How are Hillary Clinton AND Huma Abedin not going to prison...Warrant Release revelation...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because our current AG decided not to prosecute. If Obama doesnt grant Clinton a pardon I think she will go to jail when the new administration takes over.

I hope so, because everyone with a clearance knows you don't setup a personal server to conduct official gov business. That's just common knowledge. Especially for someone that's been working in the gov for 30+ years. She knew she was breaking the law.

it wasn't the LAW!!......are you incapable of reading ANYTHING other than right-wing blogs?

Correct. It was not the law.

That is why the RNC and Bush were able to run their own server during his admin. 22 million emails went missing in that case. Why no stink then?

Got any Federal warrants that specifically state anyone transmitted not just confidential materials, but Top Secret materials through them? Like the one I posted clips from? The ones that seem to just be glossed over for some reason...

Here are the meanings of the classifications of the emails they found on her server per the warrant:



And specifically the part about the Top Secret info that was transmitted....

Can't believe this has to even be argued at this point...it is right there on the warrant for everyone to see.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because our current AG decided not to prosecute. If Obama doesnt grant Clinton a pardon I think she will go to jail when the new administration takes over.

I hope so, because everyone with a clearance knows you don't setup a personal server to conduct official gov business. That's just common knowledge. Especially for someone that's been working in the gov for 30+ years. She knew she was breaking the law.

it wasn't the LAW!!......are you incapable of reading ANYTHING other than right-wing blogs?

Correct. It was not the law.

That is why the RNC and Bush were able to run their own server during his admin. 22 million emails went missing in that case. Why no stink then?

But the RNC wasn't the U.S. State Department at the time was it.

No, but Bush was the President of the US.

During the 2007 Congressional investigation of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, it was discovered that administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[1] for various official communications. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The use of this email domain became public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[2] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[3]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[4]). Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.[5] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[6][7] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[8] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.

en.wikipedia.org...

You do realize that this is a completely different issue and not at all comparable? GWB might have had some communications, but HRC was storing and sending classified information illegally, and possibly auctioning some of that information out to foreign powers and enemies of the state through the Clinton Foundation, and directly funding Isis with donations from these foreign powers.

That's like comparing a kid passing notes about who he doesn't like [GWB] to an international spy selling state secrets and arming black ops terrorists [HRC].

I'm not saying GW was right for using his own server, but he wasn't storing top secret information there, he was discussing who to fire. It also doesn't mean he didn't use it for other reasons, but he didn't get caught, so what could be, would be, might be, isn't, where as in HRC's case, it's case closed -- she did it.

Again, that doesn't mean that Bush wasn't doing the same thing, he might have been -- the key here though is, if he was -- he did it better than her because he didn't get caught, when she did get caught -- red handed.

I think we all feel like we know that Bush was doing the same thing. Bush's ISIS was Al-Qaeda. It's just he didn't get caught selling government power or mishandling state secrets. Everyone thinks Bush was an idiot, but he was actually really smart because he got away with everything he did.

a reply to: jimmyx

Nice deflection. Gee, I guess we should kick him out and put Hillary in there so then only Chelsea & Bill and the entire Clinton Foundation plus Clinton Global Initiative plus Open Society Foundation can reap from all that corruption.

This is so ridiculously simple, I cant believe there are still people out there that think she shouldnt be prosecuted for this. Unfortunately she will not be touched.......they still have money (for now) and even more importantly, dirt on political opponents they have built up over the years for just such a situation.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That has nothing to do with the point I was making. If you want to know that info, go find it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: theantediluvian

You know my stance on both candidates, I do not like either one.

From my position of political ambivalence I can say I think she should have incurred some form of legal remonstration. While intent is hard to prove in this case I think her intent was to circumvent the standard protocol on the handling of classified information.

I wonder why they even have them sign this at this point....obviously it means nothing if they do nothing with it.



Notice....HRC signature on there...I am seriously dumbfounded at this.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That has nothing to do with the point I was making. If you want to know that info, go find it.

Then I guess your entire post had nothing to do with this thread. Or at least you misunderstood the point I was making somehow.

