Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

FBI recommends no charges for Clinton

267 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CrimsonKing
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

This is no "pageantry" 

It's a VERY serious Congressional oversight committee hearing.

Joke as you wish, or take it lightly, but they do not, nor I.

Your the one telling jokes here and only kidding yourself if you think this will amount to anything at all!

Sorry if i'm coming off as rude to you pallidin,i don't mean to be i'm just sick of all this BS!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
3 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, who screams "robbery" the loudest??? the thief 

No, the victim...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath
15 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Correct me if i'm wrong,but you are acting as if this "pagentry" accomplished something or anything at all really...

Just think for one second all the multi millions spent now by congress on Benghazi and now this and all the people get out of it is straight faced admission that if one is rich and powerful enough they can get away with anything!

Somehow it just seems easier to take if we don't so blatantly know that meh

I think I am the only person who appreciates the Benghazi Report.  I read the entire report and thought it was well written and thorough...  it presented me with the facts that contradicted my own preconceived notions and set me straight.

You're right that we would rather live in ignorance and hint about CT's and corruption but really not know for sure; it's when the corruption smacks you dead in the face, taunts you, and tells you to "toss its salad" that we get p***ed off.  However, in reality, all honestly, nothing changes and we'll all be on our way with nothing to show for it except another Clinton in the White House and a hurt butt.

Edited by Aftermath
grammar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
5 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Sorry if i'm coming off as rude to you pallidin,i don't mean to be i'm just sick of all this BS!

You are not being rude. You are expressing your opinion, which is valued.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

I have zero faith in the US system of government at this point.  If Hilary does not win the white house then I will have some faith but for now give me an X-Wing and a light sabre, I'm with the rebellion.

Lately I've been thinking the same thing. Turn off, tune out and wake me up for the rebellion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
20 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

I'm not asking them anything.  They're all bad guys.

There must be a few good guys. Of course, one good apple doesn't sweeten a barrel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
53 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

There must be a few good guys. Of course, one good apple doesn't sweeten a barrel.

Yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Anyone else reading about this yet?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/state-department-reopens-probe-into-clinton-emails/

Quote

Washington (CNN)The State Department is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

The State Department's announcement on Thursday was expected, as the department had suspended its probe while it was waiting for the Justice Department to complete its criminal investigation. But the State Department's announcement serves as a reminder that the email issue will continue to dog Clinton's campaign.


The State Department will now focus on whether current employees involved in handling or sending and receiving Clinton's emails should get disciplinary action, which could range from a reprimand to losing their security clearance. Former employees found to be mishandling classified information could also have notes put in their file that could also have consequences if they seek future employment with the government and need security clearance

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:


The State Department will now focus on whether current employees involved in handling or sending and receiving Clinton's emails should get disciplinary action, which could range from a reprimand to losing their security clearance.

So is this going to be a bottom up investigation since the top down version of it was stymied by the FBI's recommendations? There's no question the employees involved should be investigated, but the culprit who started it, should not escape disciplinary or legal action either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Clinton wasn't the only one doing this, so now they are going to investigate current employees that might be doing the same thing.  Hillary was by no means the start.  Rice and Powell did the same thing.  Laws and rules simply didn't keep up with technology fast enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Sounds like the hunt is on for a scapegoat to fall on their own sword on Shrillary's behalf.  Gee, didn't see that one coming, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Clinton wasn't the only one doing this, so now they are going to investigate current employees that might be doing the same thing.  Hillary was by no means the start.  Rice and Powell did the same thing.  Laws and rules simply didn't keep up with technology fast enough.

But this isn't about Rice and Powell.  It's about the Hildabeast.  Just because others did wrong doesn't mean she can get away with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
17 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

But this isn't about Rice and Powell.  It's about the Hildabeast.  Just because others did wrong doesn't mean she can get away with it.

Nope, it's not about her.  The new investigation is about current employees.  She is history as far the State Dept is concerned (just like Powell and Rice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz Dane

 

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 3:22 PM, questionmark said:

There was no IG during Hildebeast's tenure, mostly due to the fact that the one before that (Krongaard) was embroiled in the Blackwater thingy. As far as I remember there was somebody appointed by Congress during that time, I guess he was called Eisel. But I am not sure.

