New Evidence: FBI Agent Dismissed from Mueller Probe Let Clinton Off & Opened Russia Probe!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



"Knowingly" implies intent. Can you prove that intent?

Surely you aren't actually asking this.

Yes, Hillary intended to house the server in her home.

Is your claim really at this point that Hillary ACCIDENTALLY set up a server in her home, and she never intended to do that?

WOW!!!!!!!!!

This is a new low even for you.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.

Can you prove proof she knew classified info was on the server?

Now you admit, she should have been charged.

Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.

Hillary signed a legal document stating she had been briefed.

That means, by her signature, that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Plain and simple.

a reply to: Grambler

Surely you aren't actually asking this.

Yes. You made the claim. Can you prove it?

Yes, Hillary intended to house the server in her home.

No #. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not she intended to store classified info on it.

Is your claim really at this point that Hillary ACCIDENTALLY set up a server in her home, and she never intended to do that?

No. I never made any claim like that.

This is a new low even for you.

Are you really arguing against points I never even made?

I'd say that is a low for you, but you happen to do it all the time.

a reply to: queenofswords

this guy and crownies need cleaned out of the fbi

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.

Can you prove proof she knew classified info was on the server?

Now you admit, she should have been charged.

Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.

Hillary signed a legal document stating she had been briefed.

That means, by her signature, that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Plain and simple.

Ok. Let me ask again, did she know classified material was on the server and it was her intent to provide the server for such purposes?

You say it's plain and simple, but as we learned from how the email issue played-out, you were completely wrong.

Can you prove she knew classified info was on the server

Yes. She sent and received material as Sec.State which a reasonable person would have cause to believe was classified. Especially the ones that still had headers on them.
.
Is this really your question?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.

Can you prove proof she knew classified info was on the server?

Now you admit, she should have been charged.

Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.

Hillary signed a legal document stating she had been briefed.

That means, by her signature, that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Plain and simple.

Ok. Let me ask again, did she know classified material was on the server and it was her intent to provide the server for such purposes?

You say it's plain and simple, but as we learned from how the email issue played-out, you were completely wrong.

Of course she knew. If she claims she didn't, then she was grossly negligent in the handling of classified information.


You keep bypassing the FACT that she signed a document stating that she was fully aware of the laws and regulations concerning the safekeeping and handling of classified information.

a reply to: introvert

Keep squirming, it hilarious.

The statute says

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense

Did she know the info being stored met that criteria?

Absolutely.

a reply to: introvert

Interesting that you pick out that portion of the definition. Let's look at Comey's statement (which Strzok apparently edited), and see what he has to say about the matter:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

emphasis mine

Now, I suppose one could argue that Comey is only speaking generally here when he refers to, "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position," and he wasn't referring to Hillary specifically. But the problem with that is you are then saying that the law would only apply to any reasonable person and not Hillary Clinton.

And really, all of this minutiae is off topic and so I must offer apologies to the thread.



Been trying to find out more about Strzok, and as others have mentioned, not finding a whole lot. I did manage to find him in a legal complaint filed against the FBI over polygraph usage, but he is mentioned only once in the entire filing:

67.In or around July 1997, Croddy was extended an invitation to be interviewed for a position as an Intelligence Specialist. His first contact was with Special Agent Kathy Muller. He also spoke with members of the FBI unit dealing with chemical and biological terrorism incidents, including Pete Strzok, an Intelligence Research Specialist, his superior, Robert Shapiro, and additional analysts. Generally, the response was positive, and as far as Croddy could tell they were receptive to his submitting a formal application.

James Madison Project

Will keep looking to see if anything turns up. I hope we can get this thread back on track with this thread rather than wasting our time on circular arguments. And yes, I know I played a part in taking it off topic, mea culpa.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: burntheships

if cnn is reporting this the whole applecart is upset
the past admin is in trouble bigly

I wpuld like to be a fly on the wall in some of the CNN offices just hear them crying about how they are forced to let the truth out.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.

Can you prove proof she knew classified info was on the server?

Now you admit, she should have been charged.

Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.

Hillary signed a legal document stating she had been briefed.

That means, by her signature, that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Plain and simple.

Ok. Let me ask again, did she know classified material was on the server and it was her intent to provide the server for such purposes?

You say it's plain and simple, but as we learned from how the email issue played-out, you were completely wrong.

No what we learned from how it played out was that many people felt that comey

1. Has no right to be the one deciding on what a prosecutor would feel, seeing as he was merely an investigator.

2. Many people were baffled by the amount of immunity deals handed out that led to nothing.

3. Many people felt that comey laid out enough to recommend prosecution.

We know with 100 percent certainty that the destroying of subpeonead.evidence occured and is a serious crime, and yet no one was charged.

We know the circumstances i, which Hillary,was interviewed were extremely strange.

And now we know that the interviewer was biased toward Hillary.

All of your twisting will not change that.

a reply to: butcherguy

buy Kleenex stock
its the gift of the season

originally posted by: RadioRobert

Can you prove she knew classified info was on the server

Yes. She sent and received material as Sec.State which a reasonable person would have cause to believe was classified. Especially the ones that still had headers on them.
.
Is this really your question?

I have never seen it claimed that she sent emails with classification headers.

There was one email chain that had markers and it was never stated she initiated those emails.

wow, this thread has been an absolute beat down. I still cant believe 7 pages in we are still debating on "intent".

originally posted by: queenofswords
I don't know if it's true (I'll see if I can find corroborating information), but supposedly anti-Trump Strzok also led the probe into Weiner’s laptop that cleared Hillary. hmmmm....

If True, really explains more why they hid him in the basement.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

Can you prove she knew classified info was on the server

Yes. She sent and received material as Sec.State which a reasonable person would have cause to believe was classified. Especially the ones that still had headers on them.
.
Is this really your question?

That... and remember the emails where she told one of her people at the State Department to remove classification headers in order to send a document by nonsecure means?

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place

If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?

Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.

Can you prove proof she knew classified info was on the server?

Now you admit, she should have been charged.

Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.

Hillary signed a legal document stating she had been briefed.

That means, by her signature, that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Plain and simple.

Ok. Let me ask again, did she know classified material was on the server and it was her intent to provide the server for such purposes?

You say it's plain and simple, but as we learned from how the email issue played-out, you were completely wrong.

Of course she knew. If she claims she didn't, then she was grossly negligent in the handling of classified information.


You keep bypassing the FACT that she signed a document stating that she was fully aware of the laws and regulations concerning the safekeeping and handling of classified information.

Ok. And what is the punishment for what she did? Even Comey said the vast majority of issues like that are handled internally, not in the courts.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
wow, this thread has been an absolute beat down. I still cant believe 7 pages in we are still debating on "intent".

Especially when intent is not required acvording to the law.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Keep squirming, it hilarious.

The statute says

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense

Did she know the info being stored met that criteria?

Absolutely.

Still have no proof?

C'mon. Give us that proof.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Now, I suppose one could argue that Comey is only speaking generally here when he refers to, "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position," and he wasn't referring to Hillary specifically. But the problem with that is you are then saying that the law would only apply to any reasonable person and not Hillary Clinton.

No. It would apply to Hillary as well.

Comey also said those matters are handled within the departments and not in court, unless a serious violation took place.