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

questionmark
Just now, Lilly said:

Wait a second, Saddam was a "really bad guy" but at least he was "good at killing terrorists" was said to get Mrs Clinton elected? That's ridiculous. That was just Trump running his mouth without thinking (yet again).

Also, we need to remember (regarding Mrs Clinton's e-mail). The law states that intending to leak secrets is illegal as well as carelessness leading to leaked secrets (also illegal).

As long as Trump "runs his mouth without thinking" Hildebeast will be leading in the polls. Wherein, if he is only half the businessman everybody takes him for he can't be THAT stupid. Because he should be dead broke by now if he is.

And the problem you, me, the FBI and whoever else has is: There is no evidence that any secrets leaked. Bring some of that and you will be my hero forever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Well, like Voltaire said: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize".

BTW, the law does not state that secrets have to be actively leaked in order to violate the law. Using "carelessness" when handling classified materials is also a violation of law. It's certainly a lesser violation, but it's against the law none the less. Basically, anything that could put classified materials in danger is illegal.

 

Edited by Lilly
typo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
2 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Looks to me America (both the Republican congress and a few ambitious prosecutors in the FBI have wasted a lot of money trying to find something on Mrs. Clinton and have not.  It is just ugly politics and the Republicans should be punished for it.

Basic rule of politics: if you are persuaded someone hasI done something corrupt, then you can make your name prosecuting and investigating, but if it is just to slander the person, you lose more than they do.  Those who think she has done wrong in the two cases I'm aware of (Benghazi and the email nonsense) have a burden to either produce persuasive evidence or to shut up.

 

You know dam well if this was a weaker politicans that they would of been prosecuted .

 

She broke they law. They counted it as "careless" and let her off the hook. 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

You know dam well if this was a weaker politicans that they would of been prosecuted 

I doubt that. And not because I did not hope that the FBI would pull some hacker out of their hat who had hacked Hildebeast's server. To be guilty of espionage you have to either have done it so others get access (regardless whether they did or not) or you have to have somebody accessing it because you were careless. Both counts could not be proven.

And espionage is the only thing that applies here.

 

Share this post


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

Maybe Putin will do us a solid and reveal the contents of her emails. Of course, *he's* the bad guy. :rolleyes:

That's not true, he's not THE bad guy, just A bad guy. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
4 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Looks to me....

And thankfully your view on things is neither correct or cared about around here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Didn't the FBI extradite a hacker who claimed he hacked Hillary's computer?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, Gromdor said:

Didn't the FBI extradite a hacker who claimed he hacked Hillary's computer?

No, there was a hacker who claimed that he did it for the Russians. But as he provided no evidence that statement was discarded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
11 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

And thankfully your view on things is neither correct or cared about around here.

It's a shame I can only like that once.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Careful_perspective
5 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Looks to me America (both the Republican congress and a few ambitious prosecutors in the FBI have wasted a lot of money trying to find something on Mrs. Clinton and have not.  It is just ugly politics and the Republicans should be punished for it.

Basic rule of politics: if you are persuaded someone has done something corrupt, then you can make your name prosecuting and investigating, but if it is just to slander the person, you lose more than they do.  Those who think she has done wrong in the two cases I'm aware of (Benghazi and the email nonsense) have a burden to either produce persuasive evidence or to shut up.

 

Edit...never mind. 

Edited by Rinna
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Looks to me America (both the Republican congress and a few ambitious prosecutors in the FBI have wasted a lot of money trying to find something on Mrs. Clinton and have not.  It is just ugly politics and the Republicans should be punished for it.

Basic rule of politics: if you are persuaded someone has done something corrupt, then you can make your name prosecuting and investigating, but if it is just to slander the person, you lose more than they do.  Those who think she has done wrong in the two cases I'm aware of (Benghazi and the email nonsense) have a burden to either produce persuasive evidence or to shut up.

 

So you think she hasn't done anything wrong?  You need to do some research in that case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
4 hours ago, questionmark said:

There is a slight difference: Petraeus actually gave classified information to a non-authorized 3d person.

Ummm...eurotrash hacker got all of Hilary's which is a good indication that so did every foreign intelligence agency.  Hello.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, OverSword said:

Ummm...eurotrash hacker got all of Hilary's which is a good indication that so did every foreign intelligence agency.  Hello.

Evidence?

No?

Nothing!

And  that is what all don't get. Somebody who claims to have hacked her is not enough if he cannot at least recite the IP address the server had on that day (or its fixed IP when it was still operational), better yet, present some classified information he pulled off that server.

Everything else is hearsay.

I can claim I hacked her. But that would certainly go as well over as those now claiming they did because I have no evidence either. Nor does the server contain any record of an unauthorized access (which even my Micky-Mouse server would show if it was hacked because of the record containing rejected connections to it) that the FBI mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
51 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Didn't the FBI extradite a hacker who claimed he hacked Hillary's computer?

 

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

Evidence?

No?

Nothing!

And  that is what all don't get. Somebody who claims to have hacked her is not enough if he cannot at least recite the IP address the server had on that day (or its fixed IP when it was still operational), better yet, present some classified information he pulled off that server.

Everything else is hearsay.

I can claim I hacked her. But that would certainly go as well over as those now claiming they did because I have no evidence either. Nor does the server contain any record of an unauthorized access (which even my Micky-Mouse server would show if it was hacked because of the record containing rejected connections to it) that the FBI mentioned.