 

Sorry I'm late. :)

That's correct. There was NO Inspector General at the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary Of State. Obama didn't nominate one until 5 months after Clinton left Office. Nice delay.

But the reason there was no IG at the State Dept was not "mostly due to the fact that the one before that (Krongaard) was embroiled in the Blackwater thingy." That had nothing to do with it. Obama just decided to not nominate one. Period. And the White House has never said why.

Also, Congress did not appoint Harold Geisel, who was the "acting" Inspector General you're thinking of, the Bush Administration did in the summer of 2008. It was Condoleezza Rice that appointed him. She was Secretary Of State at that time. How convenient. :wacko:


I originally asked because I saw you said to Aftermath that "If they would have reported Clinton's server to the IG..." and I knew there was no IG to report to, and had an idea that you knew the same, which led me to wonder why you would make that statement to begin with.

BUT, if you were referring to Geisel as IG(acting IG) and stating that "If they would have reported Clinton's server..." to Geisel, I suggest that it still would not have mattered anyways.


First of all, despite his claims of how great a job he(Geisel) and his team did, and doubled the OIG staff and led a bunch of investigations etc, they STILL missed the fact that Clinton did ALL of her emails through a private server stashed at her home.

And not only that, Harold Geisel would be, and WAS then, ineligible to be Inspector General as he was A: a longtime foreign-service officer, and B: had previous ties to the Secretary Of State, through Bill Clinton's Administration, thus creating a conflict of interest which Congress has laws in place to prevent such hirings in both cases.

He was U.S. ambassador to Mauritius under Bill Clinton's Administration, and perhaps this relationship might be the reason he completely missed the fact that Secretary Of State Clinton was using a private server exclusively? Could be.


So overall, what we have is...

- Obama NOT nominating anyone for appointment as full time State Dept. IG, as mandated by law, and not giving any reason as to why.

- Hillary being able to operate ALL her email corrospondance through her personal server(s) with NO oversight whatsoever as a result.

- An "acting Inspector General" during Hillary's entire term in Office that was connected through her husband Bill, and was legally ineligible for the job. Which MAY explain why Obama never nominated one in the first place?


Obama has also failed to nominate IG's in other departments as well for extended periods of time. One of them being the National Archives and Records Administration which I find dubious at the least. It had no IG from September 2012 until March 2015. Someone manipulating records perhaps? That would be the time to do anyways.


For the State Dept IG and Hillary's server though, it looks like this was all intentional right from the start, with the goal of, Clinton/Obama being able to operate and communicate official corrosponance with no oversight at all, and have none of their relating records(in Hillary's server) go into the National Archives etc... Basically, leaving no record of what they had done... Perhaps in things like Libya, Syria, Banghazi and so on.


Personally, I think the real crimes were completely overlooked(as usual) and the "how she handled classified information" narrative, as fed to the public as being the real controversy, is a bunch of bs.

The real crimes are probably to be found in some of the almost 2,200 now-classified emails, that included 22 emails that were labeled as "Top Secret" and more likely than not in the 30,000+ emails that her and her team deleted and claimed they were ALL personal emails and "not work related".

Considering the amount of lies she has told, in just this email controversy alone, on top of the fact that she claimed there were no emails marked "classified" at the time(another proven lie), if she missed some of those in the 30,000+ emails she DID hand over, then of course there were classified emails she missed in the 30,000+ "personal" emails that she deleted from her server. Should any of those emails of that nature ever appear in the future, it would likely mean jail time... it "should" mean jail time is a better way to put it... the Teflon Clinton's have a knack for not only getting out scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal, but they prosper from them too somehow. :wacko:

 

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 3:29 PM, Michelle said:

Maybe you can find it on fact check...

IG Report on Clinton’s Emails The State Department inspector general contradicts several of Clinton's long-standing talking points.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

 

Hi Michelle :st ... it was a rhetorical question actually, but thanks for the input :) 

 

Edit - Spacing

Edited by Lemieux
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LucidElement
15 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Clinton wasn't the only one doing this, so now they are going to investigate current employees that might be doing the same thing.  Hillary was by no means the start.  Rice and Powell did the same thing.  Laws and rules simply didn't keep up with technology fast enough.

Show me where rice and Powell did the same thing..

