FBI 'Revolt of Watergate Proportions' if Hillary Skates

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: dragonridr

So are government put landscaping over security. Is this insane or what.

Yes, it is.

But this is the same Obama Adminstration/ Clinton State Dept that authorized Chevy Volts and charging stations for the embassy in Vienna.... but claim that the Republicans are to blame for budget cuts that made security unaffordable in Benghazi.
Then they threw a big party to celebrate the Volts.
National Legal and Policy Center
That's right.
There was enough money to have a party to celebrate a sad car that burned up sitting in parking lots, but not enough money for a machine gun for US Marines. Maybe that is why Hillary was so intent on blaming a video?

And don't forget the $535 million the admin wasted on the failed Solyndra solar panel boondoggle. And all of a sudden Hillary wants to count pennies for the $7 million Benghazi investigation.

Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer who took more than $500 million from President Obama’s stimulus then went bust, sticking taxpayers for the loss, lied to federal officials to secure the loan, the Energy Department’s inspector general said in a report released Wednesday.

www.washingtontimes.com...

a reply to: butcherguy

Oh please. The topic is anything related to Hillary Clinton "skating" away from the non-existent charges against her in reference to her email server. The legality of what she did as compared with other Secretaries of State, anyone in the State Department that did the same things, etc. is certainly relevant and on topic.

Drop the forum policeman act, Butch.

And quote where I said anything about crimes being non-existent.

a reply to: dragonridr

Please, you're not that innocent.

You know why the majority of these repetitive investigations happened, Republican members of Congress have admitted it, the pundits in your right-wing media have admitted it ... it's plain.

Everything beyond the first one or two fact-finding investigations (which also demonstrated clearly that there was no wrong-doing or negligence on the part of anyone in the civil or military chain-of-command) was political theatre.

a reply to: UnBreakable

If the evidence is so air-tight, why are you using the "toss in everything but the kitchen sink" approach?

Obfuscation isn't your best look.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

Oh, that's right ... you're the only person (well, you and some of your unnamed associates) with a security clearance in the United States that understands the laws, and you're all just "waiting" to see what is going to happen.

Sorry, I'm not buying that one anymore. I actually dislike calling folks liars to their faces, but, come on, why aren't you (or any one of your unnamed associates) being interviewed daily on Fox News, Limbaugh, Breitbart, etc. crowing the precise laws that you KNOW have been broken from the housetops?

I mean, really, if you (and your unnamed associates) have cracked the case so thoroughly without ANY investigation at all, without any firsthand knowledge of anything, just going on what you find out in the media ... well, frankly, the answer is obvious, I shouldn't belabor the point.

You "don't care" about any other scandal Clinton has been involved in? Well, you'd be the only Clinton-basher on this site (and in this discussion) that doesn't bring up everything but the kitchen sink.

We'll see. You've been claiming the indictment will come any day now for about a month or so, yes?

Shouldn't be long now ...

If you can, please link to any source where other SoS's, or any other government official was found with thousand of classified emails on a private unclassified unauthorized email server located in their residence.

link just one person.

You are so full of yourself.

Exactly how do you explain all those classified emails? Are you buying into the retroactively classified tripe?

Do you think really think this investigation is just going to fade into the sunset?

Did Lynch call you personally and tell you what she told Bill Clinton the other day?




"I actually dislike calling folks liars to their faces,"

I don't... for you to accuse me of being a long time Hillary basher makes you nothing more than a bald faced liar... I have been on ATS 11 years... feel free to go back through those 11 years and count up how many times I even mentioned her name prior to this classified email scandal... go ahead and count them and I will accept your apology afterwards.

Good day. sheesh

Hillary Clinton is no more significant than a little pimple on the butt cheeks of life... other than she broke numerous laws concerning the safeguarding of classified information... and she wants to be the commander of chief who will be responsible for prosecuting people for doing way less than what she did.

a reply to: reldra

Why would a basic comparator be taken so literally?

a reply to: RickinVa

In rough order of your presentation:

1. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice have both stated they used private email accounts. Apparently most of the State Department and other Government agencies use non-secure email accounts for classified information (According to the lated Congressional Reports) Check.

