BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Why not people who 'purposefully and willingly' spread the information connect to the server?

Is it not possible she sent information to someone who has done this?

Is it not possible they're interested in the aspects of investigating the server to examine more aspects of the leak and who may have spread the information on purpose?

I honestly can't believe the same Troop that demands her to be jailed break these laws everyday now for months.

On Twitter no less. This law would be equally applicable if she had THE MOST secure server OF ALL TIME. Her non-conviction would be the same, as it was not purposeful, willing, intentful, or has MOTIVE. You people know nothing about law.

a reply to: burntheships

LOL ... edited videos from a hack already fading from public view.

As Mr. O'Keefe himself admitted, if we saw the actual footage, that would tell a completely different story than the one he wanted to tell.

If you like fictional stories, that's on you.

It's not evidence of anything.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: mkultra11
People are just going to have accept that Hillary/Clinton are probably the most corrupt politicians to ever hold office, run for office in our nation's history and stop vehemently defending her. Its al her own and her campaign teams fault, not yours. Just let it go, let the chips fall where they may.

Not even close.

Two Bushes ran. A Nixon.

Both Clintons taken together have nothing on those master criminals.

30000 emails versus 22 MILLION.

And yet only one out of all the ones you mentioned has been impeached...Bill Clinton....one of only 2 Presidents in history to have such an honor....

Was Bill Clinton actually impeached?

Yes....He and Andrew Johnson are the only two Presidents in history to have that distinction.

No, he wasn't. He was acquitted in the Senate.

Are you serious? You don't think Clinton was impeached? I will just disregard every post you have ever made now...

I'll be glad to have you ignore my posts so I won't have to respond to your usually irrational and baseless commentary, but I was just coming back to make the post that technically you are correct.

The Bill of Impeachment is the official charges. Clinton was acquitted of the charges, in other words FOUND INNOCENT.

But you were correct and I was incorrect about the technicality of Impeachment. He was charged on 2 of 4 counts. The others failed in the House, and he was acquitted in the Senate.

Feel better? Can I still benefit from your ignoring my posts?

Well....technically I said "disregard" not ignore.

As far as the Clinton impeachment....he wiggled out of it because of his connections in the Senate, but not the civil case:

During a televised speech, Clinton ended with the statement that he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky. Further investigation led to charges of perjury and led to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 by the U.S. House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal on all impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in a 21-day Senate trial.[1] President Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones case regarding Lewinsky,[2] and was also fined $90,000 by Wright.[3] His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court.[4]

Lost his law license and fined in Arkansas, the the US Supreme Court did this:

On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

So....pretty innocent? Or just had the right connections in the Senate to get by? One court finds him guilty while his Dem buddies say he isn't....

a reply to: pianopraze

Did any of the emails originate from Clinton...

If Huma had classified emails on that computer, and knowing she did not have security access to all levels of classified info, how did she get them / who sent them to her?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well, darn. So much for that hope.

Right right, the requirements of the Constitution are only meaningful when you agree with them and they match up with your partisanship. Not unexpected.

MIght want to actually provide your link to Wikipedia ... just for form's sake.

He agreed to a five-year SUSPENSION of his law license in ARK.

He resigned from the Supreme Court Bar, which he had never argued before.

So no ... he was and is completely innocent in the eyes of the law.

The US Senate acquitted him. If you don't like the way the Constitution does things, that's your issue.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

Technically correct is still correct.

Your rejoinder is all conditional and theoretical.

The emails are not related to HIllary Clinton. It is not unlikely that the FBI would fail to take up ANYTHING related to the EMAIL SERVER. Which is why Comey very clearly referenced THE SERVER in his letter to Congress.

A Sailor recently took pictures of his sub on his phone, he was arrested and convicted and the pictures were only confidential (the lowest level of classification). Having Confidential, Classified, or Top Secret info on his phone was illegal. Having Confidential, Classified, or Top Secret info on Clinton's server is illegal.

They aren't going to charge her server, just as they didn't charge the Sailor's phone... they will arrest her. Your argument is ridiculous. The law doesn't need intent, it's ridiculous she's not already in jail.

a reply to: pianopraze

Red herring.

Different code of law involved.

No, they aren't going to charge the server. You folks think this is so clever in rejoinder and it's so not.

Merely shows the level of your debate skills.

Comey stated the investigation was of the server. If you disagree with that, take it up with him.

originally posted by: jimmyx
and yet Trump voters don't know s**t from shinola, about Trump's financial dealings, his taxes, his claimed wealth, his foreign connections, his donations, his Slovenian communist father-in-law, etc.....

