- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
Are Rice and Powell running for President? I hadn't heard that yet.
Hillary Clinton. Is an an indictment coming?
- Thread starter Coach
- Start date
Are Rice and Powell running for President? I hadn't heard that yet.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Like I said...
Immunity Deal Raises Stakes in Clinton Investigation
Legal experts say the kind of deal the Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck with Pagliano is common in cases where investigators want to work their way up the food chain in uncovering possible criminal activity.
What the immunity deal does suggest, experts say, is twofold.
First, that investigators believe Pagliano has potentially valuable information that will help them determine whether any laws were broken.
Second, that the Department of Justice is at minimum setting the stage for the possibility of a criminal case.
“It doesn’t necessarily signal that there will be charges. What it does signal is that they are accelerating past the investigation stage and things have now risen to the level of a grand jury investigation,” Ray said.
Legal experts note that the Department of Justice (DOJ) — under whose authority the FBI operates — doesn’t have the power to grant immunity. Federal judges are the only ones with that power, and only at the request of a DOJ prosecutor.
“Prosecutors are in the business of making cases — you don’t hand out immunity unless the hope is it gets you additional evidence that you would not be able to get, and that evidence leads towards being able to perfect a charge,” he said.
All of the conversations with Clinton’s staff at State could give investigators more targets and leads. Security experts say Pagliano could know a great deal.
“I think of him as Sammy ‘The Bull’ Gravano; he knows where the bodies are buried and he could bring down the whole organization,” said Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity consultant who has worked with tech companies like Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent, referencing the underling who helped bring down mob boss John Gotti.
“This guy’s low-hanging fruit,” Wright said. “But he’s going to lead them to bigger things.”
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...-raises-stakes-in-clinton-email-investigation
Immunity Deal Raises Stakes in Clinton Investigation
Legal experts say the kind of deal the Department of Justice (DOJ) has struck with Pagliano is common in cases where investigators want to work their way up the food chain in uncovering possible criminal activity.
What the immunity deal does suggest, experts say, is twofold.
First, that investigators believe Pagliano has potentially valuable information that will help them determine whether any laws were broken.
Second, that the Department of Justice is at minimum setting the stage for the possibility of a criminal case.
“It doesn’t necessarily signal that there will be charges. What it does signal is that they are accelerating past the investigation stage and things have now risen to the level of a grand jury investigation,” Ray said.
Legal experts note that the Department of Justice (DOJ) — under whose authority the FBI operates — doesn’t have the power to grant immunity. Federal judges are the only ones with that power, and only at the request of a DOJ prosecutor.
“Prosecutors are in the business of making cases — you don’t hand out immunity unless the hope is it gets you additional evidence that you would not be able to get, and that evidence leads towards being able to perfect a charge,” he said.
All of the conversations with Clinton’s staff at State could give investigators more targets and leads. Security experts say Pagliano could know a great deal.
“I think of him as Sammy ‘The Bull’ Gravano; he knows where the bodies are buried and he could bring down the whole organization,” said Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity consultant who has worked with tech companies like Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent, referencing the underling who helped bring down mob boss John Gotti.
“This guy’s low-hanging fruit,” Wright said. “But he’s going to lead them to bigger things.”
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...-raises-stakes-in-clinton-email-investigation
Like Mrs Clinton's emails... everything you are asking for would be redacted... you dont get to see the top secret info, just the comments around them. The Judicial watch lawsuit only got them the status of the emails and comments she made about them... they did not get any kind of juicy state secrets to share
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Pathetic lapping up of the tired equivalence tactic.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
How many of you are going to her inauguration? It will be historic. First woman President.
You can tell your grandkids you were there.
You can tell your grandkids you were there.
Don't be so sure about the woman part.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/
This summarizes the e:mail issue pretty good. See you at the inauguration.
