Former U.S. attorney: Clinton could face criminal indictment

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RickinVa

Because you and others force me too. Is that hard to comprehend as well?

How can someone who doesn't care be forced to do anything by people who are pointing out facts? Since you don't care, it should make no difference to you that Conservative media have been lying about the investigation.

so this is all a lie? Hillary didn't have a personal e-mail server that she used instead of official mail?
The "investigation" has not found that classified e-mails were found on her personal server that may or may not exist?

What the official investigation is looking for is whatever it is. We have no control over that.

What I think is important here is that VERIFIED FACTS that are UNDISPUTED need to be kept in the public eye, as they show the corrupt nature of the teflon bitch that is Hillary Clinton. Her crimes can go ignored, while others get charged.

If you read the OP, there is one part that really cannot be ignored. If this goes unpunished, then a legal precedent is set, and no person can ever be punished for mishandling classified documents again. Give Patreaus back his fine, apologize to him for the false charges, and remember, classified doesn't really mean # anymore.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

Hillary had classified e-mails on an unsecured server. That is a crime. Anyone other than a Clinton would already be in prison if they did the same.

Forgive me if I'd rather trust the judgement and knowledge of the law of the investigators and the FBI before that of random people on the internet.

I guess laws are subjective to who is breaking them. To big to fail, to rich to jail.

a reply to: network dude

so this is all a lie? Hillary didn't have a personal e-mail server that she used instead of official mail?

No, that is true. It is also not a crime.

The "investigation" has not found that classified e-mails were found on her personal server that may or may not exist?

It has found that classified materials were found in State Department emails, including some of Clinton's. (Only 4 actually documented.) There is no indication of the level of classification, or whether the security of the United States was at risk. The "satellite photographs" some are alleging is an outright fabrication.

What the official investigation is looking for is whatever it is. We have no control over that.

Donald Trump seems to think he does.

originally posted by: DJW001
It has found that classified materials were found in State Department emails, including some of Clinton's. (Only 4 actually documented.)

It only takes one dead body to have a murder. Classified material has a very strict way it needs to be handled. As a former military person with "secret" clearance, I have been through classes and fully understand what it means, and what the penalties are for a military person. Granted, my "secret" wasn't anything special at all, but the very few classified items I dealt with were not to be mishandled.

She did not follow proper procedures and even if it make democrats uncomfortable, it's illegal.

a reply to: network dude

She did not follow proper procedures and even if it make democrats uncomfortable, it's illegal.

She is not in the military, she was in the State Department; they classify things for reasons other than national defense. We would need to know how they were classified (Confidential? Secret? NOFORN?) to know what laws may or may not apply. But go ahead, continue to assume that they were COSMIC so that you can really freak out if the investigators decide that handling was "lax," but not "criminal."

a reply to: DJW001

"She is not in the military, she was in the State Department; they classify things for reasons other than national defense."

You just do not get it do you? The fact that she was SoS makes it certain that she dealt with material vital to the defense of the US just because of her job. Spin all you want my friend but it is very clear that you have no idea what so ever of how and why things are classified. You are not doing yourself any favors when you talk about things in which you clearly lack a understanding of.

Amazing.

Documents do not have to marked with a classification header in order to be classified.

A freaking conversation with someone can be considered classified based on the subject being discussed.

The list goes on.... you might want to educate yourself a little.

a reply to: RickinVa

You just do not get it do you? The fact that she was SoS makes it certain that she dealt with material vital to the defense of the US just because of her job.

Have you read the leaked diplomatic cables on wikileaks? "The Prince is very fond of fast European cars. It is rumored he has mistresses in Paris and London." Yes, absolutely vital to national security, that line. The investigators seem to be of the opinion that the classified material is unimportant.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RickinVa

You just do not get it do you? The fact that she was SoS makes it certain that she dealt with material vital to the defense of the US just because of her job.

Have you read the leaked diplomatic cables on wikileaks? "The Prince is very fond of fast European cars. It is rumored he has mistresses in Paris and London." Yes, absolutely vital to national security, that line. The investigators seem to be of the opinion that the classified material is unimportant.

Your ignorance about the duties of the Secretary of State and how and why things are classified is readily apparent.

You really are not doing anything to further your cause... you are actually doing a great deal of making a case for those who want to see her indicted.

Good job!!! Keep it up!!!

a reply to: RickinVa

Your ignorance about the duties of the Secretary of State and how and why things are classified is readily apparent.

