Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

I think it's more like 43. They count staff and clerks but they are not agents.
I'm going to check it. I'll say so if I'm wrong don't worry.

This article from 5 days ago has the director of the FBI saying 20-30 so that 100+ figure most likely includes clerks and aids.


time.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme

The can may have peas in it but without a label...

...it is still a can of peas...

You really do seem to be either purposely obtuse or have severe comprehension problems.

I'm not sure what part of the information itself being classified regardless of whether or not is is marked as such you are having trouble understanding.

These aren't Schrodinger's emails; either classified or non-classified until they are viewed. The information in them indeed belonged under one of the official designations given to "Top Secret" information even though they were not marked as such.

Yes, that can of peas with no label could be corn, but it is in fact peas, whether or not you open the container to view the contents.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You know she's not ever going to face charges right?

a reply to: Sillyolme

I realised that it s impossible to discuss with you based on facts.
So i will leave that out.

Still i have a question to ask: you write you campaigned for Nixon and later voted for Reagan.

What made you a Hillary fan?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh, I know she will never face the true consequences of the actions to which she has been part. She's far too wiley for that to have occurred.

The only hope we have is that, being human (a somewhat questionable assumption), she is prone to mistakes and eventually one of those mistakes will catch up to her.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The server will show they were always safe. Never at risk.
Surely you don't think she should never have gotten these emails? That was part of the job. The info was sent to her because she had clearance right? She was classified as being able to receive top secret information wasn't she? They didn't need to label them as such to send them to her.
The question is and always has been whether that information was ever at risk. The labels and redactions of her legitimate emails was so they could be published under FOIA.
I'm not being obtuse. These are plain and simple facts.


I'm swimming upstream in this thread I know and for what ever reason everyone seems to think it's ok to call me ignorant when in fact all I am doing is disagreeing with them.
My research, sentence structure, and vocabulary should be enough to prove I'm not ignorant.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What actions? She sell states secrets to Boris and Natasha?

a reply to: svetlana84

I was also involved in the women's movement in the late seventies early eighties. In 93 when she became first lady I was impressed with her resume. I always waited to see what causes a first lady would tackle. With each first lady since Jackie and I was a mere child then. Family always talked politics. It was NYC in the sixties.
I would wait to see whether a new first lady would ever bring women's issues to the fore and Hillary did.I actually didn't vote in the 92 election. I was preoccupied with little kids work and a husband.
After Bills first term I started to vote democrat

Hillarys work since then has impressed me. You can't deny her humanitarian efforts.
I don't buy into the cabal banter. Every time someone tries to prove the Clinton's are bad it doesn't pan out. Some people will spin that it's having friends in high places but if that's true why not nip these things in the bud ? Why wait until it's front page news before those almighty friends swoop in to save the day?

I'm voting for her new because of her experience. Not just because she's a woman but because she is a woman with courage. I have pages and pages of history but I doubt you'd want to read it.

Notice how I'm ignoring the way you opened your post to me...

a reply to: Sillyolme

The question was if she mishandled classified information. Your opinion stating that the info was sent to her because she had clearance doesn't address the fact that in so doing laws would have to be violated regarding handling classified info.

Have you ever held a security clearance?

You just do not get the fact that having classified information stored on an unclassified email server in your home is illegal by any definition of the law.

If that information is deemed to be classified, then you have broken the law. It is the content that is classified, not the emails per se, but what was in the emails.

It just isn't any plainer than that, Hillary Clinton did not in any way, shape, or form, have anybodies permission to store emails containing classified information on her unclassified email server at her house.

That is the part you don't seem to understand....she is in some seriously deep doo doo.

You can forget that retroactively classified stuff.... it isn't going to make a difference because the material would have been considered classified until it was adjudicated at a later date.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What actions? She sell states secrets to Boris and Natasha?

Makes people wonder why all those emails were kept on her own private computer doesn't it.

And what's more alarming, she tried to keep them all for herself long after she left office too.

I bet many of those classified pieces were somehow allowed to be "viewed" at specific coded times, like open door codes to get into files on her system by "outsiders" that had the time codes.

Mark my words, that will come out soon enough after the investigations are complete.

a reply to: xuenchen

Utter fantasy.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Utter fantasy.

Just like the Hillary operatives inside the Sanders Campaign that somehow knew exactly when to "get into" the Hillary data files recently.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Thanks for your insight.

I am with you on Bill, looking back this was the good old time..

On Hillary we might disagree.
Especially from a woman point of view I d prefer a woman with courage, yes.
But I d hope for one with more integrity and way less warmongering then Hillary.

She just recently came forward with the idea of 'obliterating' Iran (i guess that was at the AIPAC meeting.

I d like to see a woman in office with empathy, one who builds bridges and does not send warplanes on civilians.

But that's just me. Each to its own.

Should Hillary Clinton talk to the FBI?

No. Let them first ask her to come and talk to them, and then if they must insist go through and talk to a judge and get a judge to have her come in with her lawyers and discuss such.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Yeah the information was but the emails themselves were not . Get it. They were not marked.
The can may have peas in it but without a label...

Geeze, it's the information that makes it classified!

Marking it does not make it classified or not!

a reply to: xuenchen

Source?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Well it was her job so I'm thinking she got those e mails because she was supposed to get them.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Well it was her job so I'm thinking she got those e mails because she was supposed to get them.

For the umpteenth time....

Hillary Clinton was NOT authorized to possess or maintain classified material on her private email server in her own home.

It can be up to a felony count for each and every single piece of classified information found to be in her possession....at least 100+ with Secret and Top Secret.


That is the point of all these threads about her emails..... she is in some deep doo doo for having Top Secret information located outside a SCIF without any authorization.

If she had been allowed to do what she did, we wouldn't even be having these threads. If it had been you, I , or anyone else, they would already be in jail awaiting trial on multiple felony counts.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: notmyrealname

The DOJ did that.
Why slick?

Because...wait for it...:

Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone SHOULD be charged with a crime.

...and as such, it is impossible, as you have so nonsensically stated:

You need a grand jury first. Until that happens this is just a fact finding quest. It's not a criminal investigation.

So, Bryan Magliano was immunized
The DOJ can only do so via Grand Jury

Sorry, I hade figured you already knew the answer so I didn't follow it anymore; now that I saw your response, I figured I would clarify. Good luck with you argument slick.