FBI investigates Hillary Clinton

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

I explained this in prior posts.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Fox is allowed on ATS? I could have quoted them as well, which pretty much agrees with future wrongdoings found by the onset of this investigation.

a reply to: Ultralight

I brought Bush up for the fact of "I would still say blame the IT person even if this was happening to Bush for the server being unsecure. "

So you lied about why you changed the title, and when.
Which tells me you will fabricate things you say just to try and make a point.

Which makes it hard to discuss the topic on hand.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: network dude

She broke the law, jeopardized the entire country, and then lied about it.

I found this for ya. It's even from FOX news Legal Analysts! Read it and weep.



www.mediaite.com...

It can be "interpreted" many ways.

“I’m going to say no, because at the time she did what she did when she used her own personal email, the law was very nebulous,” former prosecutor Jonna Spilbor said in response to Carlson’s question about Clinton breaking the law. “It didn’t say you couldn’t use your own email, it said any government use of email had to be preserved. So what did she violate?” she asked. As long as Clinton can still retrieve the emails in question, Spilbor said, “There’s no law broken.”

Just to clarify, as an IT person, I am fully aware of how much control she had over her entire system.

"As long as Clinton can still retrieve the emails in question, Spilbor said, “There’s no law broken.” "

There is the gray area. If you don't know what she had, you don't know what to ask for. She admitted to wiping her server. And even that is irrelevant. Was this her only server? Did she run a redundant server? Did she upgrade it over the years? Where did the old hardware go? Was it ever compromised?

See, once you fully grasp the complexities of this, you can spin all the BS you like, but she broke the law.

Abe, see above.

a reply to: EvilBat

The story is the focus, not the Title. If a mod asks me to change it or feels it needs changed, I have confidence it will be done.


Now, your comments on the story please.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: EvilBat

Furthermore, if I hire someone to do any work for ME, I am not excluded from responsibility. I am responsible and subrogate that responsibility to the party who I hired.

You aren't.

Clinton will be.

Which is why a) it's a security investigation and not a criminal one, b) they're not even talking to her and have said she's not the target c) they're talking to anybody other than her. A scapegoat will be created if one is needed and off she goes.

a reply to: network dude

Glad YOU get it!

a reply to: Shamrock6

One word...3 letters. YET.

Get it?

a reply to: Ultralight

I, like many others on here are commenting on the fact that your thread title is "FBI investigating Hillary Clinton" as if they were specifically looking into her as a suspect in some sort of criminal activities, which is not the case. Therefore your title is factually wrong. This thread title is misleading to say the least. I only wish she was being directly investigated for wrongdoing...

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

There are no laws against destruction of governmental property? Tampering with government's property? Etc?

Are you saying her having the classified info transferred to a thumb drive and now in the care, cutody, and control of her attorney, a man who does not appear to have had classified clearance ...at the time....is 100% legal?

So in the future we should settle for your overly biased opinion, rather than legal interpretation?
Silly bunch of mess. Done here.

edit to add: Actually, it's not a silly bunch of mess, and it is a viable, debatable topic, I'll give you that. But if anything, the title should read that Hillary Clinton's SERVER is being investigated for tight and adequate security, and not her personally, because that is clearly a lie. Adios.

a reply to: Ultralight

If it's a case of you feeling embaressed for not understanding the article and thus mistakenly assuming Hillary is being 'investigated' by the FBI, it makes sense that you would not be willing to admit it and change the title.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: EvilBat

Furthermore, if I hire someone to do any work for ME, I am not excluded from responsibility. I am responsible and subrogate that responsibility to the party who I hired.

Then if I hired a Landscaper to take care of my lawn, Fire season says can only mow between 8pm and 10 am. I am at work but he comes by and mowes my lawn at noon, starts a grass fire which he looses control and it burns many acres a day now . It's my landscapers fault for not following the law or is it myfault because I hired him.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: network dude

Glad YOU get it!

I think everyone is counting on the public to be idiots and not question anything about this. From an IT standpoint (which is the only way to look at this factually), she is guilty as hell, and it can NEVER EVER be verified how bad she screwed up. The only thing we can be 100% sure of is that she DID screw up.

It doesn't matter.

Hillary is just as innocent as Lois Lerner.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Shamrock6

One word...3 letters. YET.

Get it?

One word, seven letters.

CLINTON.

Get it?

I feel like you think I'm defending her somehow, when that is absolutely not the case. But, and this is my background speaking, I've seen these kinds of investigations before in my previous career. And I've seen things get ignored, I've seen stern talking to's, and I've seen people who have had their clearances yanked and get sent packing. That last group is rarely, very rarely, comprised of anybody in a big shot position.

originally posted by: EvilBat

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: [post=19661654]EvilBat[/post

Then if I hired a Landscaper to take care of my lawn, Fire season says can only mow between 8pm and 10 am. I am at work but he comes by and mowes my lawn at noon, starts a grass fire which he looses control and it burns many acres a day now . It's my landscapers fault for not following the law or is it myfault because I hired him.

It is not often on here that I read a retort such as yours, that is so logical and all encompassing in it's deft ability to make any comeback almost impossible. Very impressive.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Let me paint a bigger picture.

The bank for international settlements.

They back Jeb.

Remember NIXON?

originally posted by: EvilBat

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: EvilBat

Furthermore, if I hire someone to do any work for ME, I am not excluded from responsibility. I am responsible and subrogate that responsibility to the party who I hired.

Then if I hired a Landscaper to take care of my lawn, Fire season says can only mow between 8pm and 10 am. I am at work but he comes by and mowes my lawn at noon, starts a grass fire which he looses control and it burns many acres a day now . It's my landscapers fault for not following the law or is it myfault because I hired him.

What difference does it make?

Hillary hired herself when she lost the Democrat nomination.

And then Benghazi burned.

The whole thing is on a video !!!

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Both you and your lanscaper will be named in litigation. You likely have a deeper pocket if you own the land.
I have professional experience with this exact scenario.

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Please read my reply.