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

originally posted by: face23785
Oh by the way, let's not forget there's no logical reason for her to have done this unless she was trying to hide something. You can call that an assumption, and it is, but the reason she gave (so she wouldn't need to use multiple devices) we know is bogus because we know she still had to carry multiple devices. So what was her real reason and why would she lie? She wouldn't lie if it was innocuous. Not to mention, per my previous posts, someone with her extensive experience would know that convenience is not a valid reason for circumventing national security laws so that ALSO proves intent.

This is not just a case, it's a slam dunk case.

Then add in that she was such a genius to think about doing it, that no one thought to have a private server in their basement before her.

After all, it's not illegal or unethical, right?

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah...I am trying to find the specific model 7538 release date now.

Earlier in the thread the model was shared, but I don't know if that was correct. 7548? Look at the copied quote above from mothermayeye.

Edit add: Laptop model 7548 review was shared on this site in February 2015. So if that is the correct model #, then it was released earlier.

Yes, that was the model and series number from the warrant:



Link

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah...I am trying to find the specific model 7538 release date now.

Earlier in the thread the model was shared, but I don't know if that was correct. 7548? Look at the copied quote above from mothermayeye.

Edit add: Laptop model 7548 review was shared on this site in February 2015. So if that is the correct model #, then it was released earlier.

Yes, that was the model and series number from the warrant:

Link

Ha...I just noticed the "bearing service tag" part. So I assume this laptop was serviced by someone who then also had access to the Hillary email server emails, in question?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I think Dell gives every laptop a service tag number from the factory actually. I could be wrong. Has anyone purchased a brand new Dell recently?

a reply to: face23785

Ah, ok. I am a Mac person, so in my world, a service tag might mean it was serviced.

But a quick search shows you are correct.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

Sadly, she won't go to jail over this. They really are above the law. Affluenza. They are too damn rich and powerful to be treated like a commoner.

80% of cases in recent history of mishandling classified info are not prosecuted, unless there are circumstances that prove they went above and beyond to circumvent procedures, remove info, etc. The consequences are dealt-out within the specific departments they work for.

Like hillary clinton deleting content of of hardrives that the court already ordered to be be evidence and to be handed over?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

What's to stop every federal government employee from setting up private email servers to conduct their business? As long as none of them says they had the intent to mishandle classified information -- if ever questioned -- they should all be good to go. I mean they can still have a .gov email address, too...but they could just use their private email servers to do their jobs anyway.

I don't see anything that would prevent a government employee from doing that.

The laptop that is the subject of the OP seems to point to an obvious and simple felony.

Huma Abedin and her Security Clearance seems to be very questionable.

hillaryforpresident.com...

"Huma Abedin Never Had Security Clearance & Secretary Clinton Allowed Her Un-authorized Access"

I find it hard to understand why that is not a clear breach of security and consequently a felony?

originally posted by: draoicht
The laptop that is the subject of the OP seems to point to an obvious and simple felony.

Huma Abedin and her Security Clearance seems to be very questionable.

hillaryforpresident.com...

"Huma Abedin Never Had Security Clearance & Secretary Clinton Allowed Her Un-authorized Access"

I find it hard to understand why that is not a clear breach of security and consequently a felony?

Not to mention it was in Weiner's place and he had access to it as well. It was said to be a shared computer.....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

No telling how many people shared it.... or hacked it.

a reply to: butcherguy

Thankfully the Washington Post can reassure us that she is a safe pair of hands.

www.washingtonpost.com...

So that's nothing for us to worry about.

originally posted by: Justso
Trump has said he will not prosecute Hillary et al. That in itself is frustrating enough. They're all in cahoots. Trump has already stepped back from many of his promises now that he has won.

Wall Street is taking over and I don' believe it's going to be a much of a plus for the middle class-maybe they'll throw a few coins at us to keep us quieted.

Believe it or not, Trump was a globalist for decades only now he can really ramp it up and it just might be the best for the country as a whole. It will be a bumpy and uncomfortable ride for most of us-unless you work on Wall Street or have global interests.

Yep, instant U-turns on some of his biggest election slogans and promises. But then that's not unique to trump - all politicians do it - my point is that he's not the messiah like so many people here make him out to be.

South Park's Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich episode has never been so relevant as with this election.

They're are not in jail because government is inherently evil.

Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

IMO there a great lesson in all this. How does it feel to have the servant you created (government) take your seat as the sovereign authority? God didn't care for it either.

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.

Now you can look at that decision 2 ways, 1. there are some of the dumbest people on earth making these decisions, or 2. there's a cover up..

