Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Ok you made a claim that said if material is questionable as far as being classified then it should be considered classified didn't you? I found a reference to an Executive order which states
If there is significant doubt it should not be.
prospect.org...

And from the government itself.
www.whitehouse.gov...

Unlike you, I have read so much information, both pro and con... tons of it. I arrived at the logical conclusion that Hillary Clinton kept classified emails on a unclassified server in numbers that are clearly negligent in the handling of classified information. It's not that hard to arrive at the conclusion, the rest is for the lawyers to decide.

a reply to: RickinVa

Unlike me?????
I've read pages and pages including the one you link believe it or not. My bookmark folder has dozens of articles, pdfs files,and government links.
Why do you do that? You claim such finely tuned deductive reasoning yet you wrongly conclude I don't read! I just attach article after article you think I have not read. Or you're simply mean spirited which I've gotten indications of a few times already.

I assure you I read. Hours and hours each day and sometimes into the night.

Probably next we should discuss intent. Since so many of the laws regarding divulging classified information rely on intent and knowingly revealing or knowingly placing such information in jeopardy.

a reply to: RickinVa

Did you read the links I provided?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Did you read the links I provided?

You provide 10 links saying she won't be prosecuted.

I provide you 10 links saying she will be prosecuted.

You do not believe she will be prosecuted.

I believe she will be prosecuted.



We disagree.... please keep on wasting your time in this thread... if I am saving one single discussion from wasting their time with your input while you are busy typing here, mission has been accomplished.


We just disagree,,, move on,,, start your own Hillary is innocent thread.


I would love to see a Hillary is innocent thread. There are so many of you on ATS, makes me wonder why you don't start threads in defense of her innocent rather than complaining about threads that claim she is guilty.

Put your money where your pie hole is.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Unlike me?????
I've read pages and pages including the one you link believe it or not. My bookmark folder has dozens of articles, pdfs files,and government links.
Why do you do that? You claim such finely tuned deductive reasoning yet you wrongly conclude I don't read! I just attach article after article you think I have not read. Or you're simply mean spirited which I've gotten indications of a few times already.

I assure you I read. Hours and hours each day and sometimes into the night.

I can read your posts and tell you don't read any thing about classified information and how it is properly stored and handled... that is blatantly obvious by comments like... Hillary was allowed to have classified emails on her unclassified server because she was a government worker... yada yada yada.

You might very well read a 100 Hillary articles a day... all I am saying is that it is a waste of time because you severely lack reading comprehension.

Start your Hillary is innocent thread... you won't see me post in it.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Unlike me?????
I've read pages and pages including the one you link believe it or not. My bookmark folder has dozens of articles, pdfs files,and government links.
Why do you do that? You claim such finely tuned deductive reasoning yet you wrongly conclude I don't read! I just attach article after article you think I have not read. Or you're simply mean spirited which I've gotten indications of a few times already.

I assure you I read. Hours and hours each day and sometimes into the night.

I can read your posts and tell you don't read any thing about classified information and how it is properly stored and handled... that is blatantly obvious by comments like... Hillary was allowed to have classified emails on her unclassified server because she was a government worker... yada yada yada.

You might very well read a 100 Hillary articles a day... all I am saying is that it is a waste of time because you severely lack reading comprehension.

Start your Hillary is innocent thread... you won't see me post in it.

These are some of the same shills who said that Michelle Fields' assault charge Trump's campaign manager Lewandowski would stick. Well charges have been dropped. A majority of people who looked at the video objectively always said she had no case. Shows all the bias in the world won't overcome fair justice, except in Hillary's case.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I still have faith that Comey will do the right thing and recommend indictments for those that broke the law concerning mishandling of classified information.

There is nothing Obama can do to him, he is in until his term ends.

The thing is, if you strip away everything.... forget the FBI, forget Hillary Clinton...

Any government official who got caught with 2000+ instances of classified information on a private unclassified server would be in some seriously deep doo doo. I expect no less of the same for Hillary Clinton.

a reply to: RickinVa

You gave me pages of your hopes and dreams.
The public narrative is that this is a non issue and that nothing will come of it. Legal experts have reviewed what is available and have come to the same conclusion.
The laws do not support an indictment as there is no criminal intent and these laws all rely on "willfully and with intent"
They are not ambiguous.
700 days is long enough. I think they are dragging it out on purpose because they know their only chance is to stop her with innuendo and doubt. As soon as they concluded they have to admit they have nothing then it's all over. The longer they drag it out the more people might think they have something. I believe they did this because they thought she would break or quit the race. Her confidence level is high.
They need to finish this so the country can move on.

a reply to: RickinVa

What and leave you with your "we hate Hillary" circle jerk? You're not keeping me out of discussions. Look at you... thinking you are somehow controlling me.
I type like the wind have have the time. I usually have to wait hours for you to respond. What do you think I'm up to when you're not here to keep me off other boards. Buwahahaha.
Did I say you're full of yourself? What an underestimation I made.

a reply to: RickinVa

I provided EO13526
www.whitehouse.gov...

