BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.

Which one?

This one?:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )

Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.

Maybe the FBI is investigating what they've declared multiple times in numerous situations: the possible illegal contents of the email server.

This really isn't that fine a point or distinction to make ... it's really fundamental understanding.

Blame the gun, not the shooter. Liberal logic 101

As an aid for the feculent one, since he seems to still be under the misapprehension that the sever is somehow the item under investigation, I shall quote myself:

"In regards to what was found:

In previous congressional testimony, l referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

politico.com

To which previous testimony is he referring?

The testimony that starts out thus:

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

FBI.gov

What is being investigated?

Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system

You mean it's not the email server?

It's someone's use of the email server?

Who's use?

Secretary Clinton’s

The thing explains itself."

And as a bonus:

What are the primary investigative functions of the FBI?

The FBI’s investigative authority is the broadest of all federal law enforcement agencies. The FBI has divided its investigations into a number of programs, such as domestic and international terrorism, foreign counterintelligence, cyber crime, public corruption, civil rights, organized crime/drugs, white-collar crime, violent crimes and major offenders, and applicant matters. The FBI’s investigative philosophy emphasizes close relations and information sharing with other federal, state, local, and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A significant number of FBI investigations are conducted in concert with other law enforcement agencies or as part of joint task forces.

FBI.gov

And remember, this investigation began with a referral from the Intelligence Community, which means that the investigation is one of counterintelligence, although it could certainly fall under the aspect of public corruption as well.

Anyone that thinks the FBI investigates non-criminal activities (other than in relation to granting someone a security clearance, and can you imagine what such a review of Hillary's actions would result in?) is deluding themselves or severly lacking in understanding.

Of course, oddly enough the president is the only office in the land which does not specifically require a security clearance. Which means that if Hillary were seeking any other position with the government than president, she would not be able to acquire the necessary security clearance due this finding:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

FBI.gov

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.

Which one?

This one?:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )

On planet earth, and the the United States, a server cannot act on it's own. Therefore, the party responsible is the party who ordered and governed the email system. When HRC gave the order to her IT staff, she took ownership of the server. The server is under investigation. Any wrong doing, and HRC will be responsible.

See, that's her way of thinking.

Can sue the gun maker for actions of the dirt bag that pulled the trigger.

Except this time when she made the gun and shot herself.

She blames the witnesses. lol!

a reply to: Throes

The evidence of any possible wrongdoing was on the server. Jim Comey has stated several times and again in his letter that the investigation was directed at the server, i.e. the contents of the server.

So ... wait ... I go off to play Rome in Civ 6 and the argument has now shifted to how Hillary's server suddenly went bad without her knowledge?

What will they do? Lock up the server?

Will Hillary and Bill hold a candlelight vigil for it? Is this going to be the rallying cry for the left everywhere now? That server dindu nuffin ... It was really a good-hearted server.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.

Which one?

This one?:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )

On planet earth, and the the United States, a server cannot act on it's own. Therefore, the party responsible is the party who ordered and governed the email system. When HRC gave the order to her IT staff, she took ownership of the server. The server is under investigation. Any wrong doing, and HRC will be responsible.

See, that's her way of thinking.

Can sue the gun maker for actions of the dirt bag that pulled the trigger.

Except this time when she made the gun and shot herself.

She blames the witnesses. lol!

Exactly!

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.

Which one?

This one?:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )

Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.

Maybe the FBI is investigating what they've declared multiple times in numerous situations: the possible illegal contents of the email server.

This really isn't that fine a point or distinction to make ... it's really fundamental understanding.

So what sentence should be given to the server if it is found to hold illegal contents?

I know you think this is clever; it isn't -- it's merely foolish.

Let me see if I can break down the logic for you one more time:

The matter of the investigation, the substance, the primary evidence is the material on the server.

(Server(s) actually, as there were several generations of the server and associated devices.)

If Hillary Clinton (or any other human person) committed crimes (which she didn't according to the investigation) the matter that would prove that was on the server.

Referred to generically, that information is "the server."

That is what was being investigated ... the nature of the material. Was the material classified? Yes, some few were. Did the communication via the private server constitute illegal acts? No, that required intent to mishandle which was not found.

Is the continued attempts to derail this discussion with stupid jokes part of the reason I didn't want to discuss this minor point of distinction again?

Absolutely.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you realize what personal means? It means in the FBI's view Hilary is responsible for it. Do you not understand what the investigation was about? You think they were previously deciding whether charges should be brought up against a server?

The investigation has always been about "Hilary's clinton's personal email server".

As I said early, your facade is transparent.

The evidence of any possible wrongdoing was on the server. Jim Comey has stated several times and again in his letter that the investigation was directed at the server, i.e. the contents of the server.

I really couldn't care less that neither you nor apparently several of the posters here can't read English.

Server for prison!!!!!!!!!! LOL you're an idiot. She owns the server, meaning she would be punished. I guess if someone gets shot they should investigate the gun right? Someones is fat, lets investigate the fork!!!! Someone stole, so were investigating their backpack!

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"

Care to source that quote so we can all play?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.

Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.

Ok...please name those that are under ctiminal investigation per the case and judge. There has to be at least one for there to be an investigation as a server can't be a criminal and neither can emails.

Not according to the dems, apparently.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm proud of you for learning a new word.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Throes

The evidence of any possible wrongdoing was on the server. Jim Comey has stated several times and again in his letter that the investigation was directed at the server, i.e. the contents of the server.

