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

There are so many lies and distortions coming from all sides. This article says that there was nothing in the Weiner-Clinton Warrant that should have caused FBI Director Comey to reopen the investigation into Hillary's potential criminality.

"The FBI warrant that shook Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign in its final two weeks has been unsealed, and the lawyer who requested it says it offers "nothing at all" to merit the agency's actions leading up to the Nov. 8 election.

The warrant was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Los Angeles lawyer Randy Schoenberg, who wants to determine what probable cause the agency provided to suspect material on disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner’s computer might be incriminating to Clinton. Weiner is the estranged husband of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin. Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure can only be granted when proof of probable cause of criminal findings has been documented."

Source: www.msn.com...

Thank GOD the election is over and Donald Trump prevailed! To quote a famous coach.. "WHATEVER IT TAKES.. JUST DO IT!"

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

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.

Exactly.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Remember the talk about a Huma immunity deal?

There's shedloads of articles on it all traced back to 'FBI sources.'

Here's a nice little excerpt:

Yahoo originally reported that since FBI agents have not gotten the chance to read any of the emails, they are "still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that "the bureau has not already seen."

newsmax

Doesn't matter if it's been seen or not, it was purposely put on that machine which was then accessed by someone without a security clearance.

Whether or not sausage boy accesed those files is irrelevant to the fact that they never should have been in a place accessible by someone without the proper clearance.

But if Huma got immunity, it wouldn't matter because it was merely part of the clean up process. That's what all the immunity deals amount to anyway; a sweeping of under the rug.

a reply to: xuenchen

They have to be convicted and sentenced to get a pardon, but if they convict them AFTER Obama leaves then, well......

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: 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.
I would love to be wrong on this, but I just don't think so. There are too many cases where those with the $ get away with whatever they wish. I bet this pisses Martha Stewart off just a bit.

no,...they can't make the case in court in front of a jury...period.....ask any prosecutor, even trent gowdy who would like to see Hillary swing from the gallows, closed the case.

Look, I don't mean this in a condescending way or that I have some special knowledge, I served. It wasn't war, I was Air Force, and I didn't even have a gun, so no hero complex here. But I did deal with some very basic classified stuff and If I was to screw up in the slightest with the weak stuff I dealt with, I would be prosecuted, article 15'd, kicked out, fined, and likely imprisoned for a period of time.

www.theguardian.com...

When you can explain why this sailor went to jail, but Hillary skates, I'll be all ears. But national security is called that for a very good reason. It's important. She should at least be prosecuted and found guilty of her crimes. I doubt she would see any prison time, but a public shaming and letting those e-3 to e-9's know the government treats all those who break the rules the same, would be a nice start.

She screwed up.

originally posted by: torok67
a reply to: xuenchen

They have to be convicted and sentenced to get a pardon, but if they convict them AFTER Obama leaves then, well......

Presidents can pardon anybody any time.

Ford pardoned Nixon without any charges even.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


Isn't there something in the law books everywhere that says something to the extent of ignorance not being an excuse? .

Yeah, the full statement is

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorant people are excused."

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.

Bleachbit?

Now I'm not gonna reheat old pizza, but why else would she take the risk of setting up her OWN PERSONAL e-mail server?
Unless things she doens't want the goverment to know about are sent and recieved from that server...

Considering everything the left has done since lawful election falls under the guise of sedition.DT may not pursue starting with Hildebeast.condone herself..but I would.

originally posted by: TDawg61
Considering everything the left has done since lawful election falls under the guise of sedition.DT may not pursue starting with Hildebeast.condone herself..but I would.

Donald Trump will focus on items that improve our quality of life. His Attorney General will fulfill what you see in my post signature below..

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.

That's not entirely correct. As we now know, emails that originated from CF employees were classified during the investigation. Not because they originated from the government, but because they contained info that the government classified once they got their hands on it.

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

Do you have more information on what was classified? Some emails may have discussed topics that were classified at the time within government, but were still widely discussed topics, in public, in general.

