FBI reopening the investigation of the crook?

[UCFBS]

We already knew she was too dumb to know how to use email properly....like every other gov't & contractor employee knows. Nothing new here. Anyone who based their decision on this "new information" doesn't understand the original issue. And maybe shouldn't be voting..

Apparently she was too dumb to read her own briefs and materials to recognize classified materials. That one everyone is smacking their foreheads on, especially since it upends her whole argument they weren't classified at the time.

But if you listen to the US media, it sounds like this is complete.

"I didn't receive classified materials" ... "We found classified materials sent to her."
"I didn't send classified materials" ... "We found several top secret materials originated from her."
"The materials weren't classified at the time" ... "We found the sources used clearly marked."
"I didn't recognize the classification symbols" ... "You signed agreements to the contrary!"

^^^ This is why people in the space are pissed off. But if you believe Salon and Slate, not just Comey, but the FBI is pro-Trump and 'out to get Hillary.' No, that's what happens when you have a person who should not have a security clearance in the first place, and lies her ass off to the public about it!

No wonder the DoD wanted to yank hers even before this started! Especially after she asked defense personnel to transpose information!

 

[UCFBS]

...and they looked at the evidence and guess what?!
No crime.

Did you read what was actually said?!?!?!

Yes, there was a crime! Yes it was criminal negligence! Yes, that is a felony! She was in violation of her agreements, Legistlative and Executive Laws (including her husband's own executive order on mishandling that is a felony), as well as countless statues.

But they wanted to prove 'criminal intent.' Do not confuse 'we cannot prove criminal intent' with 'no crime'! Read what the director actually said!

 

[UCFWayne]

...and they looked at the evidence and guess what?!

No crime.

Even if I went along with the idea that there was absolutely nothing in those emails, a crime was still committed. You cannot destroy evidence, that is a big crime.

You are either trolling or an idiot.

 

[UCFBS]

Even if I went along with the idea that there was absolutely nothing in those emails, a crime was still committed. You cannot destroy evidence, that is a big crime.
You are either trolling or an idiot.

Well, that's hard to prove, just like any conspiracy theory. Don't muddy the water with such accusations.

But Hillary violating, repeatedly, her own agreements was a crime, and a felony under her husband's own Executive Order on mishandling. That's why this has become comical. But most Americans have never held a clearance, so they don't understand the first thing of what the very few people in the media who have held security clearances are talking about.

Why she didn't have her security clearance immediately revoked, at least temporarily, is beyond all comprehension. The best theory was that everyone in the DoD and FBI filed the paperwork to yank it, and the DoJ and administration overrode that paperwork.

 

[UCFBS]

If Democratic voters want to vote for Hillary, that's one thing. Make your case on why you believe in her policies, and move on.

But to say she wasn't guilty of a crime and is otherwise just the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy, you don't have to go far into Podesta's e-mails to realize why conflicts-of-interests never cease with the Clintons. It starts with Travelgate and it hasn't ended, especially when it comes to Hillary (Bill was cleared in nearly all during the '90s, sans 2).

And understand I'm not saying vote Trump, far from it! But it's comical how many believe Clinton's public lies about her classified materials that have been repeatedly refuted by the FBI, again and again. Again, even the administration, DoJ and Lynch herself had to warn Hillary to shut her mouth both pre and post-investigation.

Anyone who repeats them just shows how much they are media sheep. Don't respond to the classified charges, they are factual as the FBI stated, and not as what Hillary stated.

 

[CommuterBob]

Even if I went along with the idea that there was absolutely nothing in those emails, a crime was still committed. You cannot destroy evidence, that is a big crime.

You are either trolling or an idiot.

https://ucf.forums.rivals.com/threads/trump-has-also-deleted-thousands-of-emails.46422/

 

[UCFBS]

https://ucf.forums.rivals.com/threads/trump-has-also-deleted-thousands-of-emails.46422/

Wouldn't surprise me either. The difference?

Hillary had a security clearance and believed she could receive, transpose and share classified information as she saw fit on unsecured networks. That and lie to the American public after-the-fact.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Not a single Hillary defender can explain to me why we send servicemen to jail for mishandling classified info on a lesser scale than what Hillary pulled, yet scream that she did nothing illegal or wrong.

It's clear she did. She was also caught lying about it. The fact is that she is politically shielded by the same DNC machine that rigged their entire primary system and colluded with the media to feed her questions before "debates".

 

[UCFWayne]

https://ucf.forums.rivals.com/threads/trump-has-also-deleted-thousands-of-emails.46422/

Im not sure why I have to repeat myself. Destroying evidence is a crime.

They should go after him as well. But if they arent going to go after her, then they should leave him alone as well. In fact, I think the FBI and all police agencies should just stop going after people who commit crimes.*

 

[UCF-icenhl-06]

Not a single Hillary defender can explain to me why we send servicemen to jail for mishandling classified info on a lesser scale than what Hillary pulled, yet scream that she did nothing illegal or wrong.

