Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

a reply to: RickinVa

You also think if she's innocent she should go in without a lawyer. Oh when your not predicting that they will advise her not to cooperate in the first place.

a reply to: RickinVa

In your OP you say if she's innocent there should be no need to have a lawyer. Just tell the truth. Simple huh?
Seems to me you think lawyering up implies some kind of guilt.
You also imply that her lawyers would advise her not to talk to them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I won't say it. Nope I'm being nice.

a reply to: RickinVa

All that's lacking is proof that she broke any of those laws.
Oh you were a messenger? Bicycle? I've seen them around the city.

Lets cut the BS,,,I am sick of it.

I never sent or received any information marked "classified".

DEBUNKED:

Her signing of her SF-312 states that she clearly acknowledged that classified information may be marked, unmarked, or oral. Her signing this is legal proof that she was aware prior that not all classified information may contain the proper classification markings.

What is in the SF-312 she signed?

Things like:

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my
being granted access to classified information.

2. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications

3. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection classified information

4. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by
a foreign nation

5. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from
an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it

6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b], title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

7. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement
is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government and until otherwise
determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law.

8. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible.

www.archives.gov...


What laws did Hillary break? Read #6....she signed the contract, she made that bed, now she has to lie in it.

Nothing like the smell of of upcoming indictments in the morning air....what a wonderful day!!!

Having classified material on her unclassified server is an a spillage/leakage of classified material. Every piece of classified information on her server is considered compromised and has to be rectified, sometimes the damage is not repairable.


Yes sir, my confidence level is extremely high that Hillary Clinton will be recommended for indictment.

I can not wait for this to be over......soooooooooooooooooooooooooon

a reply to: RickinVa

One last thing "Rick" ... can you prove that Clinton intentionally compromised any information classified or not.

If you don't know that a conviction under any of these regs or laws would require evidence of CLEAR INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE sensitive material (as with Petraeus) ... then you know even less than you claim I do.

So which is it "Rick" are you hiding what you know, or don't you know it?

Either way, Hillary Clinton is not going to be accused of any crime nor is she going to be incarcerated and she may very likely be the next President of the United States.

Regardless of how I may feel about some of her actions and positions ... the horror that simple fact will cause many right-wingers and other similar thinkers is utterly ... delicious.

Now, back to my regularly scheduled status of ignoring you "Agent Rick."

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa
"
"One last thing "Rick" ... can you prove that Clinton intentionally compromised any information classified or not."

Intentional is not a requirement under 793 (f) Gross negligence in mishandling of classified material. All classified information found on Hillarys server is assumed to have been compromised.... doesn't matter if you can prove it or not, they automatically assume it has been compromised and then the cleanup/recovery process take place...the process has been in place for decade when classified information is leaked onto the public arena.


"If you don't know that a conviction under any of these regs or laws would require evidence of CLEAR INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE sensitive material (as with Petraeus) ... then you know even less than you claim I do."


So which is it "Rick" are you hiding what you know, or don't you know it?

Either way, Hillary Clinton is not going to be accused of any crime nor is she going to be incarcerated and she may very likely be the next President of the United States.

Regardless of how I may feel about some of her actions and positions ... the horror that simple fact will cause many right-wingers and other similar thinkers is utterly ... delicious.

Now, back to my regularly scheduled status of ignoring you "Agent Rick."

"If you don't know that a conviction under any of these regs or laws would require evidence of CLEAR INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE sensitive material (as with Petraeus) ... then you know even less than you claim I do."

Thank you for showing your clear ignorance on dealing with classified materials.... you keep right on with that fantasy that there has to be "CLEAR INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE". LOL that is so untrue LOL

The only one looking stupid here is you my friend.... look up what gross negligence in the handling of classified material means and then try and fit that into your "there must be clear intent" theory and get back to me on that.


See you on indictment recommendation day buddy.

I will state for public record, there does not have to be any "clear intent to distribute" under a charge of gross negligence of mishandling of classified material.... you state there has to "be clear intent to distribute" I say your statement is totally false and misleading.

As a matter of fact, I would love for you to prove your statement.

Who told you I was an agent? Did you assume that just like you falsely assume there has to be clear intent to distribute to be charged under the laws referenced on the SF 312? You are wrong on both counts.

Stick with your position that there has to be "clear intent to distribute" before anyone can be charged.. it just shows your severe lack of knowledge concerning the rules and regulations dealing with classified materials.

Did you bother to read the laws referenced in the SF 312? No you did not,,,because if you had, you would have noticed that there is no requirement of any sort of intent under some of the laws concerning the mishandling of classified information.


Tick tock goes the FBI criminal investigation clock.

Keep on attacking me and questioning my credentials..... Hillary will go down no matter what.

I hope you do ignore me, but you will be baccccccccck.

a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to have dug your heels in on the fringe of this issue and I will be interested to see your response when reality reconciles your claims.

have you prepared for an excuse yet?...You were right all along, but the DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. are all involved in a corrupt conspiracy to exonerate Hillary Clinton?

Will that be the story you offer?

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to have dug your heels in on the fringe of this issue and I will be interested to see your response when reality reconciles your claims.

have you prepared for an excuse yet?...You were right all along, but the DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. are all involved in a corrupt conspiracy to exonerate Hillary Clinton?

Will that be the story you offer?

My story will be.,... what is the next story?

This means nothing to me personally other than the classified information. I do not care about anything else.

You got a small group of people under investigation for mishandling classified information,,, over a period of years. You have people that were taking information off of Top Secret and Secret networks and emailing them to Hillarys unclass server.

