How are Hillary Clinton AND Huma Abedin not going to prison...Warrant Release revelation...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hypocrisy how? Are you saying don't prosecute her because whomever in the past did it too?

That's not what I said.

If we don't start somewhere then we will get nowhere. I would love it if they would go all the way back and prosecute all of the past abusers of power that did something like this.

Ok. But while we cant go back in time to prosecute, we can recognize the hypocrisy of those that scream "lock her up" while they paid little to no attention when it was their side possibly doing the same thing.

I am simply dumbfounded at THIS particular instance that IS happening NOW. Even the FBI noted it in the warrant...she transmitted Confidential, Secret and Top Secret materials through her server.

Of course you are dumbfounded. Anyone would be in a place of ignorance. The fact is that we don't know all of the facts behind this and the context in which the emails were classified.

Don't forget that many of the communications that took place in those emails contained information that was classified for the sake of the investigation. You warrant indicates that because it says information that is "presently classified", indicating it was not classified when sent.

It also does not state which emails that were classified contained info that originated outside of the control of the government, such as the Blumenthal emails regarding CF work.

We need a lot more context before we go on a witch hunt.

Still wondering why the issue of these emails not being in the release by HRC's team hasn't been addressed either....thought they released them all and they were originally all deemed not classified at the time...this is in direct opposition of that and HRC's own statements of such.

If the emails were not created for or by the government, they would not have to be released.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: theantediluvian

You know my stance on both candidates, I do not like either one.

From my position of political ambivalence I can say I think she should have incurred some form of legal remonstration. While intent is hard to prove in this case I think her intent was to circumvent the standard protocol on the handling of classified information.

I wonder why they even have them sign this at this point....obviously it means nothing if they do nothing with it.

Notice....HRC signature on there...I am seriously dumbfounded at this.

It says in the first paragraph marked or unmarked. It's ok though, the people took her security clearance away for good by not electing her. The people had the last word.

You obviously are incapable of understanding how an investigation is done. EVERY SINGLE INVESTIGATION STARTS WITH A BELIEF. THEY ALL START WITH A HUNCH, A SUSPICION.

Then you look to verify the suspicion. It's NOT suspicion that she setup the Clinton foundation for pay to play. This is fact.

It's NOT a suspicion that HRC was storing Top Secret/Classified information in her own private library.

The investigation into the Clinton foundations started based on suspicion that was induced from the email leaks. The same suspicion that was followed and turned up the truth that she was handling and storing Top Secret/Classified information.

The investigations were put on hold. Comey was going to indict, said factually there was enough to indict her definitively. HE WAS BLOCKED, and when he said the FBI wouldn't indict, he still said she was GUILTY and that she was just above the law.


Belief doesn't hold up in the court of law, but result from investigations that started because of the belief do. When the current POTUS Administration shuts down your investigation, you tend to not be able to pursue the truth.

I'm 100% sure she sold state secrets, you should be too just by the amount of lying she's done trying to cover up the entire mess. By the amount of heavy handed interference issued from Obama to cover up this mess. By James B. Comey, the Director of the FBI saying she's guilty but the government won't let me indict.

If they do indict her, she's going to spill WAY more secrets which would basically take down the entire country. That's why Trump isn't even going to pursue it.

Ok. But while we cant go back in time to prosecute, we can recognize the hypocrisy of those that scream "lock her up" while they paid little to no attention when it was their side possibly doing the same thing.

That's the key word. Hillary didn't "POSSIBLY" do it, she FACTUALLY did it. The crew chanting lock her up, chanted that because SHE DID IT. Not because she "Might have" or someone said so.

That proof didn't exist for GWB, so it's NOT hypocrisy, nor is it even in the same league.

Basically; I'll boil it down for you.

Someone looked in my pockets and saw 2,000$ minutes after someone lost 2,000$. Yeah it's possible I *Could* be the thief. Now everyone saw you take 2,000$ out of someones pocket.

When they chant lock you up, it's because they KNOW you did it. When they didn't for me, it's because there was no proof that the 2 grand wasn't mine already, you could be mistaken, there is reasonable doubt.


