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

pallidin

Many heads will (should) roll on this extremely serious breach of procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

lol, no, no heads will roll, our gvmnt is too corrupt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The state department is not populated by Dem puppets or Rep puppets. Most of those who work there are civil servants and they will be there under many Secretaries. If they would have reported Clinton's server to the IG it either would have been taken down or as previously since the beginning of email would have ignored that things are not done according to procedure (in fact, it would not surprise me if they knew about it long before they admit it). And that means the oversight was OK with it.

Ok, after this I'll be done.

"President Barack Obama didn’t put forward a nominee to lead the inspector general’s office while Mrs. Clinton led the State Department, making it the only agency with a presidentially appointed inspector general that had neither a confirmed nor nominated head watchdog during that full time period."  (http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-department-lacked-top-watchdog-during-hillary-clinton-tenure-1427239813)

While Clinton was the Secretary of State there was no confirmed Inspector General.  This is not a coincidence, nor a conspiracy theory (anymore).  Oversight wasn't "OK with it" because there wasn't any oversight.  Once an IG was in place, this happened:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

https://news.vice.com/article/inspector-general-state-department-report-hillary-clinton-private-email

You need to get educated on the matter, digest the information, and be honest. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Yes, they should but they won't because apparently the Clinton crime syndicate is more powerful now than even the FBI.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Congress was not previously aware of it. Congress is the governing oversight.

So, NO, "internal oversight" was NOT OK because it violated Congressional oversight.

Get it?

You mean that Congress knows everything, down to the content of the coffee fund, in the different departments?

There are hundreds of things Congress does not know and hundreds more they do know and not act about.

What Congress wants to know is how the tax money is spend, and that is what they call people to testify about (unless, of course, they want to whack the current government).

And to put it in perspective: According to the IG report Clinton had 22 emails classified, Rice 10 emails (and she never send them herself but had her staff do it... with to this day unclear what kind of clearance they had) and Powell 2 emails. Which is the best demonstration that this whole thingy is about politicking and not about national security.

 

Share this post


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

Yes, they should but they won't because apparently the Clinton crime syndicate is more powerful now than even the FBI.  

lol,  if you assume for a second fbi is her crime syndicate, pieces start falling in place

Share this post


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

You mean that Congress knows everything, down to the content of the coffee fund, in the different departments?

There are hundreds of things Congress does not know and hundreds more they do know and not act about.

What Congress wants to know is how the tax money is spend, and that is what they call people to testify about (unless, of course, they want to whack the current government).

And to put it in perspective: According to the IG report Clinton had 22 emails classified, Rice 10 emails (and she never send them herself but had her staff do it... with to this day unclear what kind of clearance they had) and Powell 2 emails. Which is the best demonstration that this whole thingy is about politicking and not about national security.

 

There are special, "Select Committees" of Congress that handles such grievous matters.

And they (according to the news) are coming to our (public) aid to address this situation.

Including -but not limited to- a demand of full FBI disclosure to Congress, as well as the "reasoning" for non-indictment.

 

Share this post


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

There are special, "Select Committees" of Congress that handles such grievous matters.

And they (according to the news) are coming to our (public) aid to address this situation.

Including -but not limited to- a demand of full FBI disclosure to Congress, as well as the "reasoning" for non-indictment.

 

And that will come, and will be: we have nothing to convict her on... so far.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz Dane

 

 

38 minutes ago, questionmark said:

If they would have reported Clinton's server to the IG it either would have been taken down or as previously since the beginning of email would have ignored that things are not done according to procedure (in fact, it would not surprise me if they knew about it long before they admit it). And that means the oversight was OK with it.

 

Can you tell me the name of the State Department's Inspector General during Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary Of State?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
33 minutes ago, Clair said:

GOP Ad - Hillary vs. Comey

 

I think she lies so much that it doesn't bother her at all.   She's untouchable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
1 hour ago, pallidin said:

Don't worry too much. It appears that Congress is coming to our aid on this matter.

