So now it remains to be seen whether the FBI agents who claimed they would go public with all of the evidence will actually come forward.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

So now it remains to be seen whether the FBI agents who claimed they would go public with all of the evidence will actually come forward.

Losing a pension is a big thing.

---

Clinton Skates!

Meaning.........?

I did think people were at least somewhat informed about the world here.

I'm well aware of what the FBI Director said. My question was whether your use of 'skates' means you feel she should be indicted or she is innocent.

Like her hubby, that depends upon what "is" is.

---

All I know is that if I were a Federal employee and I stored sensitive emails, ie. documents, on a private server and if I got caught I would end up serving time at Leavenworth.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Which is the difference between being a US citizen and a Clinton. We can now for all intent and purpose remove the "and Justice for All.", from the Pledge.

It appeared Director Comey had a very bad taste in his mouth the entire time. It makes me wonder how the FBI 'foot soldiers' who did the work feel about that announcement.........

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

All I know is that if I were a Federal employee and I stored sensitive emails, ie. documents, on a private server and if I got caught I would end up serving time at Leavenworth.

But was Hillary a federal employee, or should she have had a federal employee trained in communications with her to handle classified information?

In my time in the Royal Signals didn't trust Staff Officers, Ministers of the Government or the Royal Family to communicate sensitive information, we did it for them.

Clinton Skates!

Meaning.........?

I did think people were at least somewhat informed about the world here.

I'm well aware of what the FBI Director said. My question was whether your use of 'skates' means you feel she should be indicted or she is innocent.

Well, after reading the NYT article on the FBI Director's statement that Bobby linked here a few posts ago... Clinton SHOULD have been indicted.

Go over the bullet points in the article.

1. Mishandling of classified information.

2. Obstruction of justice and/or perjury.

3. Espionage.

4. Obstruction of justice and/or perjury.

Plus... the inevitable 'conspiracy to commit ...' charges.

Sorry, but the USA is supposed to have 'rule of law' (not rule by a specific person or persons), with NO ONE 'above the law' (we settled this one with Nixon). The Law is supposed to apply to everyone, equally.

Now then, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has completed it's investigation...

The investigation found evidence that the law has been broken... Where is the next step(s) in the proceedings?

Sorry... If a person uses deadly force against a person doing a home invasion... Even IF it was a totally justified use (as in self-defense), after the police investigation, it still MUST go before a Grand Jury to decide whether or not there should be an indictment and trial.

How did Clinton escape this? Only one possible reason. 'Who she is'... It is politics.

After all, the FBI director stated that 8 chains of email found on Clinton's private server (from the initial batch of 30,000) contained material classified as TOP SECRET.

There are only 2 ways to end this controversy. Either Clinton goes to trial, or Obama issues her a pardon, as Ford did to Nixon after Nixon's resignation. Sorry, but either one of these ways will effectively end Clinton's campaign this election cycle. Of course she can always try again next election cycle in 2020 or possibly 2024, if there is a trial and she is not found guilty. A pardon will permanently taint her, as the current turn of events will, but at least with the pardon, she will avoid prison... IF she is still alive and mentally intact. Remember, Clinton is beginning to get more than a little... old. IF she is elected president this cycle, she will be 69 on inauguration day, the same age Reagan was at the start of his first term, and she is not exactly in the best of health right now.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

All I know is that if I were a Federal employee and I stored sensitive emails, ie. documents, on a private server and if I got caught I would end up serving time at Leavenworth.

But was Hillary a federal employee, or should she have had a federal employee trained in communications with her to handle classified information?

In my time in the Royal Signals didn't trust Staff Officers, Ministers of the Government or the Royal Family to communicate sensitive information, we did it for them.

She did. They objected to her use of the private email server. She told them to get bent and did it anyway.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Sorry... If a person uses deadly force against a person doing a home invasion... Even IF it was a totally justified use (as in self-defense), after the police investigation, it still MUST go before a Grand Jury to decide whether or not there should be an indictment and trial.

Isn't that a crime that doesn't compare. I would have thought a more reasonable comparison would be leaving a store without paying is a better analogy, where the question is did the person make an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to steal.

Interesting read on points of law.

These are the mens rea (basically the mental state) requirements of an individual for different types and levels of crimes from the Model Penal Code( or MPC). The MPC is like a helpful template for legislatures to use in crafting their criminal codes.

Model Penal Code’s Mens Rea

---

...

All I know is that if I were a Federal employee and I stored sensitive emails, ie. documents, on a private server and if I got caught I would end up serving time at Leavenworth.

But was Hillary a federal employee, or should she have had a federal employee trained in communications with her to handle classified information?

In my time in the Royal Signals didn't trust Staff Officers, Ministers of the Government or the Royal Family to communicate sensitive information, we did it for them.

She did. They objected to her use of the private email server. She told them to get bent and did it anyway.

So why didn't they stop her using the private server?
Was the info she sent classified at that time* or was it made classified later, was the copy found on her server, a copy of the original made before it was classified.
Could it also be, info that she didn't think required to be classified*.

