Justice Department reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation

a reply to: Shamrock6

No it wasnt. Stop Trying to change the laws to suit yourself because if what you say is true she would have been charged but she wasn't because it wasn't illegal.
You really think you know more than the FBI about this law? No.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You could have 74 million email accounts...
You’d still only need one device, that’s 1, I’ll repeat that, ONE, to access them all.

That’s the beauty of a browser.


And anyways, that still doesn’t answer your “convenience” argument, regarding servers...
Does the secure server used by Gov not accommodate all email accounts?

Before you answer that, I don’t believe you.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Shamrock6

No it wasnt. Stop Trying to change the laws to suit yourself because if what you say is true she would have been charged but she wasn't because it wasn't illegal.
You really think you know more than the FBI about this law? No.

I know how the law would treat me since my last name is not Clinton and I would be in jail for what she did, there are people in jail right now for doing less than what she did.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Shamrock6

No it wasnt. Stop Trying to change the laws to suit yourself because if what you say is true she would have been charged but she wasn't because it wasn't illegal.
You really think you know more than the FBI about this law? No.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information

Sending classified information to your husband's laptop via a yahoo email account would be a violation of that law. Since I copied and pasted it from the US Code, it's pretty clearly not my made up law.

I leave making things up to you.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Shamrock6

No it wasnt. Stop Trying to change the laws to suit yourself because if what you say is true she would have been charged but she wasn't because it wasn't illegal.
You really think you know more than the FBI about this law? No.

investigators who she had some hold on said she was innocent. oh yeah totally legit.

leverage to end the Mueller investigation

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As if a page out of a thesaurus is going to change facts. You wish.

"(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, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

18 U.S. Code § 793

"Although Director Comey's original version of his statement acknowledged that Secretary Clinton had violated the statute prohibiting gross negligence in the handling of classified information, he nonetheless exonerated her in that early, May 2nd draft statement anyway, arguing that this part of the statute should not be enforced," Grassley wrote.

A source familiar with the decision-making process at the FBI at the time tells CNN that "the Bureau and Jim were trying to see what a statement of declamation might look like -- and they were playing with the language throughout. The one thing that's a constant is that they thought what they had seen so far, subject to change, was that charges would not be appropriate but that the conduct was worthy of criticism. It was a matter of how to explain both."

"They wanted to get a sense of what this statement might look like," the source said. "They hadn't stopped investigating and they were continuing to seek access to all sorts of things from Hillary that she was fighting to have to turn over. But they also wanted internally to discuss what an end game might look like."

Source explains why Comey didn't use 'grossly negligent' to describe Clinton

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless [grossly negligent] in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information"

James Comey

It looks like a criminal, with the help of her deep state lackeys, got the popular vote.

a reply to: Sillyolme

“I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” a self-assured Clinton told more than 200 reporters crowded into a U.N. corridor.

“Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone.”

Reuters

This is also where Hillary lies about having been given permission to use the private server.

OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server....DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business,

...

they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff.

The pertinent testimony from the former Chief of Staff, who declined OIG’s request for an interview, reads as follows:
Q
Was anyone consulted about Secretary Clinton exclusively using a personal email address for her work?
A
I don't recall that. If it did happen, I wasn't part of that process. But I don’t believe there was a consultation around it, or at least there's not one that I’m aware of, maybe I should better answer that way based on my knowledge.
Q
So no private counsel?
A
Not that I'm aware of.
Q
Okay. The general counsel for the State Department?
A
Not that I'm aware of.
Q
Okay. Anybody from the National Archives?
A
Not that I'm aware of. But I can only speak to my knowledge, obviously.
Q
Sure. And anyone from the White House?
A
Not that I'm aware of.

So no, she did not have permission and lied about it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You should be careful about trying to change the laws to suit yourself.

Because y'know...quoting US Code is apparently changing laws now.

It's admirable how you're all trying to talk some sense into her but it is a lost cause. Like Shamrock already mentioned she just ignores the evidence. She always does that. I'm not wasting my time on someone who willfully ignores everything you present to her. I just give up. She will have her meltdown soon enough and i no longer care.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You should be careful about trying to change the laws to suit yourself.

Because y'know...quoting US Code is apparently changing laws now.

I guess so long as we change the wording of the crime to something synonymous, yet not found in the statute, it's proof of innocence. This reminds me, I should think of some synonyms to get out of that parking violation. Stopped car transgression?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Hazardous1408

The evidence to date says otherwise. Specifically McCabes wife and the donations to her campaign.

McCabe is not a deity...
This is the consequence of more than one person at the FBI...

Secondly, those donations are highly likely to have been coerced via blackmail, or the less likely option to procure favour.
The idea that those donations are a result of actual agreement or kinship with the most despised woman in the Western world is absolutely at the bottom of the pile of possible reasons.

As the 2nd in command at the FBI McCabe was responsible for the Clinton investigation oversight. I do agree it was more than just McCabe at the FBI with their fingers in this pot.

The issues with the donations revolves around the investigation into Clinton and a few other problems. McCabe never recused himself from Clintons investigation, violating conflict of interest policies. He failed to disclose those donations on his reporting. He also campaigned for his wife and used his government email account to doso, which is a further law violation.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah after having worked the case for a year. Her interview was simple confirmation.
The facts had already led them to their conclusions. They didn't and wouldn't decide this based solely on her interview. That's the dumbest thing ever suggested.

Actually it would be a combination of her testimony / interview coupled with other evidence. All evidence to date says the Clinton investigation was set up to fail from the start, or as it was referred to "a FBI headquarters special".

Also using your logic Trump has been under investigation for over a year and nothing has been found. So you are saying Trump is in the clear then as well?

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Taking his wallet would be evidence to connect the killer with Seth, that would be an amateur mistake. Seth's body would have been identified fairly quickly without the wallet.

Any new leads or clues to the killers?

What about this hit makes you believe it wasn't perfectly airtight?

Well I think a fresh look into this matter from a DOJ and FBI under less influence from a Democratic administration will be a good thing.


watching members try debate Sillyolme is quite fun

First she counted on the stupidity of her adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, she herself simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, she pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, she changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, she immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack her, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck her so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, she couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. She had not the slightest recollection of the day before, she rattled off her same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; she couldn't remember a thing, except that she had proved the correctness of her assertions the previous day.

a reply to: oddnutz

Probably (without a doubt) the most accurate description ever.

I imagine if there had been a few pre dawn raids on Huma and Hillary
there would have been loads of evidence that would have been
beyond damning.

Could this be why there have been several new "suicides?"

There are too many people involved in covering
for Hillary, this has always been one of her tricks.
Strategy is they all go down or protect her.
We will see how many more deaths come from this.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Hazardous1408

No they're not. You can call an apple an orange all day long but it won't change it into an orange. Sorry. That's trumps words coming out of your mouth. Familiar with the term puppet.


no puppet...

Puppet is someone that takes millions in bribe money for her "foundation" from Russia to selloff 20% of US Uranium.

Lying puppet, actually, and about as smart.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Nothing in the past investigation will be relevant

Statue of limitations has not run out, it is all fair game again...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

What incriminating evidence if you please?

Lying to the FBI.
Breaking the law on the transmission of classified material
All confirmed, just no action taken.