More classified emails on Clinton server

[Merc14]

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I shall simply repeat my statement, as it seems to be unreadable or not able to be understood.  I'll even repeat the exact words of Astra's post that I was quite politely and correctly addressing:

No, no need to repeat as it was very simple and of course it was readable, why wouldn't it be?   You obviously didn't get my point, which was a little more complicated  and spelled out that when the suspect destroys the only direct evidence you have then you rarely, if ever, get direct evidence of intent.  Your position is that "If I don't have direct evidence of someone's guilt, no matter how suspicious their actions, then I will never prosecute, and Gowdy's was that if a suspect does enough highly suspicious and illegal things, which Hillary obviously did, then a reasonable jury will assume inent ..

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

If Astra was not speculating about the emails content, well, then I can't read English.  If there were particular crimes that were worthy of prosecution amongst these emails (they were deleted and wiped, yet she handed them over?  ..whatever.. I'm losing the will to live), then what were they?  And if she is not being prosecuted despite them being so serious, then perhaps you should:

a - take your anger out on those who aren't prosecuting, and ask yourself why, with Trump in power, this isn't being actively pursued..

I'm not angry, I find your position laughable and sad,  Laughable because the woman obviously was covering crimes up and sad because so many on the left have bought into the Clinton lies in the past and refused to just say no when this criminal was running for president in 2016.  Nope, instead they just chose not to vote and stayed silent.

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

b - be patient, and when the investigations are completed and crimes beyond what I first pointed out are revealed, and will repeat AGAIN below, then applaud with glee!

I then correctly said:

Your reply here, simply says that the emails were deleted/wiped.  Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said.....

And your next reply again refers to her 'mishandling' gov't information, and quotes people talking about that - no other specific crimes seem to be mentioned.

 

If I missed something, please quote the bits that refer to indictable crimes beyond the emails/deletion.

For about the hundredth time, I am not defending Clinton, nor am I angrily slanging off at Astra (besides, she's a tough young boot and will defend herself if necessary, I'm sure!)...  But surely it is just a teensy bit better to have direct evidence of criminality, than to make statements like these:

You most certainly are defending her and somehow missed my point that direct evidence of intent is rarely found.   I wish you'd read what I post instead of reacting so angrily and defensively.  

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

WHICH crimes?  Be specific.  And let's assume that this case 'designed to prove intent' (que?) succeeded, what the heck does that mean?  onto to stage 2 where they prosecute her for intention, not actual crimes?  I truly do not understand this..

Time to have a separate debate regarding the mishandling f clasified information.  You have repeatedly stated that intent to commit a crimne is a requirement for eiing found guilty of violating the law inquestion. Comey said teh same thing.  I have said that intent is absolutely NOT a requirement and, in factt, the law is designed to punish those who "get sloppy handling classified information".  I ask you to show me where teh lllaw states intent is a requirement for prosecution. 

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Sorry, but the more I see of this, the more I think it is rather analogous to UFO=alienz.  We're always asking for evidence beyond reasonable doubt for alienz visiting earth - but is intent enough?  I'm sure there are alienz out there, and if technological, would love to visit earth....

Well, you can wish that all you want and it is still sillly.  The only one trying to defend  the indefensible (33k emails to her husband, who doesn't use email, discussing yoga and discussing her daughter's wedding, is laughable) is you IMHO.

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

The point which I made at the start, and which I am sticking to, is that many people in various administrations dating back decades have done the wrong thing with private email accounts.  Sure, Clinton appears to have taken that to a new level, and I would happily agree that most likely she has done other stuff well worthy of prosecution, but that *speculation* is worthless *until* the specific crimes are properly outlined and proven..  As I said earlier, the crimes that are proven to date are that she ran private email account/s, and used a private server to do so, and deleted emails or got others to do so.

No one has set up their own server and then destroyed the hard drive of said server after being ordered to preserve the contents and turn it over.  It is your claim so I ask that you show me this similar behavior please.

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

If you have more to add to that - ie actual prosecutable crimes she has committed, then I'm all ears.  But none of the posts above seem to be getting us anywhere....

