Hillary and the FBI investigation

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Do you not agree that if this happened to a little person gs employee, it would be much worse for them?

Look, i'm a progressive but what I hate more than anything is two sets of rules and operating procedures for big and little people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Don't quite know how to respond to this. The FBI does not investigate computer servers. They investigate the people who put them together and the folks that communicate on them. HRC may well be as innocent as a newborn lamb on this, but paraphrasing their vendor in Colorado , "This looks like some shaddy shit". We'll see in due time.

Apparently, your confusion about how to respond is based on your struggle with reading comprehension. I wrote -- and it is right there above for you to confirm -- that the "FBI is investigating the security of her email system". I didn't say that the FBI was investigating her server. In fact, I didn't even use the word "server". A "system" involves more than just hardware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Don't quite know how to respond to this. The FBI does not investigate computer servers. They investigate the people who put them together and the folks that communicate on them. HRC may well be as innocent as a newborn lamb on this, but paraphrasing their vendor in Colorado , "This looks like some shaddy shit". We'll see in due time.

They are investigating whether the servers were ever compromised, and whether that might have revealed classified information or otherwise jeopardized national security. If they discover that did happen, the next step will be to determine who is culpable, whether it was intentional or deliberate, etc., and then whether charges should be filed.

And to put it plainly, the FBI only investigates PEOPLE. Who are the people involved here? Who else would they be investigating? The FBI is not going to come out and say who their targets are, but it is quite obvious. If Hillary is innocent, she has nothing to worry about and this would actual bolster her claims that there are conspiracies towards her.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Do you not agree that if this happened to a little person gs employee, it would be much worse for them?

Look, i'm a progressive but what I hate more than anything is two sets of rules and operating procedures for big and little people.

Of course. I also believe that if a little person gs employee had given top secret documents to his mistress, it would have been worse for them than it was for Petraeus. I also think that if a little person gs employee had conducted financial affairs in the way that the banker did prior to the financial crash, it would have been worse than it was for the bankers. Welcome to America's two-tiered system of justice.

If you don't like Clinton's use of a private email system, you have the option of not voting for her. But, that is doesn't mean that the situation shouldn't be discussed accurately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Don't quite know how to respond to this. The FBI does not investigate computer servers. They investigate the people who put them together and the folks that communicate on them. HRC may well be as innocent as a newborn lamb on this, but paraphrasing their vendor in Colorado , "This looks like some shaddy shit". We'll see in due time.

They are investigating whether the servers were ever compromised, and whether that might have revealed classified information or otherwise jeopardized national security. If they discover that did happen, the next step will be to determine who is culpable, whether it was intentional or deliberate, etc., and then whether charges should be filed.

I have read that there is more to it than what you think. I know you will question the source, and I am posting it anyway. Catherine Herridge is an excellent reporter.

Three months after Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server while secretary of state was referred to the FBI, an intelligence source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News that the team is now focused on whether there were violations of an Espionage Act subsection pertaining to “gross negligence” in the safekeeping of national defense information. Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the “lawful possession” of national defense information by a security clearance holder who “through gross negligence,” such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location. Subsection F also requires the clearance holder “to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. “A failure to do so “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton’s March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425683/fbi-looking-gross-negligence-laws-hillary-server-investigation-jim-geraghty

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Don't quite know how to respond to this. The FBI does not investigate computer servers. They investigate the people who put them together and the folks that communicate on them. HRC may well be as innocent as a newborn lamb on this, but paraphrasing their vendor in Colorado , "This looks like some shaddy shit". We'll see in due time.

Apparently, your confusion about how to respond is based on your struggle with reading comprehension. I wrote -- and it is right there above for you to confirm -- that the "FBI is investigating the security of her email system". I didn't say that the FBI was investigating her server. In fact, I didn't even use the word "server". A "system" involves more than just hardware.

Thank you so much for your condescending post. My reading comprehension is quite fine, I am not a Hillarybot and don't need pity or an apology for my "confusion". Again the FBI investigates people, not "systems". Who is behind the clinton.whatever "system? Did it create itself? Did some rouge State employee create it? This is real. We shall see where it goes (or doesn't).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Don't quite know how to respond to this. The FBI does not investigate computer servers. They investigate the people who put them together and the folks that communicate on them. HRC may well be as innocent as a newborn lamb on this, but paraphrasing their vendor in Colorado , "This looks like some shaddy shit". We'll see in due time.

Apparently, your confusion about how to respond is based on your struggle with reading comprehension. I wrote -- and it is right there above for you to confirm -- that the "FBI is investigating the security of her email system". I didn't say that the FBI was investigating her server. In fact, I didn't even use the word "server". A "system" involves more than just hardware.

Thank you so much for your condescending post. My reading comprehension is quite fine, I am not a Hillarybot and don't need pity or an apology for my "confusion". Again the FBI investigates people, not "systems". Who is behind the clinton.whatever "system? Did it create itself? Did some rouge State employee create it? This is real. We shall see where it goes (or doesn't).

