Pretty sure Bill Clinton's doodles prove Guccifer hacked into Hillary's server.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Here's my take on this. He wasn't admitting to it for the first time in that NBC / FOX interview. He has cooperated with the FBI going back to their visit to him in Romania. When asked if he breached her server, it wasn't like he was finally revealing this big secret. He was like, "yea a couple times, it was easy". When asked if he has evidence to show for it, he said he thought he posted documents online already that would prove it. I perked up at this and put two and two together in regards to Bill Clinton's doodles.

Again this is me speculating but I don't think the media understands that he flat out said he didn't think it was her email server. He said he saw a bunch of folders. Like "wjcdrawings"?

We'll see if it's all corroborated once the investigation releases some findings.

a reply to: introvert

I don't want her to skate either, but her and her hubby have a long slimy trail behind them that seems to effortlessly shunt aside any and all accountability or consequence for actions taken by the or at their behest.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

I can respect that, you want to see the lrocess adhered to and be certain she is treated equally under the law.

Which is ironic, as she argued against giving Nixon due process.

Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Committee for Fraud, Ethics Violations

Now comes this bombshell from Jerry Zeifman, who supervised a much younger Hillary Clinton when she worked as a staffer for the Watergate committee: 'A lifelong Democrat, Mr. Zeifman supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee.

Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair.

When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.'

Why? "Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'

www.digitaljournal.com...

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Awesome job! Only one person here thinks you're trying to say Hillary is 100% guilty, the rest of us appreciate the speculation. Thanks!

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

We'll see if it's all corroborated once the investigation releases some findings.

So then we agree. Nothing is solid at this point and all we can do is speculate based on incomplete information.

We have to wait for official "findings" and to come to any conclusion until then would be illogical, right?

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Actually, Guccifer did say he hacked her email server. He said that he got her email address and IP after he hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email. Then he discussed the steps he took to get to her email server using that information.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

This is a very plausible scenario, and if he gave them specifics as to folder architecture and naming conventions, it woukd prove he was in her system even if the logging did not.

a reply to: introvert

You don' now if she's guilty or innocent.

I don't know if she's guilty or innocent.

But what I do know of her leads me to form an opinion that she is as guilty as hell.

Now my opinion isn't law. I am not breaking nor am I violating constitutional rights or laws by thinking that she is a filthy, disgusting, lying crook.

a reply to: introvert

No, we don't have to wait for official findings, if there are findings that are readily available.
.

a reply to: Domo1

I am torn between these two conflicting arguments:

1. There is such a preponderance of information that points to Hillary being recommended for indictment, it has to happen.

and

2. This is Hillary Clinton and there is no way someone with her connections and influence would ever in a million years be indicted.

I'm not sure which one will win out. Though, Comey of all people is the last person to believe in the second argument.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

This is a very plausible scenario, and if he gave them specifics as to folder architecture and naming conventions, it woukd prove he was in her system even if the logging did not.

Unless those :architectures and naming conventions" existed, and were accessed, before the same server was used by Clinton as SoS.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Correct, he said he breached her server, but that in his mind it wasn't like the "Hillary Clinton" server that we speak of today. Rather, it had a lot of different people using it and contained a lot of folders. This also adds credence to the argument that it was used by more than just Hillary and some of her aides in the State Department.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Now my opinion isn't law. I am not breaking nor am I violating constitutional rights or laws by thinking that she is a filthy, disgusting, lying crook.

True.

You just happen to personally think in a way that contradicts constitutional law.

That's not my problem.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

I honestly think it's #2. If her connections can't protect her that means nobody else's will and everyone would panic. I think it would shake things up too much.

I want justice served. Even if that means she isn't indicted, as long as they came to the conclusion FAIRLY there isn't enough evidence. I dislike Hillary quite a bit, and I have no doubt people behind the scenes are scrambling like crazy to make all of this go away, but I have no way of knowing unfortunately what information they actually have. Important to keep up the pressure, so I really appreciate your doing so.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

So then we agree. Nothing is solid at this point and all we can do is speculate based on incomplete information.

We have to wait for official "findings" and to come to any conclusion until then would be illogical, right?

I have never come to a conclusion on this matter. To be honest, even if the FBI released all of their findings, I imagine there is a lot we will never know about.

It is not illogical to speculate. Its kept humans alive for a long time.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

It might have been used by others, and certainly seems to have been used by Bill.

But if he got to it using her email address as he said, then it was being used as an email server at the time that he accessed it.

a reply to: introvert

hahahahahahaha

You're ready to indict me, but give Hillary a pass.

hahahahahahahahaha

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

To be honest, even if the FBI released all of their findings, I imagine there is a lot we will never know about.

Guaranteed. That chick has so many freaking powerful secrets. She actually scares me.

a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

It is not illogical to speculate. Its kept humans alive for a long time.

Many of those that support your statements are not speculating. They have already come to a conclusion.

That is illogical.

I also notice that you have introduced a conspiracy element in to this topic...I hoped for better.

a reply to: introvert

A simple test of that would be to download the Guccifer archive and look at the file creation dates.

The link is around here somewhere, but I don't want to take the chance on downloadibg it due to the fact that there is likely unredacted classified material in there and I do not relish the idea of an interview with the FBI...