2. I'm not the topic here, and I could care less what you personally think of "me." Check.

3. What is your source for the classified status of every Clinton email? Please provide that link rather than suggesting we take your word for it.

4. No, I don't think the FBI investigation will "fade into the sunset" I think it will conclude, the results will be made public, and then the next 8 years we'll be hearing about how the FBI was corrupted by the Obama Administration because "everyone knows" that Hillary Clinton is guilty.

5. What a silly specious comment! Did Lynch call you? How about Bill? How about any of your net of operatives that bring you better intel than the FBI? Please, you sound sillly.

6. Go back and read what I said, speaking of lies (since we're dropping the niceties). Should I quote it for you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You "don't care" about any other scandal Clinton has been involved in? Well, you'd be the only Clinton-basher on this site (and in this discussion) that doesn't bring up everything but the kitchen sink.

First of all, I have no interest in your "history." I'm not talking about your "history". You are here, in this thread, participating in bashing Hillary Clinton. If you are only interested in the "classified" material, again, you'd be unique among Hillary-bashers.

But you are in a Hillary-bashing thread, so if you don't like that, I can't help you. Fairly obvious that I'm speaking the truth though.

If she's a pimple, why are you bothering to comment, day after day? That's a lot of effort for a pimple, eh? Oh, wait, you don't "bash" Clinton do you? Calling someone a butt-cheek pimple is just ... what?

Insipidly childish?

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66


Calling for someone to be prosecuted for breaking the law is now considered bashing them?


We grew up in entirely different worlds.


Hillary Clinton broke numerous laws concerning the handling and safe guarding of classified information. If my feelings indicate that I am a Hillary basher to you because I believe she should and will be recommended for indictment, then I just do not know what to tell you.

Just trying to figure out where you are coming from...

1. Hillary Clinton broke numerous laws concerning classified information.
2. Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for breaking those laws.

which of those two statements do you disagree with?

a reply to: RickinVa

Absolutely not.

You've stated, consistently that Clinton has "broken the law." As evidence you provide your own authority and nothing more. Which is fine if you were stating an opinion, a feeling, a sense ... but you aren't.

You're stating this nonsense as FACT. I have considerable issues with that, and I've pointed them out to you.

If you have any source that demonstrates Clinton's conviction or indictment for any wrongdoing ... please share it, otherwise, and I don't necessarily mean any respect or disrespect here, you're just typing words. You've started thread, after thread, after thread with nothing more than your "expert opinion" as the basis of your claims.

I am a registered Democrat, and I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. That said, I don't think she (or Bill) are blameless or that they've never broken any laws or done anything "wrong." I don't TRUST anyone in politics, because the heart of every politician, from County Dog Catcher to President, is the heart of an Authoritarian. I don't trust the Government (at any level, particularly local and State) to be anything except what it is ... authoritarian nut-jobs who crave power-over others.

But I have watched the right-wing in this country invent crap about the Clintons for over 20 years. Yet, no convictions, and really, nothing but coincidences and conspiracies. Yet, this is sold every day by Republicans as proof of their utter corruption and evil ... which to me is patently absurd!

It's reached past the point of political agenda into superstition.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There are 2200+ classified emails available for you to read at the State Departments Virtual reading room.

You can choose to read the Executive Order covering Classified Information.

You can choose to read the State Departments very own classification guideline.

You can choose to read the SF-312 that Hillary signed.


You can choose to do a lot of things.

You have chosen to vote for Hillary Clinton which tells me all I need to know about your character.

You are what is wrong with this country. Voting for someone you know damn well broke several laws.

a reply to: RickinVa

So, no evidence to back your spurious claims?

All you've done is "emails" "definition of classified" " guilty." You don't seem to hold with truth, facts, due process or any other aspect of American jurisprudence.