If the FBI only investigates people, as you would have it, why did they seize her server? Why are technicians examining the server and trying to recover deleted emails? Why are they reviewing configurations and processes? They have to investigate such things to know if there were any infractions. If there were, then they need to find out who is responsible for them. Only people would be charged, of course, but the investigation is not limited to them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI made clear Hillary Clinton is not the target of their investigation, so your whole bullshit premise fails. Republican desperation is showing.

Where do you get this? Link? They most certainly seem be be investigating Hillary and her e-mails.

The FBI is investigating the security of her email system. The investigation was launched after a non-criminal referral from the Justice Department. You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this because the "liberal" New York Times misreported it at the time and most of the media followed its lead. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation. Of course, none of this means that the FBI couldn't uncover something criminal involving Clinton. But, the FBI can only recommend charges. It is up to the DOJ to press them. In the case of General Petraeus, the FBI recommended much stronger charges than the DOJ decided to bring. So, going by that precedent, Clinton probably has little cause for concern.

Don't quite know how to respond to this. The FBI does not investigate computer servers. They investigate the people who put them together and the folks that communicate on them. HRC may well be as innocent as a newborn lamb on this, but paraphrasing their vendor in Colorado , "This looks like some shaddy shit". We'll see in due time.

Apparently, your confusion about how to respond is based on your struggle with reading comprehension. I wrote -- and it is right there above for you to confirm -- that the "FBI is investigating the security of her email system". I didn't say that the FBI was investigating her server. In fact, I didn't even use the word "server". A "system" involves more than just hardware.

Thank you so much for your condescending post. My reading comprehension is quite fine, I am not a Hillarybot and don't need pity or an apology for my "confusion". Again the FBI investigates people, not "systems". Who is behind the clinton.whatever "system? Did it create itself? Did some rouge State employee create it? This is real. We shall see where it goes (or doesn't).

If the FBI only investigates people, as you would have it, why did they seize her server? Why are technicians examining the server and trying to recover deleted emails? Why are they reviewing configurations and processes? They have to investigate such things to know if there were any infractions. If there were, then they need to find out who is responsible for them. Only people would be charged, of course, but the investigation is not limited to them.

I think we are saying the same thing. The servers have to be examined to determine if a crime took place. This is called collecting evidence. If there is no classified information on the server, and if the server was not used to evade FOIA requests, then there is likely no problem. IMO Clinton brought this investigation upon herself either intentionally or inintentionally. I hope she did no wrong, but the bottom line is that she is the one being investigated. No harm in being investigated if you have done no wrong. She is being investigated by an impartial (hopefully) FBI and any recommendation for prosecution would have to be followed up by Obama's Justice Dept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's a conspiracy

Kevin McCarthy, welcome to DCUM! If you create a screen name you can edit your posts. I bet you wish that was possible for television!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is why Biden is holding off. He knows Obama wants her indicted and he will swoop in to get the nomination when this happens.

Not so sure. I think Obama is watching Hillary to see what she will do.

Loretta Lynch gets to decide whether or not to prosecute her. There's plenty already in the public eye to indicate that she should be charged for "gross negligence." "Obstruction of Justice" is also a problem. But, if DOJ does not pursue it, it is moot.

Tinfoilhatville

[Anonymous]

PP is getting top drawer legal analysis from Fox or Breitbart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is why Biden is holding off. He knows Obama wants her indicted and he will swoop in to get the nomination when this happens.

Not so sure. I think Obama is watching Hillary to see what she will do.

Loretta Lynch gets to decide whether or not to prosecute her. There's plenty already in the public eye to indicate that she should be charged for "gross negligence." "Obstruction of Justice" is also a problem. But, if DOJ does not pursue it, it is moot.

Tinfoilhatville

HiLOLaryvile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is why Biden is holding off. He knows Obama wants her indicted and he will swoop in to get the nomination when this happens.

Not so sure. I think Obama is watching Hillary to see what she will do.

Loretta Lynch gets to decide whether or not to prosecute her. There's plenty already in the public eye to indicate that she should be charged for "gross negligence." "Obstruction of Justice" is also a problem. But, if DOJ does not pursue it, it is moot.

Tinfoilhatville

HiLOLaryvile

Not pp.
I prefer “Hillarityville.” Her laugh only adds to the name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is why Biden is holding off. He knows Obama wants her indicted and he will swoop in to get the nomination when this happens.

Not so sure. I think Obama is watching Hillary to see what she will do.

Loretta Lynch gets to decide whether or not to prosecute her. There's plenty already in the public eye to indicate that she should be charged for "gross negligence." "Obstruction of Justice" is also a problem. But, if DOJ does not pursue it, it is moot.

Tinfoilhatville

Love this. So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is why Biden is holding off. He knows Obama wants her indicted and he will swoop in to get the nomination when this happens.

Not so sure. I think Obama is watching Hillary to see what she will do.

Loretta Lynch gets to decide whether or not to prosecute her. There's plenty already in the public eye to indicate that she should be charged for "gross negligence." "Obstruction of Justice" is also a problem. But, if DOJ does not pursue it, it is moot.

Tinfoilhatville

HiLOLaryvile

Not pp.
I prefer “Hillarityville.” Her laugh only adds to the name.

Love this. So true.