No need to go find it....thread isn't about Bush.

a reply to: SRPrime

You do realize that this is a completely different issue and not at all comparable?

It is comparable. WH officials used a private server to communicate official business, which is against the law.

GWB might have had some communications, but HRC was storing and sending classified information illegally

Might have? Do you know for sure what he was sending, or his staff?

and possibly auctioning some of that information out to foreign powers and enemies of the state through the Clinton Foundation, and directly funding Isis with donations from these foreign powers.

Sure. Find that evidence and come tell me about it.

I'm not saying GW was right for using his own server, but he wasn't storing top secret information there, he was discussing who to fire. It also doesn't mean he didn't use it for other reasons, but he didn't get caught, so what could be, would be, might be, isn't, where as in HRC's case, it's case closed -- she did it.

Ok. That goes back to my comment about hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So I was reading through the warrant they released for Abedin's laptop that Weiner had and this is in there plain as day:

So 81 email chains contained classified info all the way to Top Secret at the time they were sent with 68 of them remaining classified to this day according to the warrant.

They also said this:

There were 22 that were Top Secret which if released could have exceptionally grave damage to national security.....

So I ask again....this is ALL known and is IN this warrant yet HRC, Huma and team are somehow remaining above the law on this? What reality are we living in?

This stinks of such a massive cover up it is insane. I truly believe all the crap in the MSM right now about Trump and Russia is to cover this stuff up....likely to cover up that HRC and team actually exposed this info, and if it was Russia then I would say that is a MUCH bigger story than anything Trump related.

It's like an alternate reality is happening here....I don't understand.

The worst part about it all is that it's not even a cover up (though I understand your use of the term).

It's plainly in our face, no cover up at all. Really more of a 'what are you going to do about it?' than a cover up.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Then I guess your entire post had nothing to do with this thread.

As it pertains to the server aspect, you are correct. It's not the topic.

I was just commenting on the obvious hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's plainly in our face, no cover up at all. Really more of a 'what are you going to do about it?' than a cover up.

It was so over the top that I would not be surprised if she was grabbing her testicles with one hand while using the other to flip off whomever was supposed to get her to sign that document.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Then I guess your entire post had nothing to do with this thread.

As it pertains to the server aspect, you are correct. It's not the topic.

I was just commenting on the obvious hypocrisy.

So lets arrest GWB and HRC and be done with it then?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If I recall the FBI press conference correctly they could not prove there was "intent" to violate the law, so they just chalked it up to being careless.

Isn't there something in the law books everywhere that says something to the extent of ignorance not being an excuse? Seems like I have heard that before....just not sure.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but most laws have some level of requirement to prove "intent" on the person's behalf. Being negligent, even dangerously negligent, doesn't always meet the burden of proof for intent in some cases.

Which I think we can all agree that should HRC ever, ever be charged, her defense team would beat that point to death. And likely pull it off.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's plainly in our face, no cover up at all. Really more of a 'what are you going to do about it?' than a cover up.

It was so over the top that I would not be surprised if she was grabbing her testicles with one hand while using the other to flip off whomever was supposed to get her to sign that document.

As old as she is, I imagine her beanbag is quite pendulous and may require both hands to wrangle.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SRPrime

You do realize that this is a completely different issue and not at all comparable?

It is comparable. WH officials used a private server to communicate official business, which is against the law.

GWB might have had some communications, but HRC was storing and sending classified information illegally

Might have? Do you know for sure what he was sending, or his staff?

and possibly auctioning some of that information out to foreign powers and enemies of the state through the Clinton Foundation, and directly funding Isis with donations from these foreign powers.

Sure. Find that evidence and come tell me about it.

I'm not saying GW was right for using his own server, but he wasn't storing top secret information there, he was discussing who to fire. It also doesn't mean he didn't use it for other reasons, but he didn't get caught, so what could be, would be, might be, isn't, where as in HRC's case, it's case closed -- she did it.

Ok. That goes back to my comment about hypocrisy.

Uhm. We know she was auctioning access to the government through her foundation. So when she's selling policy/access to policy to the Saudi Royal Family, and then we find out she's storing TOP SECRET information privately, and then using that money to fund ISIS [a terrorist organization] is it even a stretch to assume that she was selling this information too?