I'm not a huge fan of Trump but I have no delusions about the man. I think most of America knows enough about him. Hes a powerful business man who is a multimillionaire. Those types usually lie, cheat on their taxes and step on the little man to get and stay where they are. We know he's a narcissist who likes the lime light and he jumps at any opportunity to be in it. Example, numerous radio/tv interviews and his own TV show. He's always loved woman and doesn't try to hide it. He's been married 3 times, this last one obviously a trophy wife. For crying out loud he owned the Miss Universe Pageant. Hey has been accused of sexual assault on women. I think Trump and Bill Clinton might be long lost twins. I bet they would get along like bff's. Hes loud, obnoxious and self serving. He will say whatever it takes to get his way, and then change what he said if he has too. Later denying he ever said it. He sounds like a politician too me. I think he'll fit nice and snugly into the White House.

Still working my way through the thread, it's moving fast and I'm also dealing with the favt that my dad was hit by a car in a Walmart parking lot this morning.

He's ok and resting now, but he may still have to have brain surgery if the bruise in his brain spreads.

Regardless, he also has a fractured knee that will take 6-8 weeks to recover from and he's elderly so it might be longer.

He is an ornery old cuss and so I expect he'll be ok, but I am still quite concerned.

Anyway, had time to get through some of the backlog but not all the way current yet.

A few things I had to respond to:

a reply to: Gryphon66

Why would I want to waste my time trying to force something through a thick skull that's already proved impervious to reason?

You've been lead to the well, had your head dunked in the water and you're still asking for a drink?



a reply to: Gryphon66

So, is that the go to excuse?

They did it too?

Yes, we know other criminals held office.

Do you really not know how infantile that excuse is?

Line up some invesitgators to go after them, I'm sure there's enough evidence of their wrongdoing.

The Bushes and the Clintons have been involved in mutual criminal enterprises for a long time.

But this here thread is about the reopening of the case Loretta Lynch ddid't discuss with Bill in the airplane.

Start another thread on them, source it and provide a link here if you like, that might regain some of the respect you've lost among a good number of members.

This blind plodding does not look good on you.



To the thread in general, there are several pics oh Hillary giving Huma the hairy eyeball and one can also tell by the body language that Huma knows she screwed the pooch and the Hillary is probably apoplectic with rage.

I cannot wait to see what has been found and how high up the totem pole Comey's arrow will reach, but to pretend this is nothing and or that even if it is something, then it is merely a review of known material is either ultimate naivity, willful ignorance, or intentional obfuscation.

Now back to the thread and try to catch up; I haven't seen a thread move this fast since the original Fukushima mega thread, RIP.

originally posted by: Nikola014

You are on the right path - let it go.

I find this a very educational read, as a reminder for people regarding productive vs. non-productive forum discussions:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I add this only because this thread is very long, and the OP is an important subject.
It would be much more productive if discussion moved forward instead of sideways or backwards

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

Red herring.

Different code of law involved.

No, they aren't going to charge the server. You folks think this is so clever in rejoinder and it's so not.

Merely shows the level of your debate skills.

Comey stated the investigation was of the server. If you disagree with that, take it up with him.

His investigation was if there was classified information on the server.

Having it there is illegal just as having those photos on his phone was illegal.

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

Red herring.

Different code of law involved.

No, they aren't going to charge the server. You folks think this is so clever in rejoinder and it's so not.

Merely shows the level of your debate skills.

Comey stated the investigation was of the server. If you disagree with that, take it up with him.

His investigation was if there was classified information on the server.

Having it there is illegal just as having those photos on his phone was illegal.

In. Your. Opinion.

originally posted by: avgguy
A NJ poll with nearly 8,000 votes shows Clinton may lose 1/4 of her current voters after yesterday's news.

www.nj.com...

Thank God , I can Now put my Trump Bumper Sticker on my Car without the Fear of having my Windshield Smashed ! Wake Up Jersey , and Smell the Odor of Corruption !

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: pianopraze

Did any of the emails originate from Clinton...

If Huma had classified emails on that computer, and knowing she did not have security access to all levels of classified info, how did she get them / who sent them to her?

Great questions.

We probably won't find out until after the election....

originally posted by: pianopraze
The law doesn't need intent

18 USC, Section 798:
“Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

WHAT DOES THE LARGE PART MEAN?