It's clear she did. She was also caught lying about it. The fact is that she is politically shielded by the same DNC machine that rigged their entire primary system and colluded with the media to feed her questions before "debates".

As the Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez writes, attempting a prosecution for non-malicious mishandling would likely result in the statute being held unconstitutional: “the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gorin v. United States (1941), which suggests that the Espionage Act’s intent requirements are an important feature that save it from unconstitutional vagueness.”

This legal analysis is important because it makes it clear that even if the Weiner laptop emails aren’t simply client-side copies of the exact emails the FBI already has, there is essentially no chance it will change the ultimate verdict. The reason Clinton isn’t getting locked up is that there was no malign intent. Finding another email with classified information on it won’t change that conclusion.
....
For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time, both at the Washington Post and since starting Lawfare. I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit

 

[Poolside Knight]

vox is not a credible news source, that's basically the Left's Drudge

 

[UCFBS]

As the Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez writes, attempting a prosecution for non-malicious mishandling would likely result in the statute being held unconstitutional: “the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gorin v. United States (1941), which suggests that the Espionage Act’s intent requirements are an important feature that save it from unconstitutional vagueness.”

So what about the Navy man who brought documents home so he could work-from-home for convenience? He had the same 'excuse' as Clinton, 'convenience.'

The reason Clinton isn’t getting locked up is that there was no malign intent.

Again ... what about the Navy man? And he's hardly alone. It's this load of BS that is getting old. Everyone is explaining away Clinton, failing to recognize people who are either in jail, under house arrest or otherwise very restricted ... let alone lost their clearances!

People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time, both at the Washington Post and since starting Lawfare. I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of sensitive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law.

What Washington Post articles have you been reading?

And then there's this one ...
- http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

I mean, should I go on?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit

Did you just quote Vox? Seriously?!

Everyone in the world knows why Clinton maintained a private server and quickly figured out why she did 100% of correspondence on it when that came out in 2015. She was compromised. State disabled their security on and off for years, which we all found out in 2016 Jane. What other liabilities does she need to impart on the American people and impact the nation with before people admit she pretty much, systematically didn't give a crap for years, and even when it was found out, wouldn't even own up to it?

^^^ That is what is pissing off everyone with an ounce of objectivity!

 

[UCF-icenhl-06]

So what about the Navy man who brought documents home so he could work-from-home for convenience? He had the same 'excuse' as Clinton, 'convenience.'

So in presence of an explanation of the law, your response is basically that HRC should be wrongly prosecuted like another case or two....instead of i dont know...looking at it the other way that maybe the other cases werent handled correctly.

BUT NO LOCK HER UP TOO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

So in presence of an explanation of the law, your response is basically that HRC should be wrongly prosecuted like another case or two....instead of i dont know...looking at it the other way that maybe the other cases werent handled correctly.

BUT NO LOCK HER UP TOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Those people weren't wrongly persecuted. They broke the law. The handling of classified information is very black and white and people given clearances know the laws.

 

[UCFBS]

So in presence of an explanation of the law, your response is basically that HRC should be wrongly prosecuted like another case or two....instead of i dont know...looking at it the other way that maybe the other cases werent handled correctly. BUT NO LOCK HER UP TOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Those people weren't wrongly persecuted. They broke the law. The handling of classified information is very black and white and people given clearances know the laws.

Again ...

It was bad enough when HRC refused to follow State policy. People can speculate on why, other than her e-mail admitting she wanted to be able to 'control' disclosure. But even the DoJ never realized how bad she really f'd up, and that's when the DoJ couldn't protect her any more.

She signed agreements. In fact, I was amazed when the US media was quoting the 4th Amendment. There is no right to such protections to those who have signed such agreements! She even tried to 'play dumb' when the FBI basically crossed every single thing she said in public.

If you sign a contract, and signed agreements that you were given disclosures and training ... how can you claim you didn't read it and didn't follow it? And people wonder why people are so upset, so disenfranchized, so tired of the BS in all of this? It's not the Republicans on this matter!

The fact that she, and State, were compromised as a result is just added bad taste.

 

[UCFKnight85]

This is so hilarious.

There is a statute in Federal Law stating that people can be indicted for "gross negligence" when handling classified material and state secrets. Period. As I've said, soldiers have gone to jail under this statute for less.

The FBI Director spent 10 minutes using every synonym in the book for "gross negligence" without saying it.

If you want to argue that she got away with it due to who she is then FINE but for Christ's sake stop arguing that she did nothing wrong. It's absolutely pathetic.

 

[UCFBS]

If you want to argue that she got away with it due to who she is then FINE but for Christ's sake stop arguing that she did nothing wrong. It's absolutely pathetic.