It's not, and that's the purpose of investigations. She was already caught operating "Pay to Play" [which really means, selling policy] and then she was caught completely separately, storing TOP SECRET information illegally in her own personal private library.

And you honestly don't believe she sold that top secret information?

Naive much?

It is NOT comparable. Using a server to discuss who you might hire/fire, who you like/don't like, is NOT the same as STORING TOP SECRET INFORMATION ILLEGALLY. Especially when you ALSO got caught SELLING POLICY and ACCESS to the US GOVERNMENT.

No -- not comparable. Not even in the same solar system.

One is not following communications procedure, the other is selling the free world for self profit. How are they at all comparable?

HRC is a traitor -- enemy of the state. What she did is the definition of High Treason.

It's my personal belief that GWB was also a traitor and an enemy of the state. What he did was blow up 3 buildings in NY city and launch us into a fake war for Cheney's Halliburton contracts. The problem is, you can't prove it with evidence, you can just surmise what probably happened -- where as HILLARY GOT CAUGHT OUT NAKED.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Then I guess your entire post had nothing to do with this thread.

As it pertains to the server aspect, you are correct. It's not the topic.

I was just commenting on the obvious hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy how? Are you saying don't prosecute her because whomever in the past did it too? If we don't start somewhere then we will get nowhere. I would love it if they would go all the way back and prosecute all of the past abusers of power that did something like this.

I am simply dumbfounded at THIS particular instance that IS happening NOW. Even the FBI noted it in the warrant...she transmitted Confidential, Secret and Top Secret materials through her server. They were on a laptop that it would seem was used as a backup of the emails at a later date due to the manufacturing date of the laptop.

Still wondering why the issue of these emails not being in the release by HRC's team hasn't been addressed either....thought they released them all and they were originally all deemed not classified at the time...this is in direct opposition of that and HRC's own statements of such.

a reply to: introvert

Deal with what we have NOW... Hillary Clinton. Let's get that matter completely investigated, exposed, prosecuted, and sentenced.

If Bush did something wrong, (although the digital world was much different 15 years ago in so many ways), we can address that at some point, too.

But, for now, we need to deal with the here and now as it stands starkly in front of the American people.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Then I guess your entire post had nothing to do with this thread.

As it pertains to the server aspect, you are correct. It's not the topic.

I was just commenting on the obvious hypocrisy.

So lets arrest GWB and HRC and be done with it then?

No. Let due process take its course.

a reply to: SRPrime

We know she was auctioning access to the government through her foundation.

No we don't. If she had, she would be easily indicted.

o when she's selling policy/access to policy to the Saudi Royal Family, and then we find out she's storing TOP SECRET information privately, and then using that money to fund ISIS [a terrorist organization] is it even a stretch to assume that she was selling this information too?

I don't like to stretch. Give me the proof and act accordingly.

And you honestly don't believe she sold that top secret information?

Belief doesn't hold up in the court of law.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: network dude
Sadly, she won't go to jail over this. They really are above the law. Affluenza.
They are too damn rich and powerful to be treated like a commoner.
I would love to be wrong on this, but I just don't think so. There are too many cases where those with the $ get away with whatever they wish. I bet this pisses Martha Stewart off just a bit.

no,...they can't make the case in court in front of a jury...period.....ask any prosecutor, even trent gowdy who would like to see Hillary swing from the gallows, closed the case.

Of course she violated the law. She must have lied on the certification that she completed the classified material handling course which is against the law. If she did complete the course she had "intent" which, in cases of indifference is not really needed, but she has a choice of intent or lying on the form. Further she lied about the emails to Congress which is obstruction of justice. She is an arrogant, small person with delusions of grandeur who thinks she is important and deserving of higher office. She will now have to explain how the Clinton Foundation, a tax exempt charity, paid $3 million for Chelsea's wedding and was Bill's cash cow. The IRS will fine them silly and rightfully so.
Her physical problems will also get worse over time so she is in for a long, debilitating time of it. Huma and the lesser lights may well suffer for things, too.