Oh, yay, our saviors...

yeah, /sarcasm

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, questionmark said:

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.

 

It was proven as soon as she signed off on her briefing about the handling of classified materials and also the documented attempts of members of the state department and her personal staff telling her that it was against procedure to use her personal email for government business.  Both of these conditions having been discussed extensively in the media for months.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
9 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

 

 

 

Can you tell me the name of the State Department's Inspector General during Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary Of State?

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.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


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

Oh, yay, our saviors...

yeah, /sarcasm

People are p***ed-off about this, and yes, Congressional members are people.

Share this post


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

And to put it in perspective: According to the IG report Clinton had 22 emails classified, Rice 10 emails (and she never send them herself but had her staff do it... with to this day unclear what kind of clearance they had) and Powell 2 emails. Which is the best demonstration that this whole thingy is about politicking and not about national security.

 

irrelevant because the regulations trampled on by Clinton were put in place near the end of Rice's term.  How can you not know that?

Share this post


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

irrelevant because the regulations trampled on by Clinton were put in place near the end of Rice's term.  How can you not know that?

The law regarding classified documents that you keep harping on to be relevant in this case was enacted in 1934. That would be quite a time before the tenure of any of them. So not irrelevant. On top of that, using a public server, such as America Online or Verizon makes the sysops have access to the emails. And that makes them even more insecure than a private server. Try again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
15 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

Can you tell me the name of the State Department's Inspector General during Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary Of State?

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/

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

People are p***ed-off about this, and yes, Congressional members are people.

Sure, individually they'll make some noise.  But they're just as much part of the problem as the rest of the government.

I certainly hope SOMEONE does something and prevents Shrillary from getting away with this.  And I hope every person involved that has helped her out is met with the same justice.  And if that someone is Congress, great!  But I'm not holding my breath on this one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The law regarding classified documents that you keep harping on to be relevant in this case was enacted in 1934. That would be quite a time before the tenure of any of them. So not irrelevant. On top of that, using a public server, such as America Online or Verizon makes the sysops have access to the emails. And that makes them even more insecure than a private server. Try again.

 

The procedures concerning emails and the use of a .gov email address were instituted near the end of Rice's tenure. 

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


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

Sure, individually they'll make some noise.  But they're just as much part of the problem as the rest of the government.

I certainly hope SOMEONE does something and prevents Shrillary from getting away with this.  And I hope every person involved that has helped her out is met with the same justice.  And if that someone is Congress, great!  But I'm not holding my breath on this one.

I truly understand your frustration.

Hopefully, in this case, Congress sees this situation as very serious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

As per the link...

The IG report also said the only other secretary of state to use personal email “exclusively” for government business was Colin Powell, contrary to Clinton’s claim that her “predecessors” — plural — “did the same thing.” The IG also said that, like Clinton, Powell did not comply with policies on preserving work-related emails.

But the IG report said the comparison to Powell — who did not use a private server — only goes so far. It said during Clinton’s tenure, the rules governing personal email and the use of nongovernment systems were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” citing specific memos that warned department employees about the security risks of not using the government system.

“Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,” the report said.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The procedures concerning emails and the use of a .gov email address were instituted near the end of Rice's tenure.  You're not worth arguing with.

That is also irrelevant when we are talking about a law that existed since 1934. It is either applicable to all, then all who used private servers or services are to be indicted or it does not. Then it is irrelevant whether they used a private server (BTW, that would apply to Dubya too).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Then it is irrelevant whether they used a private server...

Seriously?? Use of a private server to conduct official government communications is HIGHLY relevant, and illegal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
6 minutes ago, questionmark said:

That is also irrelevant when we are talking about a law that existed since 1934. It is either applicable to all, then all who used private servers or services are to be indicted or it does not. Then it is irrelevant whether they used a private server (BTW, that would apply to Dubya too).

 

I suggest you read the post above yours and also the link I provided.

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.