Indeed. I honestly cannot believe people think she's an example of a good, public servant. This whole thing has been demoralizing for many who could care less about the media and polls. I've just never seen so many objective people lambasted as political. She should be extremely happy she's up against Trump.

 

[Sir Galahad]

And you must be too old and senile to understand that some people think differently than you. I am more than aware that a lot of the "giveaways" I want do cost something and that may cause me to pay more taxes. We have two different ideas on how a country should be run and there is nothing wrong with that. You get to vote for who you want and I get to vote for who I want. I guess we will see where the country is in 20 or 30 years.

Also - get over the whole media and democrats are colluding BS. For how much conservatives scream about it, you'd think that the whole country would know the "media is biased" and not give two sh!ts about what the media says. There are enough media outlets on both sides that everyone has access too. There are ridiculous outlets on the left and ridiculous outlets on the right. Once again - the only person you have to blame for the media's coverage of Trump is Trump himself. He asked, no, begged for it by how he ran his campaign.

One question, have you ever paid your fair share of the freebies you want everyone else to pay for?

 

[Boston.Knight]

Looks like the polls took a major shift in the crook's direction last two days. Nate Silver (analytics geek) went 5% to the criminal's direction. That's a pretty major move. Not what Trump supporters wanted.

Looks like she is going to blow out Trump. About the same as ol' Mitt got smoked by O.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Looks like the polls took a major shift in the crook's direction last two days. Nate Silver (analytics geek) went 5% to the criminal's direction. That's a pretty major move. Not what Trump supporters wanted.

Looks like she is going to blow out Trump. About the same as ol' Mitt got smoked by O.

There is more money to make if she wins if you can invest it.

 

[UCFKnightfan08]

Im not sure why I have to repeat myself. Destroying evidence is a crime.

They should go after him as well. But if they arent going to go after her, then they should leave him alone as well. In fact, I think the FBI and all police agencies should just stop going after people who commit crimes.*

#BanPoliceWork

 

[Boston.Knight]

There is more money to make if she wins if you can invest it.

Yeah the crooked establishment seems to be gushing all over themselves. Business as usual for another four years. Massive money printing, pork projects, big banks, unwanted military escalations, pitiful sino/soviet relations.

Probably a good time to buy the shitty banks with interest rates on the rise and crooked H and Mr. Wallstreet himself Tim K. as VP. Hope it all goes down the other way.

 

[bqknight]

One question, have you ever paid your fair share of the freebies you want everyone else to pay for?

No, I just sit on my butt all day and laugh at you all for giving me everything for free. Thanks losers.

 

[UCF11and1]

But indicted for what?

In case you guys havent caught on yet...there's nothing there. R's have been pushing and pushing and pushing and raising every damn point they can imagine and pushing every little leak into the media. And its been going on for years. Still not one actual shred of evidence of anything that would actually make her a criminal. A politician sure...but not a criminal.

No one has been more scrutinized and personally invaded including going through all her damn e-mails. Still nothing.

Face it. She's a lot better of a nominee than years of smear attempts would lead you to believe. I still disagree on some policies but that's actually healthy discussion...but the criminal stuff is getting laughably embarrassing.

Didn't you hear? her server was hacked several times, which means somebody somewhere has copies of the 30,000 emails but they are going to save them for 2020, when she runs for reelection. They hate Trump too much to release them now, I bet it is the Mexicans

 

[UCF11and1]

I know you're not too smart so let me help you out with this. The republicans Trump won the nomination and it was not close so you're saying 60% of the party are "crazies," nice. Hey moron, percentage points don't win presidential elections, states do and no matter who the republicans nominated most of the Clinton states tomorrow would still be no matter the republican candidate. If Trump wins its because he did what a republican could not do, win Florida, Ohio and or Pennsylvania or Michigan.

The MORON here is you. I am not voting for Trump, you are.

BTW, go back to school and take some reading comprehension class. I know POTUS is elected by the electoral college but the electors are chosen based on who wins each state.

 

[UCF11and1]

No, I just sit on my butt all day and laugh at you all for giving me everything for free. Thanks losers.

bq, are you using your free Obama phone to post here? nice

 

[UCFBS]

About the same as ol' Mitt got smoked by O.

If I had to go back to 2012, I might have voted Mitt Romney instead of Gary Johnson. Mitt Romney looks like a fortune teller now.

• Totally predicted how President Obama's 'appeasement' policy was going to backfire, and force a 180 degree turn, which would only piss off the Russians (and Chinese) even more
• Totally predicted how the ACA (Obamacare) was going to go sideways, and was totally unsustianable for only the really sick, after all, he was dead-on how Romneycare as different

I've always liked every Mormon I've worked with in public service. They really have a different ethos.

 

[bqknight]

bq, are you using your free Obama phone to post here? nice

For sure my man, getting that lobster on food stamps to. I'm just playing the system, as your man Donald would say, doesn't that just make me "smart"?

Enjoy losing tonight.