BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

Two different sources have stated that these emails do not involve Hillary Clinton.

AP and NYT, linked several times in the thread.

Subseuqent sources have suggested that these emails may be duplicates that the FBI has already reviewed.

"Subsequent sources have suggested that these emails may be duplicates...".
"Suggested"?--"May be"?
Suggests they don't really know...but are speculating.

BTW: Were these sources 'unnamed sources' ?

Either way...we'll see. Looks like Hillary has nothing to worry about, if true...Plenty to worry about if it's just spin.

a reply to: pianopraze

No it doesn't mean she broke the law.

WHy do you quote what Comey said in one sentence and ignore it in the next.

No one has been tried under those statutes in a century WITHOUT INTENT TO DISSTRIBUTE.

You believe she broke the law. I understand that. That is your opinion, not the fact.

USMJ is a different code of law.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Have you even ate or slept???

You've been commenting and reflecting on this thread for something like 24 hours straight.

On another note, I can not believe CNN just aired what it did in that video posted a few pages ago, Has there been a coup in CNN headquarters ???

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah

Do did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield ...

Powell and Rice used private email.

Representatives Chaffetz and Gowdy both use non-government email accounts ...

But no ... this is not political at all.

Riiight.

2004 was a whole different digital environment than 2013. Email wasn't even a thing everybody used. But, if the Bush administration did anything illegal, they need to be held accountable, too.

But, I don't think they set up a private server connected to their personal "business/charitable/racket" ventures and used that for government business. I could be wrong, however.

a reply to: pianopraze

And my post states the majority of that information was classified later and exempts that.

There's also the fact that this isn't what that's about. If that had ANY substance maybe it would be the focus of the FBI?

The fact is you're trying to reinterpret reality based on comments of another case. This is about her server.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

Two different sources have stated that these emails do not involve Hillary Clinton.

AP and NYT, linked several times in the thread.

Subseuqent sources have suggested that these emails may be duplicates that the FBI has already reviewed.

"Subsequent sources have suggested that these emails may be duplicates...".
"Suggested"?--"May be"?
Suggests they don't really know...but are speculating.

BTW: Were these sources 'unnamed sources' ?

Either way...we'll see. Looks like Hillary has nothing to worry about, if true...Plenty to worry about if it's just spin.

The statements about duplicates have been cited several times int he discussion thus far. The citations are there embedded in the thread.

If you'd like, i can pull them out for you, but I figured it's common knowldge at this point.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

In your opinion.

You're not an attorney, nor a judge nor a jury in the mattter.

You are reading the law and applying it as it suits your beliefs.

Director Comey was quite clear in July on this point.

Your ignorance of the laws are no excuse for Hillary breaking the laws, which is obviously what you are doing here. Please continue entertaining us all with these silly defenses.

We all know that Comey was going directly against what his legal obligations were, when he made excuses for Hillary with every single law she broke.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: imjack

793(f) is the relevant law.

18 USC 793(f)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligencepermits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

intent is NOT a requirement under the statute.

And what's the precedence of jurisprudence in the last 99 years on this issue.

I.e., what and how have US Courts actually ruled (or what cases have actually been brought)?

Why is that always left out of these analyses?

It's Classified!
You never heard about it before this debacle!

It's need to know and you dont need to know

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

First thing you've said in a while that I agree with Rick.

I believe the focus here will be on Huma.

If she sent confidential info to her husband, that is indeed going to be actionable in court.

Gryph I don't think she'd have to 'send' it to be in trouble. The fact that he had access to the laptop is enough, amiright? It was a shared computer.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BlueAjah

Do did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield ...

Powell and Rice used private email.

Representatives Chaffetz and Gowdy both use non-government email accounts ...

But no ... this is not political at all.

Riiight.

2004 was a whole different digital environment than 2013. Email wasn't even a thing everybody used. But, if the Bush administration did anything illegal, they need to be held accountable, too.