Absolutely,please go read the law that she violated and show me how she isn't guilty.  Intent is not a requirement BTW.   Subsection (f) of the pertinent statute , he Espionage Act, codified at Section 793 of Title 18, U.S. Code

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447318/james-comey-hillary-clinton-lacked-criminal-intent-he-reiterates

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Astra. said:

Yes, but this woman wasn't just any ordinary government public servant who went against the rules. She once held a very important and high powered position in government which she obviously took advantage of and abused in more ways than one. Also, and as far as I'm concerned, James Comey was weak and the wrong person to lead the investigation. He became far too politicised and arrogant, and I certainly blame him for allowing her to get off as easily as she did by making such a mess of the case. It was all rather bizarre. Also, I didn't really agree 'in the way' that Trump had fired him...but at the end of the day one had to question what Comey's motives were really about (all very confusing) so he basically deserved to be ousted.   

I think it is obvious that ChrLzs has chosen to give this criminal every possible benefit of the doubt.  Why?  I have no idea, he says he isn't defending her but I find that as unbelievable as Hillary saying all the 33K emails she wiped ("Like, with a rag?") were about yoga (Does she look like she does yoga?), her daughter's wedding and communicating with her husband (who doesn't use email, LMAO).  

I think the lesson here is she got as far as she did because far too many people on the left have given her this same benefit of the doubt the last two decades.  The result is she stole the nomination in 2016, she destroyed evidence after it was subpoenaed, she is likely the target in one of the biggest pubic corruption cases in US history (we can only hope) and the US public has been slapped in the face with proof that there is two sets of laws in their country, one for the ruling class (members of the democrat party) and one for the peons (everyone else).

I agree that Comey was the wrong person to decide the action to be taken in her case.  Number one , his job is as a law enforcement officer, not a prosecutor and he had no business deciding her fate that was the job of the second in command at the DoJ. the fact that Loretta lynch had disqualified herself by meeting with Bill Clinton privately aboard her jet just days before just adds an extra layer of stink to this whole sordid mess.  Second, Comey's fifteen minute speech was nothing but evidence that she should be indicted yet he chose to not do so on the excuse that she never showed intent to mishandle classified material (how absurd!), something absolutely not required for prosecution.  When she destroyed that evidence after being ordered to protect it is plenty of reason to prosecute (believe me, I know people prosecuted for less).  At the very least she should have been barred from ever holding a clearance again.

The whole mess is water under the bridge but congress is at least bringing both Comey and Lynch in to figure out what they were doing.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Merc14

[Astra.]

44 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I think it is obvious that ChrLzs has chosen to give this criminal every possible benefit of the doubt.  Why?  I have no idea, he says he isn't defending her but I find that as unbelievable as Hillary saying all the 33K emails she wiped ("Like, with a rag?") were about yoga (Does she look like she does yoga?), her daughter's wedding and communicating with her husband (who doesn't use email, LMAO). 

 If it's light I suppose...

Hopefully (and I don't say that lightly) and in due time, when more of the rotten onion layers are peeled back off Clinton and she is finally exposed for who she really is. Then maybe ChrLzs and other folk will change their minds once they see this woman's true colours.  

44 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I think the lesson here is she got as far as she did because far too many people on the left have given her this same benefit of the doubt the last two decades.  The result is she stole the nomination in 2016, she destroyed evidence after it was subpoenaed, she is likely the target in one of the biggest pubic corruption cases in US history (we can only hope) and the US public has been slapped in the face with proof that there is two sets of laws in their country, one for the ruling class (members of the democrat party) and one for the peons (everyone else).

Yeah, well it was the destroyed evidence (the colossal amount of emails) that she claimed were all personal that got my warning bells ringing. I mean seriously, how was the timing of getting rid of them, and then she had the audacity to lie that she destroyed them 'before' she was subpoenaed ??...not to mention the other contradictions. One would have to be extremely gullible as to not question this. 

44 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I agree that Comey was the wrong person to decide the action to be taken in her case.  Number one , his job is as a law enforcement officer, not a prosecutor and he had no business deciding her fate that was the job of the second in command at the DoJ. the fact that Loretta lynch had disqualified herself by meeting with Bill Clinton privately aboard her jet just days before just adds an extra layer of stink to this whole sordid mess.  Second, Comey's fifteen minute speech was nothing but evidence that she should be indicted yet he chose to not do so on the excuse that she never showed intent to mishandle classified material (how absurd!), something absolutely not required for prosecution.  When she destroyed that evidence after being ordered to protect it is plenty of reason to prosecute (believe me, I know people prosecuted for less).  At the very least she should have been barred from ever holding a clearance again.

