FBI investigates Hillary Clinton

originally posted by: smitastrophe
a reply to: queenofswords

That is what I don't understand about this whole situation, why hasn't her home been raided for the server or ANY other media that may contain information, backups, etc..

Because she and Bill have power, connections, and people that can get a job...any job...done. Plus they probably have tons of dirt on every heavy player in Washington and beyond. jmo

This "discussion" is like reading a tabloid at the grocery store.

I expect Batboy or Elvis to post at any moment.

"I don't have to have any evidence or facts to know the truth."

"Well, you know, powerful people can do anything they want, so that alone proves that Hillary is guilty."

a reply to: Gryphon66

I get where you are coming from. And I am not saying there shouldn't be due process here. But you HAVE to admit that the lack of attention to this issue is just startling.

I don't need a huge write up with the detailed list of evidence condemning her. I'm just looking at all her dishonest statements about the email setup, the fact that she wanted just one device when she was clearly using several is one example of dishonesty. The fact that she willfully admitted that she deleted emails, but ONLY the ones that she thought were personal. I guess you can just take her word for it, but I can't.

I am also concerned about the money that went missing while she was secretary, and simultaneously the Clinton Foundation earns billions of dollars.

Clinton Foundation Tax Cheats

All these things patched together, weave a blanket of deception and I am steering clear. You should too.

If you werent doing anything illegal (which actually storing gov stuff on a private server IS)

Then why would you destroy it in the first place?

The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."

The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."

Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

so slander members post on the thread all you want........

Fact is she broke the law and an investigation is warranted

a reply to: Gryphon66

Way to go Saul. This is a serious topic for discussion and your just bashing anyone with a differing opinion, because of your own beliefs. Don't freak out because Hillary's poll numbers are plummeting and the only other option is a dedicated and self ascribed socialist. The D party looks pretty weak right now, it will be interesting to see how this news shapes up and what the coming months will hold. But I gotta think all this negative attention she has received all summer is going to put her out to pasture soon.

a reply to: Ultralight

I have been thinking about this since the whole scandal kinda broke out. If anybody works in IT maybe able to chime in further. If this was a typical Exchange server, I would think that something this important would have been virtualized with VMWare or MS Hyper-V or some other Hypervisor. That would make it extremely portable if that were the case. I can't just see an IT person, unless under explicit instruction, just deleting a server like that and all backups used for retention. I guess that is possible, but I always wondered if the server was shutdown, and is just sitting on an external HDD, encrypted, in a security vault somewhere.

originally posted by: smitastrophe
a reply to: Gryphon66

Way to go Saul. This is a serious topic for discussion and your just bashing anyone with a differing opinion, because of your own beliefs. Don't freak out because Hillary's poll numbers are plummeting and the only other option is a dedicated and self ascribed socialist. The D party looks pretty weak right now, it will be interesting to see how this news shapes up and what the coming months will hold. But I gotta think all this negative attention she has received all summer is going to put her out to pasture soon.

Oh, so now it's the victim card. I haven't bashed anyone. Quote me.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, as stated. I support the truth and evidence.

A serious topic? Based on overt misrepresentation from the OP and your statements of intuition about Clinton's guilt?

Overt prevarications like "the Democrats look pretty weak" LOL. Yeah, if you only listen to Fox News.

That worked out really well in 2012, didn't it? Oops, too soon?

There has been no "investigation" because there was no evidence of wrong-doing.

This investigation is not of Hillary. But you know that.

You've already stated that you're interested in your beliefs over evidence, so I don't think anyone will be surprised that you seem to be missing the boat on this topic as well.

Hillary is not being investigated. This thread is about as close to an overt hoax as one can get.

Hopefully the OP changes the title of this thread soon, to reflect the truth regarding the situation.
False and misleading titles for threads are cringeworthy and dishonest.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Fact is she broke the law and an investigation is warranted

We have to be careful here. We do not know for a fact that a law was broken as we are not privy to all facts involved. We only know what we are told. That is why an investigation needs to take place.