Every single person who was using a blackberry tethered to Hillarys email server, they were broadcasting the IP address of the server as soon as they set foot in some countries. 99% chance every spy agency in every country around the world that they visited, knew about that server.

You really think all this is just going to magically disappear? I don't, not for one single second.

Have you prepared your response when she is recommended for indictment? That's the real question.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to have dug your heels in on the fringe of this issue and I will be interested to see your response when reality reconciles your claims.

have you prepared for an excuse yet?...You were right all along, but the DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. are all involved in a corrupt conspiracy to exonerate Hillary Clinton?

Will that be the story you offer?

You got a small group of people under investigation for mishandling classified information,,, over a period of years.

No...You have an FBI probe to determine IF classified material was mishandled or leaked.

Not a criminal probe..And not focused on an individual or individuals..

You seem confused by the difference?

Every single person who was using a blackberry tethered to Hillarys email server, they were broadcasting the IP address of the server as soon as they set foot in some countries. 99% chance every spy agency in every country around the world that they visited, knew about that server.

Says who? You ?

You really think all this is just going to magically disappear?

No...I think they are going to issue a conclusion based on facts and evidence and this will be a severe disappointment to you.

a reply to: Indigo5

"No...You have an FBI probe to determine IF classified material was mishandled or leaked."

They already know it was leaked and mishandled... that is a no brainer and it doesn't take a year long investigation to figure that out.


The state department suspended their review into Hillarys use of a personal server for classified information because of the ongoing FBI law enforcement investigation.

That is where this currently is.

The FBI is scheduling interviews with her aides and Hillary herself.... all we do is wait at this point.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to have dug your heels in on the fringe of this issue and I will be interested to see your response when reality reconciles your claims.

have you prepared for an excuse yet?...You were right all along, but the DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. are all involved in a corrupt conspiracy to exonerate Hillary Clinton?

Will that be the story you offer?

...and do all the Hillary sychophants have your excuses ready if she is indicted? Or will you just use the blanket 'vast right wing conspiracy' excuse that is always used by the left whenever someone exposes a Clinton f-up?

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to have dug your heels in on the fringe of this issue and I will be interested to see your response when reality reconciles your claims.

have you prepared for an excuse yet?...You were right all along, but the DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. are all involved in a corrupt conspiracy to exonerate Hillary Clinton?

Will that be the story you offer?

...and do all the Hillary sychophants have your excuses ready if she is indicted? Or will you just use the blanket 'vast right wing conspiracy' excuse that is always used by the left whenever someone exposes a Clinton f-up?

You can shove the "Hillary Sychophants" nonsense where the sun don't shine...I don't even like the woman...I am just objective enough to realize that "Like" has nothing to do with an FBI Inquiry into classified data.

Frankly I have seen you post from a respectful and objective place in the past...so the above is kind of disappointing.

Objectively sorting through the 90% spin and BS of the headlines and drilling into what is actually going on...I am 95% confident that this will end with ZERO indictments...the investigation hasn't even been structured for indictment purposes. It's aim is to determine if any classified material leaked.

Lots of emotion here...but absent the emotional BS...The outcome is going to be VERY disappointing to those wishing for indictment.

I am willing to bet my ATS membership on it...I will delete my account if Hillary is indicted? anyone want to join me in that bet from an opposing view? Thought not....

a reply to: Indigo5


Cool beans,,, what will be your new account name after her indictment recommendation?

Given it much thought? You might want to make a list so you won't have to rush when her indictment recommendation comes down.

a reply to: RickinVa

Is that a yes? taking me up on the wager? you have made it a personal obsession attacking everyone that tries to interject objectivity or facts into the debate...repeatedly inferred that you have special knowledge and insight...so you have to pretty damn sure? right? ...Or are you just all BS?

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

Is that a yes? taking me up on the wager? you have made it a personal obsession attacking everyone that tries to interject objectivity or facts into the debate...repeatedly inferred that you have special knowledge and insight...so you have to pretty damn sure? right? ...Or are you just all BS?

I think your conversation clearly denotes who is full of BS. If I don't agree to your terms, then I am full of BS... got it..thanks for that important clarification.

Have you decided who you will vote for once Hillary drops out?

I will bet you a soda... that's about it.

a reply to: RickinVa

All bark...we are done here now that you have proven you actually don't believe what you have been ranting about...

G'day..

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

All bark...we are done here now that you have proven you actually don't believe what you have been ranting about...

G'day..

okie dokie... you see it one way,,, I see you acting like you are daring people to delete their accounts over a silly wager and then implying that they are liars if they dont take that bet.

I see someone whose behavior is something I left behind when I got out of the 1st grade 5 decades ago...

double dog dare ya and your just a chicken if you don't do it..... please freaking grow up and act like an adult.

Shall I throw your own crap back at you?

I offered to bet you a soda... you declined,,,,,, must mean you are full of BS and don't actually believe what you say... see what I did there??

Grow up.

a reply to: RickinVa

Uh--huh...

This was BS...

originally posted by: RickinVa


I think my position is pretty clear. I believe Hillary Clinton and 6-10 others will face recommendations for indictment, in the near future.

Confidence level: high. No doubt at this point really.

This is in response to watching this thread for 3-4 days. I don't agree with all of rickinvas rantings but I do know a very few things about classified info. I know that I have a navy officer in my family that misplaced his laptop in an airport and he was put out of service for 4 weeks while they figured out the details. Sillyolme and Gryphon talk like they have all of the facts on Clinton's situation but if she were to treated like the rest of the military personnel she would at the very least be investigated. You 2 are acting like hillary being even investigated is absurd.

Shouldn't we be talking about how the Clinton's should not be above obvious laws instead of trying to discredit each other's facts?

Just my 2 cents

Spock