EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Scheduled To Meet With FBI On Saturday

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert

Now what if she is not indicted? Will those that have proclaimed her guilt be honest and admit they were wrong, or are we going to hear about the "conspiracy" for years to come?

My vote is on the conspiracy.

Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think?
The FBI just left her house, and you think its time to make a
decision with out the facts? Hmmmm......

Because Clinton campaign says its over so it must be over?

It Ain't Over 'Til The Fat Lady Is In Sing-Sing.

a reply to: introvert

I believe that there is enough evidence publicly available to show that she is guilty of many crimes.
The details are in many other threads on these forums.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Because that was what this was all about. You guys made it about classified # but it's never been that.

IMO I don't think the FBI would make a house call...on a weekend, a holiday weekend at that just to say, "eh, we're done investigating."

a reply to: burntheships

The FBI just left her house,...

Actually, the interview took place at FBI headquarters:

The voluntary meeting lasted about three-and-a-half hours and was conducted at the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C, according to the Clinton campaign.

Fox News

Imo this meeting was undoubtedly planned between Lynch and Clinton. It throws a monkey wrench into the process entirely and may possibly delay the investigation altogether, the plan to safeguard Hillary until after the election is over.

If Lynch recused herself or steps down, how long will the process take to recover and proceed forward. Delay tactics IMO.

a reply to: introvert

Don't you know?

The Clinton's are never innocent they are only getting away with stuff.

a reply to: JinMI

Exactly. (Besides the location of the interview )

If the FBI did not already have enough evidence to take the case forward, they would not have taken this step.
They would have dropped it long ago.

Interviewing Hillary is probably close to the last step, just to have her testimony on record to compare to the evidence they have already collected. If she lied to them, it will just mean more charges.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I was serious. If they charge her you still won't see her in handcuffs for years. If ever.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical


Actually, the interview took place at FBI headquarters:

The old bait and switch, makes sense.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for the link. I was under the impression that it was at her home.

Brief lip service about bringing the investigation to a close then TRUMP...Trump...trump. MSM is so goofy.

"soon, my precious, soon" as Gollum would say.


The last person interviewed, time to wrap it up and send the indictment recommendations... can't wait to see what happens after that.


Popcorn status: Fully stocked.

Tick tock goes that darn old FBI criminal investigation clock.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

I believe that there is enough evidence publicly available to show that she is guilty of many crimes.
The details are in many other threads on these forums.

I've linked to and quoted legal experts on matters such as this that highly doubt she will be indicted.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Right now this would only devolve into yes she is no she isn't ad infinitum.
Save it.
I think before the convention so a few weeks at best.

Remember folks, all the interview info so far is coming from known liars....

The Clinton Campaign.

I bet she took the 5th on a few questions.

I bet "arrangements" for arrest (voluntary surrender) were discussed.

It's possible the Grand Jury is already in deliberations.

a reply to: introvert

Read what the man said dude...

he keeps talking about lack of willful intent blah blah blah...


Absolutely pointless.

There does not have to be willful intent to be charged under 793(f) and you know this, and you can't store classified government materials on an unclassified server.

As soon as he said "Ad hoc classification" or as you like to put it "retroactively classified", that means he is completely 100% full of BS and has no clue what he is talking about. He is nothing more than a Hillary mouthpiece.

Your pinning your no indictment dreams on some extremely shady advice, but you have to do that because it fits the agenda.

Maybe the FBI want to ask where last month's bribe money is.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah

I was serious. If they charge her you still won't see her in handcuffs for years. If ever.

I think handcuffs will be required. And immediate arrest and incarceration upon indictment.

She has too much money. The flight risk is great. She could easily disappear onto some isolated island.

Yep, I think she needs to be in prison until the trial.

(ya ya I know affluenza... no cuffs... but I can still wish)

a reply to: RickinVa

There are some problems, though, by invoking section F.

Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody? ” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.

In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:

“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad. Furthermore, ”gross negligence” as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as: “A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”

As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal: “Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”

lawnewz.com...

It appears that intent is very important, based on past cases.

originally posted by: introvert

It appears that intent is very important, based on past cases.

Even if, there was intent to destroy evidence.

She deleted the emails after she was ordered to produce them.
But that only adds to her guilt, in no way are your "experts" right.