If she is found to have been guilty of a crime, we charge her and do according to the law what needs to be done.

But what if she is found innocent? Will we accept the findings and move on, or will we not believe it and continue to push the idea that she was guilty?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

... and speaking of Fox News ...

Fox News Analysts Hillary Clinton Did Not Break the Law

In the less than two days since The New York Times broke its story about Hillary Clinton relying exclusively on a personal email address while serving as secretary of state, there has been much debate over whether she actually violated federal law. But according to both legal analysts who appeared on Fox News’ The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson Wednesday afternoon, Clinton is in the clear.

“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.”

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Also, since apparently you haven't read the source article, Hillary Clinton is NOT being investigated.

Here, I'll quote it for you and save you some time:

The FBI’s interest in Clinton’s e-mail system comes after the intelligence community’s inspector general referred the issue to the Justice Department in July. Intelligence officials expressed concern that some sensitive information was not in the government’s possession and could be “compromised.” The referral did not accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, and the two officials said Tuesday that the FBI is not targeting her.

Once again, from the OP's Source Article at The Washington Post

a reply to: introvert

I learned in the course of this thread that some right-wing folks have an almost psychic level of intuition.

They can just LOOK at someone and know that they're guilty.

Me? With that kind of gift, I'd pick lottery numbers.

a reply to: introvert

I do agree we should ALWAYS wait for the investigation findings and facts before passing judgement

We have to be careful here. We do not know for a fact that a law was broken as we are not privy to all facts involved.

however she wiped the servers which might have had gov related material on it, which IS against the law according to reports atm

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

I learned in the course of this thread that some right-wing folks have an almost psychic level of intuition.

They can just LOOK at someone and know that they're guilty.

Me? With that kind of gift, I'd pick lottery numbers.

Did she or did she not wipe the servers, which she used

Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported:

"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."

She did not preserve those records

again slander all you want

a reply to: smitastrophe

For enough money, many would do anything.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Slander? Where? You don't want to try for "hate speech"? That seems to be the new victim card on the right.

Did Hillary wipe the servers? Not to my knowledge. Did she have it done? Why not, after she turned over the emails to the appropriate custodian, it was her property to do with as she would.

The State Department disagrees with your summations. In fact, Clinton has encouraged the State Department to accelerate the process.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

however she wiped the servers which might. have had gov related material on it, which IS against the law according to reports atm

Might...that is an important word, and not in a "depends on what the definition of "is" is" sort of way. We have to know for sure before we decide someone is guilty.

Do you know for sure? What info are you privy to that no one else has?

Isn't it true that we are all innocent until proven guilty?

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

For the last time... I will not change the title. If ATS mods want it changed, that is the only way it will change. I have explained my reasons enough.

The title of the thread is not the story, so don't continue to make it the story.

If you don't like the title, GET OVER IT and discuss the meat of the story.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We will see what comes of it, she isn't being investigate YET. But I am glad that you support the truth and evidence and what not. I don't watch Fox News or really any major news networks, your comment is a reflection of your own political devotions.

And hell yeah it's too soon! When major new networks feed B.S to the drooling masses, yeah it bugs the crap out of me. I firmly and honestly believe that the whole nation has been hoodwinked the past 4 years. I voted for Romney out of necessity to stop what I believe is an over-reaching Executive branch, not because I liked him, he was the lesser of two evils.

In your opinion, honestly what would "evidence" be? Do you need to see a CCT video of Hillary looking over her shoulder as she hits the delete key? Why is it hard to admit that there is at least a smidgen of corruption here? Oh, it's because of the aforementioned political devotions I was referring to.

I am not going to change your mind. And you won't change mine with snarky belittling comments.

originally posted by: introvert

Isn't it true that we are all innocent until proven guilty?

Not Democrats.

(or liberals, progressives, socialists, atheists, etc.)