* There are examples of both these occurrences by other people reported in the press.

edit] Just read this WP - Unlike Petraeus and others, Clinton’s case lacked malicious intent or other nefarious elements

What the FBI Investigation Found

Clinton is only partially right: There were certain documents and emails that were made classified after being sent — which Comey referred to as being "up-classified." There were about 2,000 cases of that.

But there were also 110 emails that Comey described as being classified at the time they were sent. Moreover, Clinton appeared to contradict her claims of never having sent anything marked classified. Comey indicated that there was "a very small number of the emails... [that] bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-investigation-sheds-light-hillary-clintons-past-email/story?id=40350589

---

...

All I know is that if I were a Federal employee and I stored sensitive emails, ie. documents, on a private server and if I got caught I would end up serving time at Leavenworth.

But was Hillary a federal employee, or should she have had a federal employee trained in communications with her to handle classified information?

In my time in the Royal Signals didn't trust Staff Officers, Ministers of the Government or the Royal Family to communicate sensitive information, we did it for them.

She did. They objected to her use of the private email server. She told them to get bent and did it anyway.

Which means they should be prosecuted for giving her information they knew or should have known would be exposed!

Frankly this is likely why no charges. Too many low level people following orders would also have to be charged. Remember you can't selectively prosecute.

Unfortunately the USA doesn't know what secret means. Grrrrrr know people who work in places where years ago strip searches in and out were needed, today cell phones with cameras go there!

---

All I know is that if I were a Federal employee and I stored sensitive emails, ie. documents, on a private server and if I got caught I would end up serving time at Leavenworth.

But was Hillary a federal employee, or should she have had a federal employee trained in communications with her to handle classified information?

In my time in the Royal Signals didn't trust Staff Officers, Ministers of the Government or the Royal Family to communicate sensitive information, we did it for them.

She did. They objected to her use of the private email server. She told them to get bent and did it anyway.

So why didn't they stop her using the private server?
Was the info she sent classified at that time* or was it made classified later, was the copy found on her server, a copy of the original made before it was classified.
Could it also be, info that she didn't think required to be classified*.

* There are examples of both these occurrences by other people reported in the press.

Isn't that a crime that doesn't compare. I would have thought a more reasonable comparison would be leaving a store without paying is a better analogy, where the question is did the person make an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to steal.

Oh, it compares quite nicely. There are specific defenses against prosecution and/or conviction written into the law on murder. Even IF the act falls under one of these defenses, it still MUST go before a grand jury... The police (the investigators) don't (or at least shouldn't) have the authority to bypass this, no matter WHAT their investigation finds.

So why didn't they stop her using the private server?

She was their boss... The ones that raised the issue were told to drop it and never mention it again or they would be fired (or worse...).

Was the info she sent classified at that time*

Some of it(110 of them), yes it was classified at the time it was sent from / received on Clinton's private email server.

Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them.

The first bullet point on:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=1

Could it also be, info that she didn't think required to be classified

Sure, it would have been within Clinton's power to declassify information that was originally classified by the State Department. However, there is a process to this that leaves a paper trail, and the information would not have still been classified when it was sent/received from her private email server. Hence, this did not occur. Furthermore, it would have NOT been within Clinton's power/authority to declassify information that was not ORIGINALLY classified by the State Department.

edit] Just read this WP - Unlike Petraeus and others, Clinton’s case lacked malicious intent or other nefarious elements

Heh... The main charge(s) here that STICK are 'mishandling of classified information'.

Malicious intent is NOT required. Was there classified information on her private email server? Yes. Was it there at her direction? Yes. That right there is the crime. No malicious intent required. Or, if you REALLY want to get technical on it, the 'intent' part was satisfied by it being at her direction.

Let me put this into a slightly clearer perspective. During Clinton's tenure, a contractor (with the required security clearances) was given access to certain classified material. The contractor sought permission to use his personal laptop (it was set up already to do so) to work with the material. Permission was granted on the condition that the contractor erase the information before leaving the facility.

Without malicious intent, the contractor somehow forgot to erase the material before leaving. Clinton recommended prosecution. Contractor was prosecuted for 'mishandling classified information', convicted, and sentenced to 2 years prison (the prison sentence was later 'suspended', but the conviction remains).

1 count. 1 file where it was not supposed to be under federal information security law. 2 years for an 'I forgot...'.

Now then, extend this to Clinton... 110 emails. 110 pieces of classified (including some classified at least TOP SECRET) information... Without official permission.. You get the picture?

Furthermore, this was done with the assistance of several of her aides. There goes some 'conspiracy to commit' charges.

Was any classified material on her private email server(s) when it was accessed by unauthorized foreign nationals (hacked, and yes it was)? There goes an espionage charge(s). If the information was on an authorized computer system, the espionage charge(s) would be leveled only on the 'spy', and possibly on the people involved in maintaining the server if it is likely that they deliberately cooperated in the hack.