This summarizes the e:mail issue pretty good. See you at the inauguration.
please advise the class, 21, why the server was wiped before it was given to the FBI.
please advise the class, 21, why Hillary required a server in her home. Please explain to the class the necessary requirements for needing a server from someone who has very little knowledge of IT and who can't keep track of more than one email account.
oh, and when is your book coming out? we're all waiting on pins and ******* needles.
please advise the class, 21, why Hillary required a server in her home. Please explain to the class the necessary requirements for needing a server from someone who has very little knowledge of IT and who can't keep track of more than one email account.
oh, and when is your book coming out? we're all waiting on pins and ******* needles.
You ever notice some people follow a political party like a sports team... its kind of weird and really quite stupid...
C
Clete
Guest
The ugly cow also paid herself $254,000 out of her campaign funds since she announced her run. Must be expensive to buy all those snazzy pantsuits.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/04/hillary-paid-herself-250000-from-campaign-funds.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/04/hillary-paid-herself-250000-from-campaign-funds.html
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Turning up the heat!
FBI Said to Prepare to Interview Clinton Aides About E-Mail
"FBI agents are planning to seek interviews with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aides in coming weeks as an investigation into her use of private e-mail for official business enters a new phase, according to two people familiar with the inquiry.
Investigators would also like to interview the Democratic presidential front-runner herself as part of the inquiry, the people said.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is striving to complete its probe by May or June and pass its findings along to prosecutors for potential action, the people said."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-to-interview-clinton-aides-in-e-mail-inquiry
FBI Said to Prepare to Interview Clinton Aides About E-Mail
"FBI agents are planning to seek interviews with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aides in coming weeks as an investigation into her use of private e-mail for official business enters a new phase, according to two people familiar with the inquiry.
Investigators would also like to interview the Democratic presidential front-runner herself as part of the inquiry, the people said.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is striving to complete its probe by May or June and pass its findings along to prosecutors for potential action, the people said."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-to-interview-clinton-aides-in-e-mail-inquiry
Fixed it for ya.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,650
- Reaction score
- 2,588
- Points
- 113
Paul Waldman, a senior advisor/fellow/member of Media Matters, and opining through the Washington Post, is fairly and unbiasedly summarizing this inquiry into Hillary?
I loathe sheep that strap homer goggles too tight to their head.
Way too see it objectively there.
WOW!
Lets debunk some of this tripe…. The ever present political biases in Papers like this or Fox are why the media can never be trusted…. Lets look what is in this one:
*Clinton set up a personal email account and used it for work. Even though previous Secretaries of State did the same thing, and even though thousands of people in government use personal emails for work, she still shouldn’t have done it. She may have violated department policies, but there’s no evidence she broke any laws.
-yeah except that wasn’t the case… some secretaries of states got the occasional email on a private account… its far from having a special server set up with the full intention of circumventing the governments security firewalls and more importantly the tracking of such documents for FOIA. And there are several laws that were broken or could have been broken that she would be liable for, which is why a federal judge gave a subpoena to obtain them… they don’t do that for ***** and giggles, only when there is evidence of serious wrongdoing…. This is a clear cut attempt to trivialize the matter with a political agenda…. Particularly since there is a laundry list of people fired or imprisoned for lesser breaches of national security involving emails and memos
*Clinton has said it was a mistake and apologized for it.
-saying your sorry doesn’t fix the matter, nor does it appease the courts…. Prisons are full of people who say they are sorry and that it was a mistake… she has shown no contrition, she even hindered the investigation by stonewalling and dragging her feet on compliance… thus its an empty gesture at best
*There were concerns that her email server could have been vulnerable to hacking from a foreign power. But it does not appear to have been hacked.
-So much is wrong with this lame point… first of all the end of that statement “But it does not appear to have been hacked”..... we don’t know… and may never know… because it was outside the realm of the government’s watchful eye… that isn’t to say using the secure servers they have are any better preventing it, but if they hack an official server or even try to and the government finds traces, they alert people to the compromise… on the other hand on a secret server, no one is watching, so no one knows if a breach happens or if someone tried to get in.
