Federal Prosecutors in Virginia Assisting in Clinton email Probe

a reply to: burntheships

Poor choice is not in this case criminal.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

Poor choice is not in this case criminal.

Gross Negligence is all that is necessary. Ignorance is no defence.

a reply to: RickinVa

What's the difference between her server and any other, other than she was the only user. A server is a server. Collects information and routes it basically. It's a program.

2200+ counts of classified emails = gross negligence in the mishandling of classified information.

You can scream prove willful all you want, but the overwhelming evidence of 2200+ classified emails say not only willful, but as in the grossly negligent type of mishandling of classified information.

Sucks to be Hillary right now. Sucks even more to be one of those aides who have been called in to be interviewed by the FBI more than once. Sounds to me like somebody isn't telling the same story as the rest.

Tick Tock goes the clock

a reply to: RickinVa

Willfully and knowingly.
Remember that US code I was telling you about 18SS 798

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

What's the difference between her server and any other, other than she was the only user. A server is a server. Collects information and routes it basically. It's a program.

A server is also considered a storage device... it keeps copies of all the emails and attachments etc..

You can not have classified information stored on an unclassified email server... you know this already but it doesn't fit your version of reality.

a reply to: xuenchen

Why you have genuine official sources. ?
I have report after report saying email probe. Or investigating the security of etc.
But to answer your question
No I'm not on the genuine official mailing list so....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Willfully and knowingly.
Remember that US code I was telling you about 18SS 798

You do know there is a lot more laws involved than just that one don't you? They are all listed on the SF-312 she signed in Feb 2009... you know,,, that contract that would be presented as evidence in a trial for mishandling of classified information if it ever gets to trial..... you know... that pesky little legally binding contract she signed....

a reply to: Ohanka

Willfully intent is what's necessary my friend.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Ohanka

Willfully intent is what's necessary my friend.

Have you ever heard of inference of intent and how it pertains to criminal law? I really really suggest you learn what that is and how it can be used by the government.

It isn't looking too good for the home team... I feel your frustration as it gets worse and worse as each day goes by...I mean shoot... Hillary just said 3 days ago no one had been interviewed, and now we know Huma and several others have been interviewed, multiple times in some cases,...Hillarys time in the hot seat is getting near

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: burntheships

Yeah and trump makes fun of reporters with disabilities. Nice to know people support a guy like that.

But people look so funny gimping down the road pushing a cart!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Ohanka

Willfully intent is what's necessary my friend.

A prosecutor knowing Hillary's past corruption in so many things, especially the Clinton Foundation and how they laundered money to it from out of country dummy corporations or charities, could show that her actions alone prove her intent to commit crimes on their own standing. That's how it actually works.
In other words, the act itself proves intent to commit the crime. (No matter how stupid she pretends to be).

Along with corruption charges related to the Clinton Foundation and violations of the espionage act, they can add perjury to the list of charges to bring against former Secretary Clinton.

Wait, didn't ol Billy-boy get hit with that too?

Ah, yeah...that didn't stick, did it.

The Teflon Don and his partner in crime. What great 'leaders' we have

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Ohanka

Willfully intent is what's necessary my friend.

A prosecutor knowing Hillary's past corruption in so many things, especially the Clinton Foundation and how they laundered money to it from out of country dummy corporations or charities, could show that her actions alone prove her intent to commit crimes on their own standing. That's how it actually works.
In other words, the act itself proves intent to commit the crime. (No matter how stupid she pretends to be).

She has never been convicted of any crime, let alone a corruption charge. Nor has it been proven that she used the CF to launder money. Any mention of such would not be permissible in court, would be considered hearsay and unfounded speculation and could potentially jeopardize any action taken against her until such acts have been proven in the court of law.

What you speak of would be easily shot-down by a rookie lawyer.

It is all finally coming home to roost.

The ship is taking on water and the rats are abandoning ship.

FBI doing multiple interviews of some of her aides.

Knowing she is coming up next.

Knowing she is next.

Not knowing if they have recovered her deleted emails.

Not knowing what Pagliano told the FBI.

Not knowing why some people are getting called in for multiple interviews.

Like I said...sucks to be Hillary right now... that SF 312 she signed is going to haunt her dreams.

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952, and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

a reply to: RickinVa

Whom has abandoned ship?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Whom has abandoned ship?

the rats ... I thought that was made clear.... you know... furry little rodents... those things..... rats....

"and the rats are abandoning ship." seems clear to me.

Want to talk about why some of Hillarys aides are being interviewed more than once by the FBI? I find that much more interesting than talking about proverbial rats...

Why are some of Hillarys aides being interviewed more than once by the FBI?

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1 and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive Order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.

www.archives.gov...

a reply to: RickinVa

the rats ... I thought that was made clear.... you know... furry little rodents... those things..... rats.... "and the rats are abandoning ship." seems clear to me.

That would imply that someone on the Clinton team has "abandoned ship". Whom was the rat?

Why are some of Hillarys aides being interviewed more than once by the FBI?

So the FBI can ask follow-up questions of people based on statements from other interviews.

That is not uncommon. It's basic investigative law enforcement protocol.

It doesn't necessarily indicate damning evidence has been discovered.

a reply to: introvert

That would imply that someone on the Clinton team has "abandoned ship". Whom was the rat?

Ever heard of Bryan Pagliano? I do believe he was the first proverbial rat to abandon the Clinton ship....some time ago.

Next question?

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1 and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive Order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.

www.archives.gov...

a reply to: RickinVa

He was granted immunity to speak freely without incriminating himself. That does not indicate anything other than that simple fact.

Unless you know what info he had to spill to the FBI.

Do you have that info?