New Hillary Clinton Emails Emerge — Reveal Additional Mishandling of Classified Information

The value is enormous.

That's a major understatement. Its worth its weight in 10x gold.

Gentlemen, this dog and pony show is just getting started.



Buck

originally posted by: HorizonFall

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: xuenchen


But somehow I suspect rational thought has nothing to do with it.

As you have so eloquently proven with your comments.

It has been proven time and time again that any investigation into Clinton has been plagued with conflicts of interest and blatant coverups.

No, it has not been proven. It has been alleged by partisans with a clear agenda.

Folks on this thread seem to be having difficulty with objective definitions. "Proven" "Guilty"

Comey wrote her letter of exoneration before the investigation even began. Nothing about her case/s has been transparent.

Before it began? You seem deeply misinformed.

IF what has been leaked is correct, that could equally prove that Comey was out to get Clinton despite the evidence.

..He had such overwhelming evidence that she was innocent of a crime that he began drafting the letter explaining the same in April...BUT still went on to drag out the investigation as long as possible, right up to the election, even re-opening it within a couple weeks before election day!..

That hypothesis based on the unconfirmed leak is equally as or more probable as your partisan conclusion.

The more you people keep talking the more obvious the coverup becomes. Keep it up.

Who TF is "you people"? People pointing out basic facts and logic?

Thinking is a healthy thing.

a reply to: RazorV66

Yeah. You deflecting the truth again? You do that a lot.

a reply to: imitator

There's nothing new. Where would judicial watch get new emails. The FBI saw everything already. These were obtained from a FOIA request. Every bodies already seen em.
So no. There won't be any charges.
It's over. She's not going to be investigated again. She didn't commit any crimes.
That's really the toughest pill for you guys to swallow.
After years and years of being a target of the right no one could ever pin any crimes on either one of the Clinton's.

a reply to: HorizonFall

That's what the DOJ is for. Us talking about it will do nothing, we do not influence the investigation. If you honestly believe someone so high up and with so many connections like Hillary will be put in jail then I'd say you are daydreaming.

Hillary will not be going to jail no matter how guilty she is and I'm pretty sure most people know that she is guilty of something, just look at the people who paid her to make those speeches, they're not good company to keep.

She has done her part and served her purpose, she will most likely retire never setting foot in a jail cell. It sucks but in my opinion it is reality. I'll leave you guys alone to discuss this fruitless topic over and over, this is my last post in one of these threads.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: imitator

There's nothing new. Where would judicial watch get new emails. The FBI saw everything already. These were obtained from a FOIA request. Every bodies already seen em.
So no. There won't be any charges.
It's over. She's not going to be investigated again. She didn't commit any crimes.
That's really the toughest pill for you guys to swallow.
After years and years of being a target of the right no one could ever pin any crimes on either one of the Clinton's.

Just because the (FBI) government protects corruption doesn't mean nothing new. Where do you think Judicial Watch receives it's new information? Why would they file for FOIA if there is nothing new? Every email, every word in those emails can lead to a past, present or future crime. All it takes is one lawsuit to ask the courts to reopen the email investigation.

Think of it this way, difficult things take a long time, Hillary's emails take a little longer.

originally posted by: c2oden
Illegal activities by public officials should be known by the public that they represent.
It should not matter if they are no longer public officials or if they end up being charged or not.

The truth is important.
It DOES make a difference, even at this point.
If the courts will not judge, the public will.

This absolutely could not have been stated any better. Corruption by any of our public servants regardless of their affiliation is certainly our "business".

originally posted by: introvert
Nothing really new here.

We know the US government has a tendency to classify everything and anything they damn well please. Without proper context or knowing what was classified, this is really no different that what we have seen before in regards to Hillary and the emails.

Hell, the US government classified an email chain of hers because it contained a US media report about drone strikes.

Just the mention alone of drone strikes, without it being US government intel, can trigger a classification.

Let me know when the legal beagles start to raise an eye at this.

Once again your glaring ignorance of how classified information works is patently obvious.

Once again:

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

fas.org...

Therefore an email discussing a drone strike that was classified that appeared in a news article could be considered an unauthorized disclosure.

I know the truth hurts...but just face it,,, you are dead wrong.

But several investigations didnt convict her therefore shes totally innocent of any possible wrong doing. Only a 'congressional conviction' could prove that she or anyone is a blight on society therefore no one should ever be looked down upon unless that happened and not a moment before.

Isnt democrat pragmatism a hoot??

For all you dimwits that think Hillary is innocent because of Comey's illegal decision. You are in for a rough time. Comey over stepped his authority and thought he could make up new laws that didn't exist.

Comey was only suppose to present the evidence. He did. Enough evidence to convict her of a crime. It was beyond his authority to decide anything else. Nobody cares about what Comey's opinion is about Hillary who bribed him with money to his wife.