*None of the work-related emails she sent and received were marked classified at the time. However, some 200 of them were retroactively classified. This is now the subject of a spat between the State *Department and the intelligence community, which classifies many things that people elsewhere in the government think are absurd to classify.
-This also is false… we have a email from mrs Clinton telling an aide to print out a memo, remove the classified heading on a document, and email it to her server… that is one known case right there of already classified documents being sent… but lets ignore that for a second… the whole premise is flawed… we are hearing the spin after the fact but a significant portion of interactions are by nature classified on conception, Going back and redacting info after the fact and issuing it a formal classification rank before releasing it to the public is all formality… listen to the scores of people saying that… or , you know, listen to Clintons totally unbiased spin on this matter… your choice
*For Clinton to be charged with mishandling classified information, she would have had to knowingly passed such information to someone not authorized to have it — like David Petraeus showing classified documents to his mistress — or acted with such gross negligence that people without authorization were bound to see it. According to what we know, neither of those things happened.
-Only we don’t know what she forwarded to whom because this was all done outside big brother’s watchful eye… which is half the problem right there
*The FBI is investigating the matter, but has said that Clinton herself is not a target of that investigation, meaning that they don’t suspect that she committed any crime.
_ No that isn’t what the FBI said … that what Mrs Clinton’s Lawyer said the FBI said, and if you do not know the difference there watch some newscasts where the defense lawyer lies through his teeth to get the public perception he wants out there… I mean trump’s lawyer says the case against him is frivolous and every single person is ready to call BS on that, right?
*That former aide, Bryan Pagliano, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department and is working with them as they complete their investigation, which will probably conclude this spring.
-You can only Grant immunity to someone for CRIMES.. and only a Judge can do it at that level… and it isn’t happening without potential indictments following… this isn’t some political witch hunt as the Clintons desperately want it to be seen as…
Now lets look at the bigger issue that was omitted here… was this an attempt to circumvent FIOA? That’s the bigger felony than mishandling email… was this a conscious attempt to hide interactions from the Public to better serve backdoor politics and shady dealings?
This is the kind of article that shows why Newspapers are passé and irrelevant… desperately trying to tweak public opinion without actually following the facts of the story like they could 20 years ago… The internet puts all this up ASAP and people can judge for themselves… we don’t need the truth editorialized into a politically biased trash piece to support a favored candidate. Put up all the facts, including the Laws that are claimed to have been broken, without the commentary and let people make up their own minds
*Clinton set up a personal email account and used it for work. Even though previous Secretaries of State did the same thing, and even though thousands of people in government use personal emails for work, she still shouldn’t have done it. She may have violated department policies, but there’s no evidence she broke any laws.
-yeah except that wasn’t the case… some secretaries of states got the occasional email on a private account… its far from having a special server set up with the full intention of circumventing the governments security firewalls and more importantly the tracking of such documents for FOIA. And there are several laws that were broken or could have been broken that she would be liable for, which is why a federal judge gave a subpoena to obtain them… they don’t do that for ***** and giggles, only when there is evidence of serious wrongdoing…. This is a clear cut attempt to trivialize the matter with a political agenda…. Particularly since there is a laundry list of people fired or imprisoned for lesser breaches of national security involving emails and memos
*Clinton has said it was a mistake and apologized for it.
-saying your sorry doesn’t fix the matter, nor does it appease the courts…. Prisons are full of people who say they are sorry and that it was a mistake… she has shown no contrition, she even hindered the investigation by stonewalling and dragging her feet on compliance… thus its an empty gesture at best
*There were concerns that her email server could have been vulnerable to hacking from a foreign power. But it does not appear to have been hacked.
-So much is wrong with this lame point… first of all the end of that statement “But it does not appear to have been hacked”..... we don’t know… and may never know… because it was outside the realm of the government’s watchful eye… that isn’t to say using the secure servers they have are any better preventing it, but if they hack an official server or even try to and the government finds traces, they alert people to the compromise… on the other hand on a secret server, no one is watching, so no one knows if a breach happens or if someone tried to get in.