So ... wait ... I go off to play Rome in Civ 6 and the argument has now shifted to how Hillary's server suddenly went bad without her knowledge?

What will they do? Lock up the server?

Will Hillary and Bill hold a candlelight vigil for it? Is this going to be the rallying cry for the left everywhere now? That server dindu nuffin ... It was really a good-hearted server.

It's unbelievable. If it were not for this crazy election and what it does to people, I would say it was being said in jest. I really don't know now though. I hope he is just having a laugh.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"

Care to source that quote so we can all play?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.

Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.

Oh...and in case you are still in denial, here is the actual filed case from Judicial Watch that names HRC.

Case

Soooo ... anyone find any source yet that proves that these emails under current discussion have anything to do with Hillary Clinton?

That is, after all, the nominal subject here.

Distractions aside.

So, anyone?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"

Care to source that quote so we can all play?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.

Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.

Ok...please name those that are under ctiminal investigation per the case and judge. There has to be at least one for there to be an investigation as a server can't be a criminal and neither can emails.

Apparently they can.

Perhaps the server will be condemned to scrap. Poor server.

It's very sad. It was a good server, fell in with the wrong crowd.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.

I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.

How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.

Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"

Care to source that quote so we can all play?

Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.

You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.

So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.

Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.

Oh...and in case you are still in denial, here is the actual filed case from Judicial Watch that names HRC.

Case

In denial of what, that you and others are absolutely DESPERATE to change the subject?

Was the Judicial Watch suit criminal? Was the FBI investigating it for them?

The answers are no.

Next desperate distraction please?

PS: Link doesn't work.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see ... so if I open a boarding house and allow people to use it for their personal business and am found to have knowingly allowed drug trafficking and prostitution to have carried on under my roof, then I am innocent of that despite knowing that it was going on and having done nothing about it?

If there is classified material on the server and it was put there by people she allowed to use it, then she bears some of the responsibility for it.

Or do you think the Russians first stole classified intel from her office and then hacked her private server to plant it there?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.

Which one?

This one?:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )

Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.

Maybe the FBI is investigating what they've declared multiple times in numerous situations: the possible illegal contents of the email server.

This really isn't that fine a point or distinction to make ... it's really fundamental understanding.

So what sentence should be given to the server if it is found to hold illegal contents?

I know you think this is clever; it isn't -- it's merely foolish.

Let me see if I can break down the logic for you one more time:

The matter of the investigation, the substance, the primary evidence is the material on the server.

(Server(s) actually, as there were several generations of the server and associated devices.)

If Hillary Clinton (or any other human person) committed crimes (which she didn't according to the investigation) the matter that would prove that was on the server.

Referred to generically, that information is "the server."

That is what was being investigated ... the nature of the material. Was the material classified? Yes, some few were. Did the communication via the private server constitute illegal acts? No, that required intent to mishandle which was not found.

Is the continued attempts to derail this discussion with stupid jokes part of the reason I didn't want to discuss this minor point of distinction again?

Absolutely.

So, Hillary Clinton is being investigated then because she used a private server to store confidential information. The new emails could be pertinent to change the view of Comey that he gave in July.

Now I think we can get back to discussing the investigation into Hillary Clinton.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, you have not added to my already extensive vocabulary one iota. But if that's what you want to try and salvage out of the train wreck of your posts in this thread feel free to hold on to that.

Any comment on the remainder of my post?

I did edit it as I had not taken the nested quotes in to account when I first posted, so you might almost be forgiven for the attempt to gloss over the content.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.

Which one?

This one?:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )

Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.

Maybe the FBI is investigating what they've declared multiple times in numerous situations: the possible illegal contents of the email server.

This really isn't that fine a point or distinction to make ... it's really fundamental understanding.

So what sentence should be given to the server if it is found to hold illegal contents?

I know you think this is clever; it isn't -- it's merely foolish.

Let me see if I can break down the logic for you one more time:

The matter of the investigation, the substance, the primary evidence is the material on the server.

(Server(s) actually, as there were several generations of the server and associated devices.)

If Hillary Clinton (or any other human person) committed crimes (which she didn't according to the investigation) the matter that would prove that was on the server.

Referred to generically, that information is "the server."

That is what was being investigated ... the nature of the material. Was the material classified? Yes, some few were. Did the communication via the private server constitute illegal acts? No, that required intent to mishandle which was not found.

Is the continued attempts to derail this discussion with stupid jokes part of the reason I didn't want to discuss this minor point of distinction again?

Absolutely.

It's not the server!!!! WTF?!

It's the thousands of emails found on a device that shouldn't be there.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Soooo ... anyone find any source yet that proves that these emails under current discussion have anything to do with Hillary Clinton?

That is, after all, the nominal subject here.

Distractions aside.

So, anyone?

Like I said, Comey has made it clear they could be pertinent. To actually see whether it furthers the criminal case against Hillary Clinton, we'll need to wait till he and his team review the emails.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, you have not added to my already extensive vocabulary one iota. But if that's what you want to try and salvage out of the train wreck of your posts in this thread feel free to hold on to that.

Any comment on the remainder of my post?

I did edit it as I had not taken the nested quotes in to account when I first posted, so you might almost be forgiven for the attempt to gloss over the content.

Did I say I had?

You seem to like paraphrase rather than quotes, and inference rather than facts.

General observation.

Honestly, I don't read your posts anymore. They're usually full of self-indulgent nonsense and circuitous logic.

If you don't like my posts, may I suggest the same solution?