US Intelligence Veterans Urge Fast Report (Clinton’s) Emails: “NSA, FBI Have Enough Evidence”

The majority of Hillarys defense lies upon the excuse of retroactive classification...

This has been repeated time and time again by the Clinton campaign...

The only trouble is, that retroactively classified has absolutely nothing at all to do with Hillary's situation... her emails were classified when sent and that is a huge issue.


Retroactive classification only applies to situations where the US Government decides to later classify information that it has previously released as unclassified.

Powell and Rices emails are prime examples..... both had emails later deemed classified by the SD after those emails had been released to the public as unclassified in the SD archives.

Hillary asking the government to publicly release her emails is 100% proof that retroactive classification is nothing more than a bogus fairy tale.

The proof against retroactive classification is right there in the EO.

How much do you want to bet she won't face any serious repercussions until after the primaries?...

originally posted by: WeRpeons
So Hillary should be indicted...what are they waiting for? The sooner she's indicted, the sooner Bernie can become the official nominee and screw all of Hillary's bought and paid for delegates.

That's why she won't be.

They don't want a Sanders presidency.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well your name is jadedANDcynical, I figured you of all people would appreciate my bleak outlook on the situation

Everyone can ahead and talk about it, just realize its only a form of talk therapy...

If you don't talk about criminal acts by the government, the government continues them and the whole system becomes corrupt. As weak as it may be...it is currently our only legal action. But not calling them out is an even larger crime. It says that we accept their actions, lies and crimes.

WE DON'T!

originally posted by: Justoneman
Secrets to our enemies IS TREASON. I see no way around that fact.

My friends and co workers with military pasts have said "sedition"

What your dictionary says isn't relevant. In a legal context words don't carry their dictionary definition. Treason is the only crime defined in the constitution, it's in Article 3 section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Storing information on a sever is not levying war against the US or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Furthermore, there are not two witnesses to the same overt act, and Hillary hasn't confessed. Last, only Congress not a court can declare the punishment of treason.

It has been over 60 years since anyone has been convicted of Treason in the US and under 20 people total have ever been convicted of it. What Hillary did is not treason, sedition is the term you're looking for, but she's not guilty of that yet either.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Excellent thread.

The clinton defenders will be along soon to sing her praises and respond that there isn't a scintilla of impropriaty done by her majesty.

why?...it doesn't do any good, you'll believe want you want to believe and of couse you think the OP is "excellent"...shocker

a reply to: jimmyx

Hi, welcome to the thread!

Any links to quotes from intelligence operatives that refute the stance taken in the OP?

Do you now have, or had in the past, a security clearance and knowledge of the pertinent regulations and laws and can help us properly understand the situation from an experienced viewpoint of your own?

Have anything at all on topic to contribute or did you just come in to verbally defecate all over someone?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Justoneman
Secrets to our enemies IS TREASON. I see no way around that fact.

My friends and co workers with military pasts have said "sedition"

What your dictionary says isn't relevant. In a legal context words don't carry their dictionary definition. Treason is the only crime defined in the constitution, it's in Article 3 section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Storing information on a sever is not levying war against the US or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Furthermore, there are not two witnesses to the same overt act, and Hillary hasn't confessed. Last, only Congress not a court can declare the punishment of treason.

It has been over 60 years since anyone has been convicted of Treason in the US and under 20 people total have ever been convicted of it. What Hillary did is not treason, sedition is the term you're looking for, but she's not guilty of that yet either.

So most of us former an current military types see her allowing the situation that left our secrets to be stolen by the Russians and Chinese and N Korean's as Treason;. Especially, with the access to critical data about the USA and the money being given to her by these same governments being documented. Are you saying you don't see the money the Clinton's received as part of this or as being in play when those leaked emails are showing these type of things? I see these things are deliberate in an attempt to weaken our country.

I remember a point Nikita Kruschev stated about how the communist would take us without firing a shot by having people on the inside help them. Well, I give you the Clinton Server.

a reply to: Justoneman

So who are the two witnesses to each overt act? If you don't have them you don't have treason.

a reply to: Aazadan

Failure to secure multiple top secret emails due to a personal decision ,is however.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

SO....is she going to prison or what?

My 2 cents

Some of hillary''s emails went to the Prez. The Prez saw the lack of .gov on the email and not only did he fail at his job of protecting our laws and report her to the proper law enforcement agency, he probably hit replied and sent her info back.

Can you imagine if the government had to go after Obama or the congress had to inpeach him for thinking he's above the law and sending top secret info. A Portion of the country would be like, he broke the law, he must be punished. Then another portion would be like, but he's black that would be racist

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Wow more right wing propaganda. You must just hate Hillary Clinton. Did this come from Brietbart or FOX news? Just another right wing smear campaign. You just don't want a woman to be president.

#imwithher

#hillary2016

/s

If she is elected president, they should ban her from using any electronic devices to conduct government business...the same threat they pose to federal workers who get caught breaking the rules.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Aazadan

Failure to secure multiple top secret emails due to a personal decision ,is however.

Not without 2 witnesses to each act to failure to secure. And that's assuming failure to secure even falls into that already narrow definition which I don't think it does.

Hillary would love to be charged with Treason because it's such an over reach that there would be no reason to plea down. It would be unprovable in court and she would walk with what would be the ultimate vindication over her conduct for the last 15 years.

I think Obama and Dems will endorse Biden-Sanders as "the right thing to do" against Trump....and pin everything on Hillary.

This may have been in the works for a long time.

a reply to: Aazadan

NOT really ...ever heard of CIPA?
www.justice.gov...

Personally I think they should wait until after she wins the convention until they indict and start all the court stuff.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's my opinion that time is being bought for her to win the Presidency so that she is then shielded from conviction. There are all kinds of measures in place that would prevent her being found guilty. National Security being one such instance. This isn't the Nixon years folks. It's a whole new rigged world of politics that has all kinds of implemented protections to prevent such a thing from happening. They simply would never allow it.