You're a political hack and I don't need to know who you're voting for to know that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

So, no evidence to back your spurious claims?

All you've done is "emails" "definition of classified" " guilty." You don't seem to hold with truth, facts, due process or any other aspect of American jurisprudence.

You're a political hack and I don't need to know who you're voting for to know that.

Are you saying there are not 2200+ classified emails located in the State Departments Virtual reading room that you can not access? What more proof do you need?

You don't even believe the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community about the Top Secret emails?

You do not believe the documents from the federal government, what else am I supposed to produce for you? A body or something?

a reply to: RickinVa

Good lord.

There may be 2200+ emails in the DOS "virtual reading room" ... and I have no doubt that you, as a professed former FBI agent, understand the nature of "classified" better than I do. You have done nothing to prove, however, that all 2200+ are classified at any level, when they were classified, or what level of classification they hold etc.

You ask open ended questions because you're not providing any specific evidence of your claims.

IF the case were as "open and shut" as you've tried multiple times in several threads (basically making the exact same argument; spamming always raises suspicions of intent) there would be no need for investigation, charges would have been preferred months ago.

IG McCullough's letter is very specific in its language. IT addresses a sworn statement from one individual that states "These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels." Source - The Blaze

As noted previously, the letter makes no statement about when these emails were so classified. The letter references several dozen though, not 2200+ as you keep asserting in each of your presentations.

Not to mention something else the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community has clearly stated:

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral - it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails Emphasis mine.

We can keep batting this around, but actually, I don't care to.

Your assertion that there is a criminal indictment awaiting Hillary Clinton is baseless. Your assertion that all 2200+ emails you keep touting as classified is unfounded.

The Inspector Generals were quite clear about what they were asking the FBI to investigate ... and it was not criminal activity.

You are banging that drum based entirely on unsubstantiated partisan rhetoric. You want us to believe you have special knowledge about this situation, but the facts ... made evident here ... don't back you up.

As noted previously, the letter makes no statement about when these emails were so classified.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Some of the information contained in 22 of those emails is classified to the point that the IG for the Intelligence Agencies had to get permission to look at them, and he was tasked with looking at the emails that were on Hillary's server, once it was determined that there was classified information in her emails.

Your statement that I quoted says that the letter makes no statement about when the emails were classified.


It makes no statement about it because it is irrelevant.

The information in those emails is such that it was classified when the information was gathered, and as an OCA, Hillary was responsible for marking and handling such information as classified... and she failed to do that.

You are banging that drum based entirely on unsubstantiated partisan rhetoric. You want us to believe you have special knowledge about this situation, but the facts ... made evident here ... don't back you up.

It would do you good to review other threads that have already covered these subjects in depth. There are links to the statement that Hillary signed taking responsibility for the classified information that she would handle as SOS, and links to the Executive Orders signed by President Obama establishing Hillary as an Original Classification Authority. ( EO 13526 whitehouse.gov ).

a reply to: Gryphon66

Drop the forum policeman act, Butch.

Nothing you haven't done before... asking someone to stay on topic.

The legality of what she did as compared with other Secretaries of State, anyone in the State Department that did the same things, etc. is certainly relevant and on topic.

My point isn't the legality of her acts (she has openly broken the law), it is the fact that you think that people doing it before her means that she gets to break the law.

a reply to: Gryphon66


I never said I was a former FBI agent... please get your story straight and stop lying. You made that up because I have never said that.

To accuse me of stating I was a former FBI agent is accusing me of committing a crime, it is illegal to impersonate an FBI agent. and I do not appreciate it in the least bit, and it has to be against the terms of this site.

Thank you.

If you bothered to research you would have found this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My qualifications: 25+ years in the Federal Government, 18 with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the last 7.5 with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a GS-0391 Telecommunications Specialist. I also served on an advisory board to the Director, FBI as a subject matter expert on communications security.

No where have I ever stated I was a FBI agent, former or otherwise....