The whole mess is water under the bridge but congress is at least bringing both Comey and Lynch in to figure out what they were doing.

Yes, it's all been a very messy and tangled web indeed....and Comey had much to do with it. Yep, I agree about Bill Clinton and the Lynch woman meeting...very, very strange. To have been a fly on the wall eh?....I'm sure they chatted about other things, rather than golf and grand kids....if memory serves right  ..

I think what gets me the most about all of this messy-muddle was the insult to the peoples intelligence. Anyway, fingers and toes crossed, that eventually all of the Hillary muck will eventually rise to the surface, and things will become more transparent (for once and for all)  Please keep this thread posted, if you hear anything new.  

[+DieChecker]

It seems to me that Clinton's decision to delete the 30,000 emails was what did her in. The FBI later found that 17,000 emails that were not turned over did in fact contain work related matter. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308

Quote

However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-found-15000-clinton-emails/story?id=41576112

Quote

The FBI uncovered nearly 15,000 more emails and materials sent to or from Hillary Clinton as part of the agency's investigation into her use of private email at the State Department.

The documents were not among the 30,000 work-related emails turned over to the State Department by her attorneys in December 2014.

The woman knows how to Lie, I'll give her that.....

Edited October 7, 2017 by DieChecker

[Merc14]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It seems to me that Clinton's decision to delete the 30,000 emails was what did her in. The FBI later found that 17,000 emails that were not turned over did in fact contain work related matter. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-found-15000-clinton-emails/story?id=41576112

The woman knows how to Lie, I'll give her that.....

Yes, she and her husband are two of the most prolific liars in US history and why the left trusts them still or ever gives them the benefit of the doubt, is a mystery to me, I can only guess it is part of the mental disorder.  If one is to speculate about these two then always suspect that something sinister is going on and that money is involved, you will always be correct.  Hopefully teh DoJ has not backed off prosecuting them for public corruption.

[ChrLzs]

On 10/6/2017 at 10:00 PM, DieChecker said:

Given her position as Sec of State (#4 in line to the Presidency), and given her actions regarding the matter... Isn't that enough to deserve punishment?

Why ask me?  Is there no prosecutor who knows the law well enough to take this on?  Frankly, I don't know where the lines are drawn, but it seems to me to be a lot of p.. whistling into the wind - there are these endless suggestions of terrible crimes (and I'm sure some of it is real), but never quite enough specifics or evidence.  Legal systems (rightly (or corruptly if you prefer)) tend to be pretty fussy about that kind of thing.

I don't think I'm to blame, but if it helps - feel free to get angry!

[Paranormal Panther]

On 10/7/2017 at 10:38 AM, Merc14 said:

Yes, she and her husband are two of the most prolific liars in US history and why the left trusts them still or ever gives them the benefit of the doubt, is a mystery to me, I can only guess it is part of the mental disorder.  If one is to speculate about these two then always suspect that something sinister is going on and that money is involved, you will always be correct.  Hopefully teh DoJ has not backed off prosecuting them for public corruption.

I take it that Clinton will get no thank-you notes from *you*. You're no Miley Cyrus.

[Merc14]

18 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Why ask me?  Is there no prosecutor who knows the law well enough to take this on?  Frankly, I don't know where the lines are drawn, but it seems to me to be a lot of p.. whistling into the wind - there are these endless suggestions of terrible crimes (and I'm sure some of it is real), but never quite enough specifics or evidence.  Legal systems (rightly (or corruptly if you prefer)) tend to be pretty fussy about that kind of thing.

I don't think I'm to blame, but if it helps - feel free to get angry!

Oh please!  The  fix was in from the beginning and the emails crime is a dead issue.  You have never answered my questions of did she break the law or not.  Why?  That she got away with it is obvious but the hand waving you whine about is all on your part as you are unwilling to explain how intent is required for prosecution. 

Why is no one gong after her?Simple, why bring it back up when the far larger crime is looming?  That she broke the law is obvious that she got away with it is obvious.  The only question with this mess is why and congress is now investigating that corruption.  Also, there is a far larger crime that is, hopefully, being investigated still  and I will enjoy your defense of Hill and Bill when that drops, if it ever does.