Lets be honest about the whole thing, its corruption and miss handling of state secrets at an industrial level, I don't think there's a single person with an IQ above 90 that does not see that there's something very wrong in all of this let alone the infinite complexities of the network of fraud and counter fraud going on. But then again this was all done right in front of everyone, the Clintons were no strangers to corruption which the public could see with their own eyes and the levels of corruption if you looked deeper were down the old rabbit hole but then you have Huma, a lady directly connected to Radical Islam, whose families are sponsors and supporters of Radical Islam and whose companies have direct links with terror yet knowing all this as it would have been known since she was being invited in to a role in highest government was still not only given the job but allowed to keep it. She's then given access to data that is TOP SECRET.......Surely this is a spoof comedy script but its not...

So we have Huma, Clinton and very close pals only having access to these top secret data amongst other stuff on a personal server which has emails of significant importance to life being sent to a clique and probably beyond.

Seriously, how could any of this happened if the very top seat wasn't approving all this and their more secret friends applying the sort of pressure you want no one finding out about to others. And yet no one pays the price apart from innocent people or people in very delicate jobs in very delicate places, people like Clinton walks away with a pay upgrade and a pat on the back from Barry knowing she has the good old get out of jail letter.

And lets remember she at her level does not know a C or a (C) means confidential (and people actually took that as ok and never questioned it, but worse still people actually argued if it could be the case. She was a lawyer ffs, she's in the very part of government where that is every day business and people want to argue IF SHE really didn't know what the C meant...Give me strength..

At this time of year this story simply is a pantomime, or more correctly a pantomime of corruption and cover ups, its beyond belief that any involved still walk the streets and not being charged wit traitorous intent at the very least.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: burgerbuddy

What's to stop every federal government employee from setting up private email servers to conduct their business? As long as none of them says they had the intent to mishandle classified information -- if ever questioned -- they should all be good to go. I mean they can still have a .gov email address, too...but they could just use their private email servers to do their jobs anyway.

I don't see anything that would prevent a government employee from doing that.

I don't thing the "non intent" argument will stand up in court very long. This was dismissed in the case of the young sailor who took a "selfee" in the submarine and got three years for it.

I think I remember Hillary's response to the FBI director's claim for the mis-handling of classified information as being from carelessness. She said it was not. So I can only interpret that answer as meaning all this was done on purpose.

It can't be both. So in this case it makes her even more guilty than we first thought.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Here you go... Just to give an idea of the trouble Clinton has gotten herself into, and for Clinton supporters to adequately understand just how serious this is, here is a detailed list of the possible crimes with links so people can read it for themselves.

Here's the part I think you're missing:

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense...

"With Intent" is the part you want to pay attention to.

The Law is all about intent. Someone who is Hacked has "No Intent" to disseminate information to Hackers. Hacking is a crime.

Being stupid about how you handle Classified material can be a crime, but for a Civilian, it usually just gets you fired.

If she was Military, she'd already be at Ft. Leavenworth.

So who did she GIVE information to that was Unauthorized? The NDA clearly says that she can divulge information to other people as long as certain criteria was met.

a reply to: CryHavoc

What you seem to be missing is this, "...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody..."

Gross negligence does not require intent. If it did, no one could ever be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter. This is where your argument falls apart.

But none of this matters since the DoJ was never going to prosecute no matter what evidence was presented.

And this doesn't even touch the election-related shenanigans she and her crew got up to. Just ask Bernie about those.

But all of this is moot.

Huma knew these emails were classified when she stored them on her laptop to which Weiner had access.

End of story.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: burgerbuddy

What's to stop every federal government employee from setting up private email servers to conduct their business? As long as none of them says they had the intent to mishandle classified information -- if ever questioned -- they should all be good to go. I mean they can still have a .gov email address, too...but they could just use their private email servers to do their jobs anyway.

I don't see anything that would prevent a government employee from doing that.

Most government employees know this is illegal and they also take national security seriously, they're not just in it to make themselves rich. But you are right, this is why it is so critical that they prosecute her. We cannot set the precedent that it's ok to grossly mishandle and endanger this kind of material.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I suggest you read my long post on the previous page. Proving her intent would take half a day in court. It's an open and shut case. And some of the laws she broke do not require intent. You post a snippet from ONE law, she's on the hook for more than one violation. If she was a nobody and they really wanted to throw the book at her, she could conceivably spend the rest of her life in prison for what she's done. Many of these laws carry prison terms of 5+ years per offense, and each email counts as an offense.