Finally! Someone else is talking about no IG during Hillary's tenure at State Dept.---about time!!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

That is true, but it was never stripped of headers and sent nonsecure. It was sent through proper channels.

Yes....
So that means her urging a subordinate to do something unlawful makes her as pure as the wind-driven snow?????????

No. It's clear to me she's not "as pure as the wind-driven snow", but can she be charged with a crime for that?

Conspiracy to commit a crime at the least!
She was telling a subordinate to commit a crime.... and by asking for it to be sent to her, she would be committing another crime by receiving it.

I know at least one of the "gatekeepers" has a Chicago connection....I'll have to look into the other three.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

That is true, but it was never stripped of headers and sent nonsecure. It was sent through proper channels.

Yes....
So that means her urging a subordinate to do something unlawful makes her as pure as the wind-driven snow?????????

No. It's clear to me she's not "as pure as the wind-driven snow", but can she be charged with a crime for that?

Politics is a tough game.

No one "pure as the wind-driven snow" will ever get very far. That's just the way it is.

Politicians are hard core negotiators and deal makers. Putting any politician on a moral pedestal is idealistic delusion in the real world.

Here come the testimonials.

Heartwarming.

The Hillary Clinton for President Campaign is in full-throttle mode.

They will be super-accelerating all their PR/BS-propaganda.

Get ready for the onslaught of a lifetime.

a reply to: xuenchen

This is exactly what I was getting at in another thread. Hillary conducting all her business from a private server is the actual act of espionage. Of course there is no way to prove this unless you caught the hacker and then the hacker willingly gave up information, or didn't end up dead first. The ultimate in plausible deniability and the worst that happens to Hill Dawg is a gross negligence charge.

It makes me wonder if Blumenthal has access to things that the government doesn't have access to.

originally posted by: Annee

That's definitely the opinion of the anti-Hillary crowd.

And everything else you posted is opinion.

I'm neutral at this point. Too many things happen on the way to voting day.

I know I'm a woman (stereotyping), but I'm very logical and stuff has to make sense to me. So far it hasn't.

Lets go a different direction then Annee. I agree I am bias since I have 4 friends that were Air Force One aircrew for many years and one friend that carried the Football for about a year during the Clinton era and so I have insider information that I do not expect you to know or even believe me.

But with that said, Annee what would happen to you if you had a TS clearance and the agency you worked for found TS information on your home computer?

The other part is do you really want a person to be president who can not even fathom classified procedures? All opinions aside, there was a classified breach up to TS and highly sensitive President emails with her unsecured server. We can all agree on that part, so you can either see that as no big deal or a WTF situation, your choice.

Who here thinks that Hillary would not pass secrets to anyone, including foreign governments in exchange for a little money for her 'foundation'?

The Clinton Foundation.... the one that is now tied into the email scandal.

Who thinks that she is above all that?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

That is true, but it was never stripped of headers and sent nonsecure. It was sent through proper channels.

Yes....
So that means her urging a subordinate to do something unlawful makes her as pure as the wind-driven snow?????????

No. It's clear to me she's not "as pure as the wind-driven snow", but can she be charged with a crime for that?

Conspiracy to commit a crime at the least!
She was telling a subordinate to commit a crime.... and by asking for it to be sent to her, she would be committing another crime by receiving it.

If it is that simple, why hasn't she been charged?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

That is true, but it was never stripped of headers and sent nonsecure. It was sent through proper channels.

Yes....
So that means her urging a subordinate to do something unlawful makes her as pure as the wind-driven snow?????????

No. It's clear to me she's not "as pure as the wind-driven snow", but can she be charged with a crime for that?

Conspiracy to commit a crime at the least!
She was telling a subordinate to commit a crime.... and by asking for it to be sent to her, she would be committing another crime by receiving it.

If it is that simple, why hasn't she been charged?

That's what we all want to know!

Because it is simple, and that info is out in the sunshine now.

It is the reason that the FBI Director may be contemplating resigning his office if the DOJ does not indict her.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

That is true, but it was never stripped of headers and sent nonsecure. It was sent through proper channels.

Yes....
So that means her urging a subordinate to do something unlawful makes her as pure as the wind-driven snow?????????