 

where red they had unauthorized servers in their house and got hacked?. Show me where they lied under oath telling us that they didn't know when in fact they did... Thanks to James Comey, and the questions directed at him on capital hill... Hillary got ruined... So please show me where rice and Powell did the same ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
7 hours ago, LucidElement said:

Show me where rice and Powell did the same thing..

 

where red they had unauthorized servers in their house and got hacked?. Show me where they lied under oath telling us that they didn't know when in fact they did... Thanks to James Comey, and the questions directed at him on capital hill... Hillary got ruined... So please show me where rice and Powell did the same ... 

 http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/rice-powell-join-hillary-clinton-in-email-scandal/

The new investigation is about State Dept. personnel mishandling classified information.  Hillary and her private server got a pass from the FBI and Justice Dept. and are now "history".   The mistake posters here are doing is tying her into the new State Dept. investigation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
On 7/8/2016 at 11:07 AM, Gromdor said:

Nope, it's not about her.  The new investigation is about current employees.  She is history as far the State Dept is concerned (just like Powell and Rice).

This is all about Shrillary.  Don't pretend otherwise.  It's just shifted into the "finding a scapegoat" phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
33 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

This is all about Shrillary.  Don't pretend otherwise.  It's just shifted into the "finding a scapegoat" phase.

She doesn't need one. She's in the clear.  Now it's about correcting the problem, which is systemic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

In America the rich and powerful are often 'above the law'. This kind of thing is actually quite common. Slowly but surely the rule of law is being eroded, unless some big changes come to our society America will cease to function on the basic principles of the Constitution.

Just to add, I have a prediction: Mr Comey will step down as Director of the FBI. Oh, he may wait until after the election but I have a feeling his conscious will cause him to eventually step down.

Edited by Lilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
2 hours ago, Lilly said:

In America the rich and powerful are often 'above the law'. This kind of thing is actually quite common. Slowly but surely the rule of law is being eroded, unless some big changes come to our society America will cease to function on the basic principles of the Constitution.

Just to add, I have a prediction: Mr Comey will step down as Director of the FBI. Oh, he may wait until after the election but I have a feeling his conscious will cause him to eventually step down.

He would have to step down a little faster had he not secured a conviction.

What we are revisiting is the (in)famous Whitewater, there the odds of convicting her were around 10%, 12% in favor that all charges would be dismissed without a trial and 68% that it would have ended in a hung jury and around 10% that she would have been acquitted (according to state attorneys). So the charges were dropped.

I don't know how high the odds were this time but my bet is that getting a conviction by jury (and yes, all they would have admitted to that jury is people who are completely neutral... which means brain dead)  was not much better than 20%. So the charges were dropped.

And that is what happens when lawyers bend the law: they know how far they can go before ending up in jail... if they are any good at all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Bending the law and not breaking it, is how most become oligarchs in the first place.  Why is everyone surprised when they continue doing it? Further more, why do they seem to only care if it is someone they detest doing it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
On 7/9/2016 at 0:07 PM, Gromdor said:

She doesn't need one. She's in the clear.  Now it's about correcting the problem, which is systemic.  

She's not clear, it was only said they aren't going to do anything else to her.  They are now looking for the scapegoat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
36 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Bending the law and not breaking it, is how most become oligarchs in the first place.  Why is everyone surprised when they continue doing it? Further more, why do they seem to only care if it is someone they detest doing it?

She broke the law, she didn't bend it.  And she's getting away with it.  Why are you so focused on being such a cheerleader for her?  There is no denying with any credibility what she did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

She's not clear, it was only said they aren't going to do anything else to her.  They are now looking for the scapegoat.

"Not doing anything else to" translates to "in the clear" to me.  This really an Iran-Contra thing either where a scape goat is needed.  If anyone is going to fall on their sword for this, it would be the FBI director, as Lily said.  For failing to take down the dragon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
9 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

She broke the law, she didn't bend it.  And she's getting away with it.  Why are you so focused on being such a cheerleader for her?  There is no denying with any credibility what she did.

Honestly, I'm trying to bring a cold dose of reality to people who still seem to think that there is a chance to indict her.  Do I think she is guilty?  Yes.  

Do I think that any chance to indict and convict her was ruined in exchange for political capital by the Republicans over the years?  Yes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.