fix" is in. Hurray!!

And... superdelegate spew. If the current spread holds, he'll get ~50 of 86 pledged delegates. Hillary led by ~260 going in. Superdelegates won't mean shit unless he can pull ahead. If he does, they'lll probably push him over the top. It's a democratic tradition.

 

[MongGrel]

Yep Sanders captured that one after Cruz had the other.

If it actually ever came to a Sanders/Cruz/Drumpf (ind) face off in reality, I'd probably go Bernie if he had a decent running mate.

Is a ways off still.

 

[dank69]

Oh well, maybe that Benghazi thing will pan out for the GOP...