Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

a reply to: RickinVa

I trust things like the FBI,CIA, Inspector Generals, Supreme Court.

Indeed. Let me know when they actually provide us with some real information in order to formulate an educated position.

Until then, your SF 312 response will still be nothing more than twisted assumptions.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

I trust things like the FBI,CIA, Inspector Generals, Supreme Court.

Indeed. Let me know when they actually provide us with some real information in order to formulate an educated position.

Until then, your SF 312 response will still be nothing more than twisted assumptions.

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

Yeppers.... twisted assumptions that she knew that classified information may be marked or unmarked.

Real twisted assumption right there....

Personally, I think it is a really twisted assumption to assume that of over 2200+ classified emails, every single one of them was magically classified / over classified at some point after they left the possession of Hillary Clinton. But that is just me.

Lets leave this with a reality check...

Was the referral to the FBI a criminal referral?

We should clarify that the New York Times originally and incorrectly said the inspectors general requested a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email use -- as opposed to a security referral -- but the newspaper later issued two corrections. The referral is in connection with Clinton’s account, not whether Clinton herself mishandled information, and did not allege criminal activity.

Was it classified?

As backwards as it may seem, these two assertions -- Clinton’s claim that she did not have any classified information in her email and the inspector general’s claim that she did -- could both be partially accurate. This is primarily because the State Department disputes whether the information was classified

Agencies regularly disagree about whether information should be classified, even arguing over lines within the same document, said Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive. If the intelligence community declares something classified from its perspective, that does not automatically trump the State Department’s own decision that the same piece of information is not classified.

Let’s say Clinton learned a piece of information -- "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad" -- from an official at the CIA, who told her that information was classified as top secret. Then separately, one of Clinton’s aides within the State Department said, "I learned from one of our Imperial sources that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad." As the secretary, Clinton had ultimate authority to declare that "Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s dad" is unclassified -- which she could do by simply leaving it without a label -- because the information originated in the State Department, despite the fact that it also originated in the intelligence community.

Wait, then why has the State Department redacted so many of the emails they’ve already published?

Yes, many of the emails already out in the open are heavily redacted, but that’s a slightly different situation.

What we’ve been talking about are emails that contained information that was supposedly classified at the time the emails were sent. The redactions in the emails that the State Department has released so far are because the department decided the information was classified later -- meaning no one mishandled this information by sending it initially without a classification label. This sort of classification upgrade occasionally happens if new information comes into play that affects the sensitivity of the information.

www.politifact.com...

So why don't you troll the Director of the National Security Archive's and Politifact with your BS...

Cuz I have officially stopped caring how badly you molest the facts...GDay..

a reply to: RickinVa

Well there will be a party. They call it an inauguration.

a reply to: RickinVa

What previous agency?

Oh wait I can't even keep my own word to not participate in your discussion any further.

a reply to: Indigo5

"Was the referral to the FBI a criminal referral?"

No it was not originally. With numerous evidence of classified information outside of strict government control, it is obvious that the laws referenced in the SF 312 have clearly been broken.

The FBI does not do security reviews,,, that is what the State Department was doing until they suspended it because of the FBI law enforcement investigation.

Was it classified?

Numerous federal agencies have stated that the emails on Hillary's server was classified at the time of transmission.

As part of the investigation, the FBI has went back to the originators of the classified information in question and has statements that the information was classified by the originator... how those classification markings got removed and the emails transferred from a classified system to an unclassified system is the million dollar question. That is what would have been the FBI's primary focus.

Hillary says they weren't classified... the FBI will say they were.... looks like it goes to court to me.




Try a source a little fresher than July 29, 2015. That was 9 months ago. A lot has changed since then.



Next questions?

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

"Was the referral to the FBI a criminal referral?"

No it was not originally. With numerous evidence of classified information outside of strict government control, it is obvious that the laws referenced in the SF 312 have clearly been broken.

So say you and your convoluted and dishonest interpretation of the evidence.
What you are proposing here is that the FBI has opened a super secret criminal investigation into a former secretary of state that it is hiding from the public and despite their being leaks and spin by the GOP about every single tiny thing during the investigation...somehow the massive criminal investigation has been kept secret.

Utter BS...

Was it classified?

Numerous federal agencies have stated that the emails on Hillary's server was classified at the time of transmission.

As part of the investigation, the FBI has went back to the originators of the classified information in question and has statements that the information was classified by the originator...

Were the emails themselves classified at the time? Or the "information" in those emails considered classified at the time by different agency?

Your first sentence says "emails"...second sentence says "information"...

For someone that repeatedly shouts how much you know about the legal context of classified information...why do you repeatedly blur the distinctions?

If the "information" originated through unclassified sources in State, then it is was not classified at the time by State....even if CIA had that same "information" classified.

No one has shown she transmitted classified docs.