And what exactly does "Recognizing the hypocrisy" even mean? Who do you want to recognize it, and in what way? You're not even saying anything.

There is no hypocrisy you think GWB *MIGHT* have done the same thing, but we KNOW HRC did. Also, plenty of people chanted lock up Bush -- just for War Crimes, not Espionage. Congress flirted with impeachment of GWB., they tried numerous times but failed to get enough representation.

originally posted by: introvert
Don't forget that many of the communications that took place in those emails contained information that was classified for the sake of the investigation. You warrant indicates that because it says information that is "presently classified", indicating it was not classified when sent.

It also does not state which emails that were classified contained info that originated outside of the control of the government, such as the Blumenthal emails regarding CF work.

We need a lot more context before we go on a witch hunt.

No. Nope!

Simply finding them where they were indicates a criminal action
has taken place. If you read the warrant, it states "criminal".

Then goes on to list statutes of law that make it criminal.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ok, i'm tinking of an angle..

What would be the legal skive for somebody who, let's say,
'could realistically be, when challenged', be diagnosed with
a degenerative medical condition which manifests itself by

Unstableness, blankness and .... forgetflunezzzzz

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hypocrisy how? Are you saying don't prosecute her because whomever in the past did it too?

That's not what I said.

If we don't start somewhere then we will get nowhere. I would love it if they would go all the way back and prosecute all of the past abusers of power that did something like this.

Ok. But while we cant go back in time to prosecute, we can recognize the hypocrisy of those that scream "lock her up" while they paid little to no attention when it was their side possibly doing the same thing.

I am simply dumbfounded at THIS particular instance that IS happening NOW. Even the FBI noted it in the warrant...she transmitted Confidential, Secret and Top Secret materials through her server.

Of course you are dumbfounded. Anyone would be in a place of ignorance. The fact is that we don't know all of the facts behind this and the context in which the emails were classified.

Don't forget that many of the communications that took place in those emails contained information that was classified for the sake of the investigation. You warrant indicates that because it says information that is "presently classified", indicating it was not classified when sent.

It also does not state which emails that were classified contained info that originated outside of the control of the government, such as the Blumenthal emails regarding CF work.

We need a lot more context before we go on a witch hunt.

Still wondering why the issue of these emails not being in the release by HRC's team hasn't been addressed either....thought they released them all and they were originally all deemed not classified at the time...this is in direct opposition of that and HRC's own statements of such.

If the emails were not created for or by the government, they would not have to be released.

I am guessing you did not actually read what I posted from the warrant. They state specifically that these items were classified at the time of sending between 2009 and 2013. It even goes as far as to specify exactly how many were confidential, secret and top secret.

Here are the clips again for you to re-read:




And if the emails were deemed classified through top secret, then they were created by our government and for our government.

As for coming from a place of ignorance....can't see your reasoning here unless it is that you didn't read the clip from the document I posted.

Just so you don't miss it again it says that 81 email chains were deemed classified at time of sending

a reply to: Vasa Croe

And if the emails were deemed classified through top secret, then they were created by our government and for our government.

And were on a laptop not owned by the government which was accessible by someone without a clearance of any type; for this alone Huma should be facing prosecution.



And considering the fact that this laptop wasn't purchased until 2015, that means that there was clear INTENT to store these files on this laptop.

So, unless it can be shown where laptops are coming with these files pre-installed by the manufacturer, someone had to put forth effort to place them on the hard drive of the laptop.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And if the emails were deemed classified through top secret, then they were created by our government and for our government.

And were on a laptop not owned by the government which was accessible by someone without a clearance of any type; for this alone Huma should be facing prosecution.

Yes, yes she should. This came out today I think, and it still has yet to hit any news source. The fact that this is actually part of a warrant and stated directly by the FBI should be on every major news outlet....WAY before anything about Russia hacking which we STILL have no evidence of. This HRC email scnadal is now confirmed by the FBI themselves and documented for the world and released to the world....yet dead silence on it....sad.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I say Obama will issue pardons in the email case(s) around Jan 19th.

"In the interests of national stability" will be the cover story.

Should this be the case perhaps he better pardon himself at the same time.

We can't have a former POTUS in jail.


Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If I recall the FBI press conference correctly they could not prove there was "intent" to violate the law, so they just chalked it up to being careless.

Isn't there something in the law books everywhere that says something to the extent of ignorance not being an excuse? Seems like I have heard that before....just not sure.

No, that's not what it means. Ignorance of the knowledge of the law isn't an excuse, but ignorance of the law is not the same as lack of intent.

The statues have specific definitions what it means to be a crime, and often intent is an essential part of it, in particular, the more severe crimes. For instance, Petraeus clearly intended to give classified materials to another unauthorized person (here, I give this to you, vs leave a folder out which somebody else reads), though there was no intent to give to potential adversaries, which would have been a major felony.

By contrast it was pretty clear HRC didn't want any emails revealed to anybody, though her understanding of IT security requirements was stupendously naive and foolish.

Now there is also a possibility for negligence in HRC's case but that is a different kind of law with its own requirements which need to be fulfilled.

I personally believe the setup of the email to be negligent enough that it would get somebody fired today, though it wasn't officially a federal crime.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If I recall the FBI press conference correctly they could not prove there was "intent" to violate the law, so they just chalked it up to being careless.

This pisses me off to no end. If I am speeding 50 miles over the speed limit, it doesn't fing matter if I had no idea what the speed limit is. I'm getting a ticket or going to jail. Hell I learned at a young age ignorance of a law is not a defense against breaking it.

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: jjkenobi
If I recall the FBI press conference correctly they could not prove there was "intent" to violate the law, so they just chalked it up to being careless.

This pisses me off to no end. If I am speeding 50 miles over the speed limit, it doesn't fing matter if I had no idea what the speed limit is. I'm getting a ticket or going to jail. Hell I learned at a young age ignorance of a law is not a defense against breaking it.

Knowledge or ignorance of the law isn't the same as intent.
The question is whether that law against speeding requires intent to perform the action which a reasonable person would know is illegal. It probably doesn't, as it's a civil citation usually.

Often there can be a misdemeanor without intent, but with intent, the action becomes a felony.

President Trump will have these criminals all locked up first day on the job. Until then, why give them a chance to escape?

Well thankfully Huma Abedin isn't connected to any scary foreign political movement.

Imagine if she was hooked up with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Their time is coming, it's called KARMA or the Law of Return. If you f***k with someone expect it to come back 10 times what was sent out to begin with. I live by that rule on a daily basis. It works for me, every single time. It's like Universal Revenge.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And if the emails were deemed classified through top secret, then they were created by our government and for our government.

And were on a laptop not owned by the government which was accessible by someone without a clearance of any type; for this alone Huma should be facing prosecution.

 

And considering the fact that this laptop wasn't purchased until 2015, that means that there was clear INTENT to store these files on this laptop.

So, unless it can be shown where laptops are coming with these files pre-installed by the manufacturer, someone had to put forth effort to place them on the hard drive of the laptop.

Ok...so just read your edited post. I think you may have a winner here. Actually worth bringing up to a journalist type of worthy. I had not thought about the fact that the laptop manufacture date showing intent on the communications....nice J&C

originally posted by: draoicht
Well thankfully Huma Abedin isn't connected to any scary foreign political movement.

Imagine if she was hooked up with the Muslim Brotherhood.

That crossed my mind as well.....the fact she had them on a laptop saved is quite interesting in that regard.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Thank you. I'm surprised no one else mentioned it up to now.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have much impact. For many people, this is already 'old news,' and thus not even worth considering. Not many have the necessary attention span to hold things like this in mind.

To me, it's clear as day that Huma, at the very least, should face some sort of consequence for these actions but I doubt she will.

Want to know why she's not in jail? Too big to jail. You really need to follow this guy, he's got it all covered.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's an easy one - two words:

Loretta Lynch.

As the head of the DOJ she makes the final determination on whether or not to prosecute a case. As many laws were clearly broken, it was obviously a political move on her part. Or maybe even a CYA move...

Intent or lack thereof has NOTHING to do with it. Intent is not required under the relevant statutes.

It's a damn joke is what it is. And the US is the laughingstock of the world because of it...