BUT... the private email server was NOT an authorized (under the law) government computer system. Therefore any possible espionage charges would fall on Clinton as well. THIS is the situation that the 'mishandling of classified material' laws are designed to prevent. Intent is not required. Did it happen? If yes, then GUILTY.

Obstruction of justice and perjury... This one is obvious. Lies were told under oath to investigators. There is the perjury. Delays in turning over some of the emails... There is the obstruction of justice.

Do you 'get it' now?

The allegations made against Clinton have had supporting evidence found during the FBI investigation. The 'Rule of Law', means there needs to be a Trial in a Court of Law... No matter WHO the alleged perp is...

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

She was their boss... The ones that raised the issue were told to drop it and never mention it again or they would be fired (or worse...).

An absolute case of being able to take an employer to court for unfair dismisal. Therefore I question that without authoritative substanciation

And no I do not get it. From what I have read of your remarks on the subject I can only assume you are very anti-Hillary and make my judgement on that.

>>>snip - The allegations made against Clinton have had supporting evidence found during the FBI investigation. The 'Rule of Law', means there needs to be a Trial in a Court of Law... No matter WHO the alleged perp is...

Whole post well said. TY

+1

---

...

She was their boss... The ones that raised the issue were told to drop it and never mention it again or they would be fired (or worse...).

An absolute case of being able to take an employer to court for unfair dismisal. Therefore I question that without authoritative substanciation

And no I do not get it. From what I have read of your remarks on the subject I can only assume you are very anti-Hillary and make my judgement on that.

Many progressives are saying essentially what MK says. Want links?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Of the material that was classified at the time of transmission, was it marked classified? If it was not then there is no way for her to have known it was classified and without that specific knowledge, which must be proved in court, there is nothing to charge her with. If the FBI can't present that evidence to a Grand Jury, then the AG isn't going to waste their time nor should the FBI.

Finally if she was only in receipt of the material and did not transmit it, who is guilty? The person sending? The person receiving? Both?

On the receipt side, she likely had an obligation to report it being outside security. However if it had been stripped of the classified markings before it was sent, how could she have known to report it? Again they have to prove knowledge of classification to make the case.

Finally I keep hearing perjury this and that. Only statements that count are those made under oath and when you know you aren't speaking the truth. She can lie her head off at press conferences, and obviously being a politician does. Again the crime is mental state, which has to be proved in court.

Absent her saying "I did the crime!" there is little if anything to present to a grand jury. (And this is what hung many of the cases mentioned, they finally admitted it!)

Just like hubby "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

FYI: This is why you don't do business with a lawyer!

---

American artist and composer John Prine wrote a song in the early 70's some called an allegory of the Watergate scandal and pardon of Nixon. The chorus sums up my current feelings and I think those of many.

"I used to sleep at the foot of 'Old Glory', and awake with the dawn's early light. But much to my surprise, when I opened my eyes, I was a victim of the great compromise........"

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Of the material that was classified at the time of transmission, was it marked classified? If it was not then there is no way for her to have known it was classified and without that specific knowledge, which must be proved in court, there is nothing to charge her with. If the FBI can't present that evidence to a Grand Jury, then the AG isn't going to waste their time nor should the FBI.

Finally if she was only in receipt of the material and did not transmit it, who is guilty? The person sending? The person receiving? Both?

On the receipt side, she likely had an obligation to report it being outside security. However if it had been stripped of the classified markings before it was sent, how could she have known to report it? Again they have to prove knowledge of classification to make the case.

Finally I keep hearing perjury this and that. Only statements that count are those made under oath and when you know you aren't speaking the truth. She can lie her head off at press conferences, and obviously being a politician does. Again the crime is mental state, which has to be proved in court.

Absent her saying "I did the crime!" there is little if anything to present to a grand jury. (And this is what hung many of the cases mentioned, they finally admitted it!)

Just like hubby "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

FYI: This is why you don't do business with a lawyer!

But she did lie under oath, it's all over the internet so must be true, take this, for instance:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified under oath before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the State Department.

But on Tuesday, FBI director James Comey revealed that the agency had found “several thousand” work-related emails Clinton had not turned over, including three that included information that had been classified at the time that they had been sent.

There's no doubt that Clinton said she had turned over all her work related emails, and there's no doubt that the FBI found thousands of emails that had not been turned over, so the perjury is clear cut, right?

Except that if you read what James Comey said, you'll find:

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

I'd imagine mounting a perjury case based on this type of discovery of emails, would not be simple, the data that the FBI assembled into emails was not accessible via email software Clinton had at her disposal when she made her statement under oath. She said she'd handed over emails - not all possible data that could be (re)constructed into emails, not all emails that could be recovered from analysis of email accounts of others that had corresponded with her; and on "technicalities" like these cases are easily lost in court.

Perjury requires the willful telling of an untruth. For those that believe Clinton is guilty of the crime, do you really believe you could convince a jury to convict with these comments as your evidence?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...