No. It's clear to me she's not "as pure as the wind-driven snow", but can she be charged with a crime for that?

Conspiracy to commit a crime at the least!
She was telling a subordinate to commit a crime.... and by asking for it to be sent to her, she would be committing another crime by receiving it.

If it is that simple, why hasn't she been charged?

That was answered earlier in the thread, Introvert.

originally posted by: introvert

If it is that simple, why hasn't she been charged?

Ongoing investigations take a long time when hundreds of people are involved.

Especially if some are foreign/corporate.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

That is true, but it was never stripped of headers and sent nonsecure. It was sent through proper channels.

Yes....
So that means her urging a subordinate to do something unlawful makes her as pure as the wind-driven snow?????????

No. It's clear to me she's not "as pure as the wind-driven snow", but can she be charged with a crime for that?

Conspiracy to commit a crime at the least!
She was telling a subordinate to commit a crime.... and by asking for it to be sent to her, she would be committing another crime by receiving it.

If it is that simple, why hasn't she been charged?

That's what we all want to know!

Because it is simple, and that info is out in the sunshine now.

It is the reason that the FBI Director may be contemplating resigning his office if the DOJ does not indict her.

Indeed. James Comey has to get past one of the 'gatekeepers'.

this is the Clinton Foundation list of "contributors"

very sinister.

some might be proxies for top secret operations and NWO agendas.

a reply to: butcherguy

Guess we have to do what I've been saying all along......wait and see.

I'm not a lawyer and cannot make any specific claim, but perhaps it's not a crime unless it was actually classified information.

It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.

Source

So her guilt is still not cut and dry.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

That's definitely the opinion of the anti-Hillary crowd.

And everything else you posted is opinion.

I'm neutral at this point. Too many things happen on the way to voting day.

I know I'm a woman (stereotyping), but I'm very logical and stuff has to make sense to me. So far it hasn't.

Lets go a different direction then Annee. I agree I am bias since I have 4 friends that were Air Force One aircrew for many years and one friend that carried the Football for about a year during the Clinton era and so I have insider information that I do not expect you to know or even believe me.

But with that said, Annee what would happen to you if you had a TS clearance and the agency you worked for found TS information on your home computer?

The other part is do you really want a person to be president who can not even fathom classified procedures? All opinions aside, there was a classified breach up to TS and highly sensitive President emails with her unsecured server. We can all agree on that part, so you can either see that as no big deal or a WTF situation, your choice.

Insider information is still biased opinion. Unless they can back it up with verified facts.

I do not know if there was a breach. Those are the facts that need to be presented.

And I had a business in a military town. Military types have a certain personality and strong opinions on those in government.

I have no delusions on what actions may be required in top level government.

DONE NOW --- because I can't really add to the discussion.

a reply to: introvert

So her guilt is still not cut and dry.

Well, in America it's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty".

But we all know even the cops don't operate on that premise.

In this situation with Hillary it should be stated that "there is evidence of wrong doing, but she is still innocent because she hasn't been convicted of a crime, yet."

originally posted by: xuenchen
this is the Clinton Foundation list of "contributors"

very sinister.

some might be proxies for top secret operations and NWO agendas.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina gave her at least a million bucks.
They probably had to deny someone a liver transplant to fund that donation.

This is how lame I am...

I expect Pig Vomit Clinton to be charged any day.

I still believe in a Country where we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

I still believe the FBI is not partisan and they do not care who you are.

This woman and her deviant husband have been flaunting our laws for years.

But, like an idiot I wake up each day believing justice will prevail.

I still have faith in our Country. But, it has been shaken...

originally posted by: Annee

I do not know if there was a breach. Those are the facts that need to be presented.

I'm not sure what you are looking for then when you can not see that classified material up to TS is secretly stored on an unsecured private server as anything but a breach in security at the highest level.

I guess we will just let this rodeo play out....

a reply to: introvertOf course it's always the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that's out to get her. Thing of it is even with the whole the e-mails were made classified after they were sent BS, there was a reason for the SOS to use a gov't e-mail, for that exact reason!!! But of course that thought never crossed her mind in her arrogance. Her excuses at this point are a mute point. She screwed up and the people want to know the why's of her doing this.