For example, at least one email chain contained a news article discussing drone attacks. While the US government would classify their information on such a topic, they cannot classify a publicly-produced news article. For the purposes of the investigation, the email containing that news article was classified.

That is the context we have to have before we jump on any bandwagon.

Well, this warrant spells out what we kind of knew. But it's now a known known.

But for me, as some in the thread point out, you have to prove it was knowingly negligent on her behalf to prosecute. This video here was for me the slam dunk in this case in my mind.




Hmmm, lecturing her team on cyber security protocols way back..... Whoooops...

And damn, while I'm at it. I'm posting this awesome song that Hillary supporters should familiarize themselves with. The amount of 'dodgy' that festers in her bones is incredible.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

That's not entirely correct. As we now know, emails that originated from CF employees were classified during the investigation. Not because they originated from the government, but because they contained info that the government classified once they got their hands on it.

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

Do you have more information on what was classified? Some emails may have discussed topics that were classified at the time within government, but were still widely discussed topics, in public, in general.

For example, at least one email chain contained a news article discussing drone attacks. While the US government would classify their information on such a topic, they cannot classify a publicly-produced news article. For the purposes of the investigation, the email containing that news article was classified.

That is the context we have to have before we jump on any bandwagon.

Again, the warrant has all the info you need.

81 were classified at the time of sending, meaning they had already been assigned a classification PRIOR to HRC or her team sending them out to unsecured devices....not hard to understand and no other information is needed here to determine anything.

68 were still classified at the time the warrant was issued....again, not other information needed as the 81 earlier referenced were where these 68 came from.

None of the ones I posted that are directly referenced in the warrant were classified after the fact.....they were all classified before Hillary and her team sent them and most are still classified.

Please read the warrant...I am getting tired of having to re-post it.

a reply to: Qumulys

Yeah...that first video is pretty damning as far as her claiming she didn't know any of this stuff.

I can't believe there is a single person on this thread still trying to defend and deflect the obvious evidence that she did house classified information knowingly on unsecured devices.

This whole thing has been such a sham and cover up by the current administration and the MSM. I truly hope this comes back around to her and it will if Huma or Weiner get time....

I hope more questions are asked and more information comes out. Way too much to keep under wraps and someone is going to go down for it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I certainly hope you're right. To do nothing is just going to keep dragging and holding the left back. If the left just continues how they have been travelling it will take forever until they gain back confidence, and without it and the party in tatters the right will just run wild.

Best to rip the band-aids off (and fling them in prison) and clean up the crud and start over. But yeah, that video is damning - certainly in my eyes, but no doubt some slime-ball of a lawyer (maybe herself...) will find a reason for it to not be evidence...

*sigh*

a reply to: Qumulys

The video and the signed document about handling of materials just show me that the government could care less about these things when it comes to one of their own.

My thought is that if one goes down, they will drag a lot more with them. The only thing keeping them afloat right now is the dirt they have on one another all the way to the top.

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.

You can only issue a pardon to someone who has been convicted.

originally posted by: jlafleur02

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.

You can only issue a pardon to someone who has been convicted.

Not.
A Presidential Pardon can be issued to cover things that have not been charged, much less proven in court..

a reply to: Vasa Croe

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.

Yes, I'm sure you have heard it... but it's actually a corruption of the law. Or perhaps a better way to say it is that it's a corruption of the principles of justice, which requires "mens rea" -- a "guilty mind" -- in order to be convicted of a crime.

So if someone doesn't know it's against the law to jaywalk and crosses the street somewhere other than a crosswalk, they are not guilty because they did not know it was a crime. If they do not know, they did not have a "guilty mind."

Which is why we have non-guilty by reason of insanity defenses; if someone is too crazy to know something is a crime, they cannot be prosecuted for it. This does not apply to someone who knows it's illegal but does it anyway because they don't think it should be a crime. Their opinion of the law isn't important; just whether or not they knew it was illegal at the time.

Today it's said that we all break laws every day that we don't even know are laws or illegal -- but we can sure be charged, prosecuted and punished for it!