If the intelligence community declares something classified from its perspective, that does not automatically trump the State Department’s own decision that the same piece of information is not classified.

The acknowledgment of the US Drone Program is a prime example...CIA still considers it's existence Top Secret...State does not. CIA has no cause to disclose that information whereas State must smooth things over when the US fires missiles into foreign countries without express permission.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

What previous agency?

Oh wait I can't even keep my own word to not participate in your discussion any further.

When one party continues to ignore fundamental facts for the convenience of their argument (one example..It is not a criminal probe that can result in an indictment)...it really doesn't qualify as a "discussion"..

It is called a flat-earth debate...Where people will shout how the ship is about to fall off the edge of the earth...and when that fails to happen....silently never admit they were wrong and move on to other BS.

I will revisit this thread once the FBI concludes and quote myself...

a reply to: Indigo5
Meanwhile back in the real world she continues on a smooth path right to the Whitehouse.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

What previous agency?

Oh wait I can't even keep my own word to not participate in your discussion any further.

When one party continues to ignore fundamental facts for the convenience of their argument (one example..It is not a criminal probe that can result in an indictment)...it really doesn't qualify as a "discussion"..

It is called a flat-earth debate...Where people will shout how the ship is about to fall off the edge of the earth...and when that fails to happen....silently never admit they were wrong and move on to other BS.

I will revisit this thread once the FBI concludes and quote myself...

Do you really and truly believe that an FBI Investigation has to be structured in a certain way in order for an indictment to be recommended?


I will revisit this thread and invite you and silly and intro sweety to the indictment recommendation party.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Indigo5
Meanwhile back in the real world she continues on a smooth path right to the Whitehouse.

To quote your mentor,

At this point, what does it matter anyway?


You guys post crap saying Hillary is innocent.

We post stuff saying she is guilty.



We will all find out soon enough.... I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


See ya soon.


I am not going to post in this thread anymore after this. it is pointless. Nothing new will come out until after the criminal and her aides are interviewed by the FBI.


Hillary will be recommended for indictment by the FBI.....bet on it.


Tick Tock goes the FBI criminal investigation clock.....


Whats that noise??? I believe I hear the fat lady warming up!!!!


What a wonderful great day to be alive!!!!!! I love it!!!!

a reply to: RickinVa

I would bet on it but it's against t&c I'm sure.

a reply to: RickinVa

I like that Rick
You post stuff. I post crap.

Isn't Huffington post a liberal media outlet?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Few people know more about the FBI probe than Jason Leopold, and his latest piece in Vice explains the potential repercussions of this ongoing saga. In an article titled FBI Reveals New Details About Its Probe Into Hillary Clinton’s Use of Private Email Server, Leopold highlights the FBI’s response to a recent court order:

"The declaration addresses why the FBI can’t publicly release any records about its probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News...
But the FBI, which consulted with attorneys within its Office of General Counsel “who are providing legal support to the pending investigation,” cannot divulge any of them without “adversely affecting” the integrity of its investigation...
Hardy noted that the FBI’s probe was launched after the bureau received a referral from inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence community about Clinton’s use of a private email server."

The FBI’s refusal to release records in the probe speaks volumes, primarily because supporters of Hillary Clinton can’t imagine any wrongdoing, much less criminal indictments. However, a refusal to release records pertaining to Clinton’s private server should concern the Clinton campaign, primarily because this is a criminal investigation. "

Looks like even the left media is now realizing Hillary won't walk away from this without an indictment.

Oh and vice is going even further now.......

www.politico.com...


"In a motion filed Tuesday, attorneys for Vice News reporter Jason Leopold formally protested the classified declaration the FBI filed offering U.S. District Court Judge Randy Moss additional details about the ongoing FBI investigation into how classified information wound up on Clinton's private server, which hosted the personal email account she used in lieu of a government one during her four years as secretary of state.
Leopold's attorneys argue that the Justice Department violated normal legal protocol by failing to seek advance permission from the court or notice to the other side before filing the unusual "ex parte" pleading.
"Because Defendant submitted the declaration ex parte for in camera review without prior permission from the Court, or opportunity for Plaintiff to be heard, there is no public record justifying the need for such secrecy of the portions that are not classified, or for the court to rule on the lawfulness of the Defendant’s nondisclosure," lawyers Jeffrey Light and Ryan James wrote.
The protest gained some traction late Wednesday afternoon when Moss ordered the Justice Department to file publicly a redacted copy of the secret filing or "show cause why" that isn't possible. He gave the government until April 26 to do that."

The government is not going to be able to cover her on this one.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

I like that Rick
You post stuff. I post crap.

At least you are beginning to see reality in that regard. I still think you have a very long way to go though.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Ummm was I talking to you?

Can't wait to see this hag for the next eight years.

originally posted by: Sillyolme