Then why is he in an American jail working out a plea deal?  Where do you even get your BS from QM?  You say it doesn't matter about Hillary's private server because they can't prove she intended to commit a crime.  You're wrong.  You say Guccifer didn't hack her emails.  You're wrong.  You're wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, OverSword said:

 

Then why is he in an American jail working out a plea deal?  Where do you even get your BS from QM?  You say it doesn't matter about Hillary's private server because they can't prove she intended to commit a crime.  You're wrong.  You say Guccifer didn't hack her emails.  You're wrong.  You're wrong.

If he was working out a deal with Hillary and classified material involved the FBI would not have closed the case (in fact, they could not with pending information they are aware of). That would be an ongoing investigation then. Where do you get your BS from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse

All I want to say is what's under my avatar. That and add me to the list of people who can't wait to get pulled over and say "Officer, I didn't mean to so you can't give me a ticket. Besides, what difference does it make now?".  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
1 minute ago, Varelse said:

All I want to say is what's under my avatar. That and add me to the list of people who can't wait to get pulled over and say "Officer, I didn't mean to so you can't give me a ticket. Besides, what difference does it make now?".  

Well, that always depends on how the law is written. When the espionage laws were written they accounted for human error. For example: If somebody authorized to have classified information is transporting it in his car, stops at McDonald's to get a burger and leaves the documents in the car that is against the rules. If he gets back into the car and nothing has happened there will be no consequences even if it becomes known (except getting chewed out by his boss if it is the first time, fired if it is habitual). If his car gets stolen while he was eating his BigMac he most probably will have a long indigestion. If the car gets stolen and the documents end in enemy hands the indigestion will be even longer.

Now, traffic laws don't allow for that leeway. You are too fast and you get fined, you are too fast and kill somebody you go to jail (for being reckless). And that is the same principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Well, that always depends on how the law is written. When the espionage laws were written they accounted for human error. For example: If somebody authorized to have classified information is transporting it in his car, stops at McDonald's to get a burger and leaves the documents in the car that is against the rules. If he gets back into the car and nothing has happened there will be no consequences even if it becomes known (except getting chewed out by his boss if it is the first time, fired if it is habitual). If his car gets stolen while he was eating his BigMac he most probably will have a long indigestion. If the car gets stolen and the documents end in enemy hands the indigestion will be even longer.

 

Prove it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

what did you expect carny works for Obama and so does the justice department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

It appears (through CNN and Fox) that certain high-level congressional committee chairs have written a formal letter to the DOJ/FBI demanding to know why, specifically, Mrs Clinton is not being prosecuted.

Should get interesting. Apparently some significant members of Congress, on both sides of the isle, are ticked-off about the recommendation to not seek prosecution.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

Whoa there - let’s get some facts straight.  What exactly were the laws Hillary was purported to violate?

1.    Executive Order 13526 & 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) – mishandling classified information
2.    Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) – violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
3.    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – violation of FOIA

In the matter of EO 13526 & 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f), the mishandling classified information, no intend is required.  It’s merely unlawful to send or store classified material on personal email.  I believe the punishment is up to 1 year in prison and some sort of fine.  In the matter of the 2009 NARA, she violated the Federal Records Act by simply deleting emails and her schedules; no steps were taken to preserve.  Finally, the FOIA request regarding Benghazi related emails which has not been met.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Prove it.

Did you not post the law yourself on this thread? Read it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse
Just now, Aftermath said:

Whoa there - let’s get some facts straight.  What exactly were the laws Hillary was purported to violate?

1.    Executive Order 13526 & 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) – mishandling classified information
2.    Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) – violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
3.    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – violation of FOIA

In the matter of EO 13526 & 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f), the mishandling classified information, no intend is required.  It’s merely unlawful to send or store classified material on personal email.  I believe the punishment is up to 1 year in prison and some sort of fine.  In the matter of the 2009 NARA, she violated the Federal Records Act by simply deleting emails and her schedules; no steps were taken to preserve.  Finally, the FOIA request regarding Benghazi related emails which has not been met.

#4. Perjury. (Purported)  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Did you not post the law yourself on this thread? Read it.

 

Yes and I didn't read those conditions or similar on them.

 

Edit to add:  I have got to stay away from this thread I'm so disgusted with our government and our law enforcement agencies right now I'm about to punch holes in the wall.  So sorry for my rudeness.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
2 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

Whoa there - let’s get some facts straight.  What exactly were the laws Hillary was purported to violate?

1.    Executive Order 13526 & 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) – mishandling classified information
2.    Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) – violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
3.    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – violation of FOIA

In the matter of EO 13526 & 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f), the mishandling classified information, no intend is required.  It’s merely unlawful to send or store classified material on personal email.  I believe the punishment is up to 1 year in prison and some sort of fine.  In the matter of the 2009 NARA, she violated the Federal Records Act by simply deleting emails and her schedules; no steps were taken to preserve.  Finally, the FOIA request regarding Benghazi related emails which has not been met.

Here is (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.

----

The first part of the law has evidently been met, what has not been proven is the bolded part. And if (1) or (2) are not been proven then there is no year in jail nor a fine. The worst that could happen is that she gets fired.

 

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.