FBI to question clinton

[mikul1]

She is showing Obama she is going to carry on his disassembling of America. Name change Fererated Clinton foundation of America. The FBI is going to clear she at the 9th hour and she will be the next , I can't even say it.
anyone who thinks there is any problem in her world and Mr Prez your a cool aid drinker.

 

[DawginSC]

why do you ignore the unsecure server , which she wasn't supposed to have for govt business . when they are talking about removing classification , they mean they found emails where she was telling aids to erase the classification heading and transmit on an unsecure server, classification is established by the originating agency( FBI,CIA,NSA,ETC.) , and LEGALLY she just can't declassify the message . the fact that she has classified info out of her office is a moot point . you know , i have given you the facts about classified information based on my experience and you are " whistlin past the grave yard " , you are just so typical of her ilk , so have at it !

Actually, she can... if it was classified by the state department. While it's possible that some information might have been classified by another agency, if the data was classified by the state department she could declassify it with a word.

It seems like you haven't actually read up on how classification works. The secure/non-secure nature of how the information was stored is really not important unless the e-mail was classified outside the state department. Because of the fact that the person who ultimately can okay the transfer of state department classified information outside of government control (secure or not) is... the Secretary of State.

What they are actually looking for with the investigation is hard proof that:

1 - She was committing espionage.
2 - She was stealing the information for personal gain or use.
3 (the most likely focus) - She was willfully doing so to avoid or break a law... such as the government records act or engaging in a bribery type situating where she gave favors in exchange for donations (say to the Clinton Foundation).

Note... for the last one they'd need something in an e-mail that was very damning. A suggestion doesn't cut it... you need something like Blagoyavich directly asking for a campaign contribution for someone to get appointed or get a contract.

When you actually look at what they'd have to find to get the Justice department to file charges... you see that it's going to take something dramatic in those e-mails to actually result in anything coming from this.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Yes. But both Jaywalking and Murder are against the law. One is a citation with a fine, the other is a felony with a long prison sentence.

The act that most of the people clamoring for a charge against Hillary on is 18 U.S.C. § 1924.

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Now if you ignore the question of if the Secretary of State has the ability to authorize herself to remove documents (which likely she does)... you're left with
"shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both". The maximum fine is 100,000 dollars.

The reality: Even if guilty this will be a 5,000 dollar fine with no jail time at the worst. Much more likely is a decision that the secretary of state has the ability to authorize herself to remove classified documents (as she also has the ability to declassify any document that received its classification from the state department).

There is a difference between the head of a executive department and a worker. Any other state department worker would have to get permission from the Secretary of STate to remove a classified document from government property if it was a state department document. By definition... if the Secretary of State does that they have given themselves permission... right?

No you moron, She reviewed and sent classified emails on a PRIVATE UNSECURE SERVER!!! She then while under a Congressional subpoena deleted over 30 of which the FBI worked to retrieve, and found that a number had classified info. She's a fcking criminal. But you libs like i've said, have no morals or character

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Actually, she can... if it was classified by the state department. While it's possible that some information might have been classified by another agency, if the data was classified by the state department she could declassify it with a word.

It seems like you haven't actually read up on how classification works. The secure/non-secure nature of how the information was stored is really not important unless the e-mail was classified outside the state department. Because of the fact that the person who ultimately can okay the transfer of state department classified information outside of government control (secure or not) is... the Secretary of State.

What they are actually looking for with the investigation is hard proof that:

1 - She was committing espionage.
2 - She was stealing the information for personal gain or use.
3 (the most likely focus) - She was willfully doing so to avoid or break a law... such as the government records act or engaging in a bribery type situating where she gave favors in exchange for donations (say to the Clinton Foundation).

Note... for the last one they'd need something in an e-mail that was very damning. A suggestion doesn't cut it... you need something like Blagoyavich directly asking for a campaign contribution for someone to get appointed or get a contract.

When you actually look at what they'd have to find to get the Justice department to file charges... you see that it's going to take something dramatic in those e-mails to actually result in anything coming from this.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ano-hillary-clintons-legal-problems/?page=all
Before she was entrusted with any state secrets — indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state — Mrs. Clinton received instruction from FBIagents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

No.

Keep in mind... this isn't investigating an actual loss of data. This isn't investigating some specifically damaging or dangerous piece of intel that was stolen.

This is investigating if her PROCEDURE for handling e-mail might have allowed for data to have been stolen in theory. That's what the actual investigation is about... not an actual breech.

While the whole thing might indicate there should be a procedural change, it's hard to classify it as "life or death".

Beyond her inept handling of top secret data, one word BENGHAZI!
That alone proves she is not fit for county dog catcher! 4 AMERICANS died and she tried to cover it up so ears could insure no election scandal.
You deserve what you get if you want her in office.

 

[mikul1]

I have never heard anyone ask her why she needed her on system. Who was she hiding from?

 

[jenkinscreekdawg]

Actually, she can... if it was classified by the state department. While it's possible that some information might have been classified by another agency, if the data was classified by the state department she could declassify it with a word.

It seems like you haven't actually read up on how classification works. The secure/non-secure nature of how the information was stored is really not important unless the e-mail was classified outside the state department. Because of the fact that the person who ultimately can okay the transfer of state department classified information outside of government control (secure or not) is... the Secretary of State.

What they are actually looking for with the investigation is hard proof that:

1 - She was committing espionage.
2 - She was stealing the information for personal gain or use.
3 (the most likely focus) - She was willfully doing so to avoid or break a law... such as the government records act or engaging in a bribery type situating where she gave favors in exchange for donations (say to the Clinton Foundation).

Note... for the last one they'd need something in an e-mail that was very damning. A suggestion doesn't cut it... you need something like Blagoyavich directly asking for a campaign contribution for someone to get appointed or get a contract.

When you actually look at what they'd have to find to get the Justice department to file charges... you see that it's going to take something dramatic in those e-mails to actually result in anything coming from this.

as i said before, it's not the fact that i haven't read up on the classification process , I EXPERIENCED IT , how can you continue to " dance around the mulberry bush " . you don't understand what you are googling , it's very evident that you are struggling to defend clinton, in fact it's becoming comical , i respond with facts and you start " dancing " LOL