So you think that the State Department is subject to the same Uniform Code of Operations as the Military? Please educate me....

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RickinVa

Your ignorance about the duties of the Secretary of State and how and why things are classified is readily apparent.

So you think that the State Department is subject to the same Uniform Code of Operations as the Military? Please educate me....

A couple things - 1) Clearances fall under the same US Code, whether in the military or as a civilian. The sensitive nature of some of the activities (both DOD / JSOC and intel agencies) that work out of embassies means that the SoS requires the highest level of clearance (exceptions being some compartmentalized things) in order to do her job. Further, the nature of modern warfare has a lot of joint activity between intel agencies and tier one DOD assets, depending on mission, location, geo-political considerations, etc. so they really couldn't have differing clearance structures between civilians and DOD if they wanted to.

2) Even an intelligence cable about a prince liking fast cars / having mistresses could be valuable intel to our enemies (i.e. blackmail / honeypot possibilities, etc.) knowledge is power, especially knowledge that gives someone leverage.

I understand RickinVAs frustration, as I see the same frustration in friends and family who even if they are GS-15s are flabbergasted by the treatment HRC is receiving vs. the rest of the clearance community has historically received. Even the appearance of impropriety can lead to disciplinary action due to something all federal employees have called the "Public Trust".

Not all the facts are clearly presented and HRC has not been charged yet, but I know a lot of folks that have spent careers in the intelligence community of differing political persuasions that to put it bluntly are pissed.

I would like to say this to anyone who professes to believe that Hillary Clinton is totally innocent.

You are missing the opportunity of a lifetime.

How so?

Sell everything you can, including your first born if you have one, borrow as much money as you can.

Go to Las Vegas.

Place all your money on the following bet: At the end of the current FBI investigation, Hillary Clinton will not be recommended for prosecution to the Department of Justice. Easy Peasy.

Put your money where your mouth is.... post a copy of your wager for all the world to see. That's it...then I will truly believe that you think she will not be recommended for criminal charges.

I am not a bookie, but I would be willing to give you 100-1 odds against that bet. I would not even consider a bet that she will not be recommended.

a reply to: RickinVa

Are you prepared to bet the farm she will be charged? I'm not. Not that her choices were good, but the reaction to them has been so exaggerated that no-one seems to be viewing it in perspective. Ronald Reagan sold guns to Iran, yet he was never charged with treason. That's not an excuse, it's an example of how things work in the real world.

a reply to: RickinVa

Are you prepared to bet the farm she will be charged? I'm not. Not that her choices were good, but the reaction to them has been so exaggerated that no-one seems to be viewing it in perspective. Ronald Reagan sold guns to Iran, yet he was never charged with treason. That's not an excuse, it's an example of how things work in the real world.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Thank you for that post,,, you nailed it about me for the most part.

I still have many friends that still work for the FBI and DoD, and they all feel the same way I do.... that something is very very wrong.

There will be a revolt in the intelligence community like there has never been seen before if charges are not brought... there will resignations, people will leak info to the press detailing what was found, etc.

There really is much more to this than just Hillary Clinton... everybody forgets Huma Abedin,Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano... it's about more than just Hillary.

a reply to: RickinVa

How ironic: the intelligence community will leak classified information to the press to protest Clinton's handling of classified information!

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: SonOfThor

Thank you for that post,,, you nailed it about me for the most part.

I still have many friends that still work for the FBI and DoD, and they all feel the same way I do.... that something is very very wrong.

There will be a revolt in the intelligence community like there has never been seen before if charges are not brought... there will resignations, people will leak info to the press detailing what was found, etc.

There really is much more to this than just Hillary Clinton... everybody forgets Huma Abedin,Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano... it's about more than just Hillary.

The anger was literally palpable in the atmosphere when I was home for the holidays in Northern VA, having beers with family and friends. For most of them it isn't political in a sense of party affiliations, but of the fact that in general SES types and politicians / cabinet members exist on a whole different wavelength in terms of accountability and discipline. The higher up you are in that regard, the more people you have around you that take the blame.

If I were to wager, I'd put money on her going down then Biden jumping in. The administration in this day and age of ISIS, etc. can't afford to have such a huge rift open up in the intel community. IMHO.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RickinVa

How ironic: the intelligence community will leak classified information to the press to protest Clinton's handling of classified information!

How ironic that you like to put words in people mouths. Please feel free to point out where I said anyone would leak classified information.

Evidence can be many things besides classified information.