We don't want someone that is compromised like Hillary in any position of authority. And the email scandal is only a scratch on the surface of what was done with the Clinton Foundation. Pay to Play. So find someone with your mentality that isn't a total criminal to run next time instead. If that's possible.

Look what I by accident stumbled onto. You don't have to look far. Of course the source is said to be "fake news" by CNN.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: xuenchen

It seems strange that you are still full force conducting an Anti-Hillary campaign?

You do know the election is over? right?

The other oddity is that the right wing is still going on about a private email server, when virtually the entire Trump admin is using private email and personal phones...Plus Trump has repeatedly blurted out Top Secret information publicly and even to the Russians.

Pot... meet kettle.

For whatever reason... many folks on the left just PRESUME the issue has to do with the election.

So far as politics goes... is that all Democrats can see are elections? In the United States... we have this little thing called the Rule of Law. So, as difficult as it is, APPARENTLY, for so many folks to grasp... the value of the Rule of Law doesn't have a shelf life based on elections. Elections are just one little thing about voting people in or out of office.

The Rule of Law stands ALONE. It's valuation has no connection to elections. Sure, some laws are CONNECTED to legislation that pertains to campaigns and elections... but it's not exactly like campaigns and elections are some area of radioactivity... that activates the rule of law... and once that radioactive field has subsided the rule of law becomes null and void.

I find it stunning, that all folks see is elections. Yes... having high expectations that lawlessness from politicians will be prosecuted, is a grave threat to peace of mind. Odds are... criminal activities by politicians and/or campaigns will not be prosecuted. But they could be and should be.

If Hillary or Trump broke laws... (we KNOW Hillary did), that Statute of Limitations expires when it expires AND NOT BEFORE.

In short... no one gives a f*** if you are absolutely clueless about grades school civics... new evidence is NEW evidence, even if it's about a previously reported criminal activity. GET OVER IT... the post is 100% legit!

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: neomaximus10

And what is in the emails? Oh, we don't know, we just saw it and had to post it on ATS for stars, flags and conformation bias. I doubt these emails will make any difference at all, the thousands before it didn't, why would these?

The article did mention what the emails were about...didn't you read that? and also, they SHOULD make a difference even though they haven't YET...that is the whole purpose of these threads...they are an attempt to keep this subject in the public eye so that they will not be forgotten.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: imitator

She didn't commit any crimes.
That's really the toughest pill for you guys to swallow.

Wait...What?

ummm....Wait...What?

shame Donnie went back on his promise to do something about it.

The obsession on here with Hillary is kinda weird now.

I suspect xuenchen is a paid trump staffer here to distract and deflect as much as possible from Donnie's daily failure.

a reply to: xuenchen

Abedin’s controversial mother advised Clinton speechwriter to exclude references to ‘democracy/elections/freedom’ and ‘empowerment of women’ for Clinton speech in Saudi Arabia

Did SOS Clinton actually adjust her speech based on those recommendations? Is there a transcript of her Saudi Arabia speech on the State Dept Website somewhere to see?

originally posted by: dasman888

If Hillary or Trump broke laws... (we KNOW Hillary did), that Statute of Limitations expires when it expires AND NOT BEFORE.

Between Trump and Hillary, only one of them has been the subject of a 30 Million Dollar plus multi-year investigation by multiple committees in the House and Senate as well as the FBI/DOJ, combined involving hundreds of investigators over years...that determined that NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED.

Trump is TBD, but the evidence is a mountain.

You can bark about the "Rule of Law" while ignoring the "Rule of Law".
Can Bark about the constitution while backing an agenda that abhors it's foundations like Religious Liberty, Free Press and the right to assemble.
You can Bark about the Deficit, while backing a conservative agenda looking to increase it by amounts that dwarf the last President.

The list is endless.

The Hypocrisy is sickening..

The "rule of law" has conducted a massive investigation into Hillary Clinton by virtually every branch of government over a period of years.

More resources, time and money were dedicated to Hillary Clinton's email server than the 9-11 commission.

And they cleared her.

How insanely hypocritical you speak of partisan agenda or the "rule of law".

You care not for any "justice" that does not align with your partisan agenda.

Your arguments are transparent not just to me, but to the world entire. It has become impossible to take the right wing seriously anymore.

originally posted by: TruthJava

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: imitator

She didn't commit any crimes.
That's really the toughest pill for you guys to swallow.

Wait...What?

ummm....Wait...What?

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.

...

we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information

...

our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

...

we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.

...

we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

...

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us.

Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way.

Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.

FBI Statement

originally posted by: c2oden
Illegal activities by public officials should be known by the public that they represent.
It should not matter if they are no longer public officials or if they end up being charged or not.

The truth is important.
It DOES make a difference, even at this point.
If the courts will not judge, the public will.

^^YES!!!^^

Public opinion can be harsh, mean and unforgiving

P.S. LOVE your Morris picture