*None of the work-related emails she sent and received were marked classified at the time. However, some 200 of them were retroactively classified. This is now the subject of a spat between the State *Department and the intelligence community, which classifies many things that people elsewhere in the government think are absurd to classify.
-This also is false… we have a email from mrs Clinton telling an aide to print out a memo, remove the classified heading on a document, and email it to her server… that is one known case right there of already classified documents being sent… but lets ignore that for a second… the whole premise is flawed… we are hearing the spin after the fact but a significant portion of interactions are by nature classified on conception, Going back and redacting info after the fact and issuing it a formal classification rank before releasing it to the public is all formality… listen to the scores of people saying that… or , you know, listen to Clintons totally unbiased spin on this matter… your choice
*For Clinton to be charged with mishandling classified information, she would have had to knowingly passed such information to someone not authorized to have it — like David Petraeus showing classified documents to his mistress — or acted with such gross negligence that people without authorization were bound to see it. According to what we know, neither of those things happened.
-Only we don’t know what she forwarded to whom because this was all done outside big brother’s watchful eye… which is half the problem right there
*The FBI is investigating the matter, but has said that Clinton herself is not a target of that investigation, meaning that they don’t suspect that she committed any crime.
_ No that isn’t what the FBI said … that what Mrs Clinton’s Lawyer said the FBI said, and if you do not know the difference there watch some newscasts where the defense lawyer lies through his teeth to get the public perception he wants out there… I mean trump’s lawyer says the case against him is frivolous and every single person is ready to call BS on that, right?
*That former aide, Bryan Pagliano, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department and is working with them as they complete their investigation, which will probably conclude this spring.
-You can only Grant immunity to someone for CRIMES.. and only a Judge can do it at that level… and it isn’t happening without potential indictments following… this isn’t some political witch hunt as the Clintons desperately want it to be seen as…
Now lets look at the bigger issue that was omitted here… was this an attempt to circumvent FIOA? That’s the bigger felony than mishandling email… was this a conscious attempt to hide interactions from the Public to better serve backdoor politics and shady dealings?
This is the kind of article that shows why Newspapers are passé and irrelevant… desperately trying to tweak public opinion without actually following the facts of the story like they could 20 years ago… The internet puts all this up ASAP and people can judge for themselves… we don’t need the truth editorialized into a politically biased trash piece to support a favored candidate. Put up all the facts, including the Laws that are claimed to have been broken, without the commentary and let people make up their own minds
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Yeah, pretty much having an server set up in your house while you are sec of state is a ridiculously huge red flag, and really points to very serious things, like espionage and treason. This is a different league from an odd email from a personal account. There is no mitigating equivalence to be had here. Just setting up one of those servers for someone is probably a serious crime, hence the immunity for Pagliano.
Actually, from what I have been hearing, the assistant AG or higher would have had to grant immunity at that level. And, you don't do that unless you are putting evidence before a grand jury. No matter how you look at it, Hillary is guilty. Will Obama allow her to be indicted is the only question that remains to be seen.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,383
- Reaction score
- 11,910
- Points
- 113
You know.....A lot of tax payers' money is being spent investigating Hillary. A lot of the FBI's time and resources being used trying to bring her down. I wish things didn't have to be so costly and time consuming. Has anyone tried just throwing a bucket of water on her?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,605
- Reaction score
- 29,987
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
I just wish the Democrats had run any candidate that was normal... a socialist extremist and a totally corrupt establishment crony isnt exactly how to put your best foot forward... Trump would probably be getting crushed if the Dems hadnt disenfranchised a portion of voters with their picks.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up
National Security: The Washington Post, of all places, found that not only did Hillary Clinton send and receive classified material on her unsecured email server as Secretary of State, she wrote dozens of classified emails herself.
To understand the implications of this revelation, let’s rewind the clock to almost exactly one year ago, when Clinton first addressed her private email controversy at a press conference held in the United Nations building.
A reporter asked Clinton whether she was “ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?”