That is all about classified information so there you are wrong again.
You provided info on classified info which I also read.
If you're trying to make a point here you're falling short. You know I read about it because you posted it and I commented on it.

a reply to: RickinVa

Retroactively classified you mean. God.. pick and choose what's real and what's not.
And retroactive means she's fine.
Remember where I showed you if there is doubt the information should not be classified?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Retroactively classified you mean. God.. pick and choose what's real and what's not.
And retroactive means she's fine.
Remember where I showed you if there is doubt the information should not be classified?

Thank you for pointing out another of your obvious flaws.

You do realize that is a defensive strategy that has to be determined in a court of law right?

You know how it gets into a court of law?

Because somebody gets recommended for indictment.

You can scream it is retroactive classification all day long.

The government will present its case that some of this material was classified prior to the State Departments retroactive classification. They won't have any problem showing this in court.

So unless Hillary Clinton plans on a huge counter suit against the classification rulings by so many qualified officials it isn't even funny, I only see one way for that issue to come up in court.

Told you before.... I will give you 99% of Hillary emails were retroactively classified (not true).... only 1 % were classified prior... just 1%... that is like 20 felonies no matter how you slice and dice it. You forgot the CIA Swears 22 were classified top secret prior without a doubt.

It has to go to court to be answered.... only one way for it to go to court.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: UnBreakable

I still have faith that Comey will do the right thing and recommend indictments for those that broke the law concerning mishandling of classified information.

There is nothing Obama can do to him, he is in until his term ends.

The thing is, if you strip away everything.... forget the FBI, forget Hillary Clinton...

Any government official who got caught with 2000+ instances of classified information on a private unclassified server would be in some seriously deep doo doo. I expect no less of the same for Hillary Clinton.

We can only hope. The thing that worries me is that Comey will do the right thing, bring indictments, and Obama will pardon them before he goes. If Comey is smart, he'll wait until Obama's term ends, and we're lucky enough to get a GOP POTUS elected or make Miss Piggy squirm when he recommends an indictment if she's in office.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I have to say that I am undecided about an Obama pardon....I am tending to lend towards it would have too much negative impact to make it a choice.

I don't think he really likes her at all to be honest... I think he tolerates her for political reasons is a better way of putting it.

I just want to see the recommendation for indictment from the FBI,,,,it will be a wild ride after that for sure.

a reply to: RickinVa

So now I know you're not even looking at the links I provide so I can feel free to ignore yours too.
This is a breakdown of the laws and how they would apply. It is not a left wing blog it's an objective analysis of those laws.
prospect.org...

It's a very long essay.

In order for there to have been a crime the material had to be classified at the time of the violation according to
18 USC ss798.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

What and leave you with your "we hate Hillary" circle jerk? You're not keeping me out of discussions. Look at you... thinking you are somehow controlling me.

Funny all the Hillary women supporters fit the bill. Real lady-like. They all have language like truck drivers, most wear Birkenstocks, and most shop at Wal-Mart. It's bad enough they let women drive, let alone run for president.

a reply to: RickinVa

Here's the official CIA press release page. It goes back years. Care to find the one where they announce in your words swear 22 emails were classified prior to being sent
www.cia.gov...

22 were deemed top secret. We do know that from the state dept (still after the fact) and the law still say it needed to be classified at the time.
Here's the code but it's a pdf file download
www.gpo.gov...
Here is an analysis of that law from Cornell university law

www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

So now I know you're not even looking at the links I provide so I can feel free to ignore yours too.
This is a breakdown of the laws and how they would apply. It is not a left wing blog it's an objective analysis of those laws.
prospect.org...

It's a very long essay.

I read it.. I think it is heavily Hillary biased and based on a charge of espionage. Negligent handling of classified material does not have to have espionage related charges like spying or selling state secrets... there is no criminal or willful intent.. that is why it is called negligent.