But, I don't think they set up a private server connected to their personal "business/charitable/racket" ventures and used that for government business. I could be wrong, however.

Were the laws that you're so excited about in place in 2000?

Is breaking the law in 2000 not as important as breaking the law in 2010-13?

The Bush White House used email, on a private server, and lost 22 million emails many of which were under subpoena.

Your individual interpretation of which private servers are okay and which aren't is completely irrelevant.

Either the law is the law, or it isn't.

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

First thing you've said in a while that I agree with Rick.

I believe the focus here will be on Huma.

If she sent confidential info to her husband, that is indeed going to be actionable in court.

Gryph I don't think she'd have to 'send' it to be in trouble. The fact that he had access to the laptop is enough, amiright? It was a shared computer.

If there was no security in place to protect the information, I think you're absolutely correct.

Shared computer? I hadn't picked up on that ... did you have a good link to that info? I'd love to get caught up on that.

This is an interesting document.
It is a State Department memo regarding the Senior Officials' Records Management Responsibilities.
It is clarifying a policy that has been in place since 2009, with some updates marked in the years since then.

www.archives.gov...

Email record storage policy is covered in detail.

The Secretary of State is specifically listed under the positions that the policy applies to.

a reply to: imjack

This is about her server.

A server is an inanimate object. The FBI isn't investigating the piece of equipment that sat in her bathroom closet or basement. This is about the who, the what, and the when that is associated with that server.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Felony convictions under 793 F

United States v. Rickie L. Roller
United States v. Arthur E. Gonzalez

Now you tell me how many people who were charged under 793 F plead guilty. I ask because the the stats dont take that into account. It solely focuses on prosecutions where a person plead not guilty and was convicted.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
This is an interesting document.
It is a State Department memo regarding the Senior Officials' Records Management Responsibilities.
It is clarifying a policy that has been in place since 2009, with some updates marked in the years since then.

www.archives.gov...

Email record storage policy is covered in detail.

The Secretary of State is specifically listed under the positions that the policy applies to.

State Department protocols and regulations are still not the law.

This has been known and accepted for months.

a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: new_here

The majority of the information was hacked, an endless misobservation to deflect from the easy 'intent' argument.


If anything ends up true in isolated cases, the narrative is '33,000' emails that is being pushed.

There is literally no solid stance from Trump supporters in this hypocritical argument.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Sending well-wishes to your dad, J&C!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

First thing you've said in a while that I agree with Rick.

I believe the focus here will be on Huma.

If she sent confidential info to her husband, that is indeed going to be actionable in court.

Gryph I don't think she'd have to 'send' it to be in trouble. The fact that he had access to the laptop is enough, amiright? It was a shared computer.

If there was no security in place to protect the information, I think you're absolutely correct.

Shared computer? I hadn't picked up on that ... did you have a good link to that info? I'd love to get caught up on that.

Gimme a minute, I'm looking. I swear I didn't make it up! I know it struck me b/c my husband and I have our own laptops and I thought it was odd they shared one.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Felony convictions under 793 F

United States v. Rickie L. Roller
United States v. Arthur E. Gonzalez

Now you tell me how many people who were charged under 793 F plead guilty. I ask because the the stats dont take that into account. It solely focuses on prosecutions where a person plead not guilty and was convicted.

Both the Joint Chief General and Patraeus pleaded GUILTY!!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pianopraze

No it doesn't mean she broke the law.

WHy do you quote what Comey said in one sentence and ignore it in the next.

No one has been tried under those statutes in a century WITHOUT INTENT TO DISSTRIBUTE.

You believe she broke the law. I understand that. That is your opinion, not the fact.

USMJ is a different code of law.

She broke the law, Comey admitted it.

She's not in jail because of politics/money/power/connections and everyone knows it. Your quoting a second law which I did not mention. Comey used that to obfuscate his total admission of her breaking the one I mentioned.

You or I would be in jail. Hopefully this time they will thow her in jail...



... but I'm not holding my breath. She knows where all the skeletons are buried and probably put a few there herself.