Her answer was emphatic: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”
Then she went on: “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”
The first claim had been proved false long ago, once the State Department started releasing what would end up being 2,093 of Clinton’s emails that it said contained classified material.
Once those emails started emerging, Clinton changed her story to say that she never “knowingly” sent or received classified information, because none of the messages were so marked. That excuse fell by the wayside when emails turned up containing information deemed “classified at birth.” Then several showed up that couldn’t be released at all because their classification rating was so high.
The Post’s latest revelations, however, are particularly damning. It found that three-quarters of the classified emails she sent were written by Clinton herself.
Saying she didn’t know the information was classified because it wasn’t marked makes no sense, since she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place.
And, since she claims that she was “well aware of the classification requirements,” she can’t now claim that she was ignorant of the nature of the information she was sending.
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...l-hillary-clintons-last-defense-just-blew-up/
National Security: The Washington Post, of all places, found that not only did Hillary Clinton send and receive classified material on her unsecured email server as Secretary of State, she wrote dozens of classified emails herself.
To understand the implications of this revelation, let’s rewind the clock to almost exactly one year ago, when Clinton first addressed her private email controversy at a press conference held in the United Nations building.
A reporter asked Clinton whether she was “ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?”
Her answer was emphatic: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”
Then she went on: “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”
The first claim had been proved false long ago, once the State Department started releasing what would end up being 2,093 of Clinton’s emails that it said contained classified material.
Once those emails started emerging, Clinton changed her story to say that she never “knowingly” sent or received classified information, because none of the messages were so marked. That excuse fell by the wayside when emails turned up containing information deemed “classified at birth.” Then several showed up that couldn’t be released at all because their classification rating was so high.
The Post’s latest revelations, however, are particularly damning. It found that three-quarters of the classified emails she sent were written by Clinton herself.
Saying she didn’t know the information was classified because it wasn’t marked makes no sense, since she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place.
And, since she claims that she was “well aware of the classification requirements,” she can’t now claim that she was ignorant of the nature of the information she was sending.
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...l-hillary-clintons-last-defense-just-blew-up/
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Fun stuff...
In an interview on FOX News tonight, host Megyn Kelly told DNC chairwoman Wasserman Schultz that the Republican response to Donald Trump's rhetoric is that at least no Republican is facing the threat of indictment.
Wasserman Schultz denied the situation, stating, "there's no one facing the threat of indictment on our side either."
The two then had a combative back and forth on the fact that there is an ongoing DOJ and FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's private server. Wasserman Schultz tried to divert attention to Trump's multiple corporate bankruptcies, but Kelly would not let up on getting the chairwoman to acknowledge the Clinton investigation.
MEGYN KELLY: You know what the response to that on the other side is, which is, yes, it has gotten vulgar on the GOP side, but no one's facing the threat of indictment.
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: There's no one facing the threat of indictment on our side either, Megyn.
KELLY: There's an open DOJ and FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton right now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...i_investigation_lets_not_be_melodramatic.html
In an interview on FOX News tonight, host Megyn Kelly told DNC chairwoman Wasserman Schultz that the Republican response to Donald Trump's rhetoric is that at least no Republican is facing the threat of indictment.
Wasserman Schultz denied the situation, stating, "there's no one facing the threat of indictment on our side either."
The two then had a combative back and forth on the fact that there is an ongoing DOJ and FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's private server. Wasserman Schultz tried to divert attention to Trump's multiple corporate bankruptcies, but Kelly would not let up on getting the chairwoman to acknowledge the Clinton investigation.
MEGYN KELLY: You know what the response to that on the other side is, which is, yes, it has gotten vulgar on the GOP side, but no one's facing the threat of indictment.
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: There's no one facing the threat of indictment on our side either, Megyn.
KELLY: There's an open DOJ and FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton right now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...i_investigation_lets_not_be_melodramatic.html
Tor Democrats that is the new normal.
Actually she's probably right about that. Hildebeast will skate. As Newt said about it on Hannity's radio show today, "There are regular people and there are the Chosen people".
Last edited:
Similar threads