As far as your use of woo and UFO believers, you are the the guy who looks at the obvious and says it isn't real.  Should I list her crimes again or will you simply not answer again  as you did when I answered in that other thread?

Just now, Paranormal Panther said:

I take it that Clinton will get no thank-you notes from *you*. You're no Miley Cyrus.

Take that bet sir!   

Edited October 8, 2017 by Merc14

[Astra.]

On 07/10/2017 at 4:13 PM, DieChecker said:

The woman knows how to Lie, I'll give her that.....

You're not wrong there. She's as cunning as they come IMO. What bugged me as well (and still does)....is that Comey simply put her mishandling of the classified information as only being 'extremely careless' because there was no intent ?? .....it seems to me that 'gross negligence' of the handling of classified material should have at least been the proper term used...especially her being in such a high position of government as she was. He seriously should have recommended an indictment, and had let an impartial jury decide her fate. As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong) she wasn't even slapped with a hefty fine for being so pathetically incompetent. The whole Clinton / email / Comey fiasco was baffling to say the least. Not to mention the damn thousands of emails that she also eradicated. What a joke!!..... 

 

[Merc14]

9 hours ago, Astra. said:

You're not wrong there. She's as cunning as they come IMO. What bugged me as well (and still does)....is that Comey simply put her mishandling of the classified information as only being 'extremely careless' because there was no intent ?? .....it seems to me that 'gross negligence' of the handling of classified material should have at least been the proper term used...especially her being in such a high position of government as she was. He seriously should have recommended an indictment, and had let an impartial jury decide her fate. As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong) she wasn't even slapped with a hefty fine for being so pathetically incompetent. The whole Clinton / email / Comey fiasco was baffling to say the least. Not to mention the damn thousands of emails that she also eradicated. What a joke!!..... 

 

The Clinton crowd has done this before.  Back in 2003 Bill Clinton''s former national security adviser,Sandy Berger,  who still had his clearance, entered the National Archives and stole may of the classified papers relating to Bill's participation, or lack therein,of thwarting terrorist activities during the millennial celebrations including what led up to 911.  He then destroyed said papers, got a slap on the wrist and a fine and the commission investigating how 911 happened was blinded to that period in time and Bill Clinton  avoided blame for his irresponsible behavior leading up to 911.  https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/14/berger-thefts-still-weigh-on-archives-agents  The MSM said Sandy just got sloppy and happened to have his pants stuffed with top secret papers when he walked out of the National Archives.  The left's response was much like ChrLzs in this thread, ie, you are just speculating if you think he meant to stuff his pants with top secret papers and walk out.  

[Kurzweil]

If I was half as power hungry as her my take off of the fidget spinner would have made hundreds in ones by now. But so far progress is slow for the midget spinner. 

[+DieChecker]

On 10/8/2017 at 2:55 PM, ChrLzs said:

Why ask me?  Is there no prosecutor who knows the law well enough to take this on?  Frankly, I don't know where the lines are drawn, but it seems to me to be a lot of p.. whistling into the wind - there are these endless suggestions of terrible crimes (and I'm sure some of it is real), but never quite enough specifics or evidence.  Legal systems (rightly (or corruptly if you prefer)) tend to be pretty fussy about that kind of thing.

I don't think I'm to blame, but if it helps - feel free to get angry!

Well, you were the one dismissing the crimes. That's why I ask. Are you interested enough to dismiss her crimes, but not interested enough to rule on the crimes that you, yourself, admit she did?

Should we prosecute someone who murders another with a gun, but not bother with someone who just is shooting at a tree in a city park? Are some crimes to be dismissed as just too small to be punished? Especially if you're rich, famous, or powerful? 

I've already gotten angry. Angry that this woman did something that would have gotten just about anyone else put into a prison, and she laughed it off. And a good deal of those in power, who were to decide if she should be investigated, and punished, laughed it off too, and did little to nothing to punish even the obvious crimes she committed.

[Merc14]

34 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, you were the one dismissing the crimes. That's why I ask. Are you interested enough to dismiss her crimes, but not interested enough to rule on the crimes that you, yourself, admit she did?

Should we prosecute someone who murders another with a gun, but not bother with someone who just is shooting at a tree in a city park? Are some crimes to be dismissed as just too small to be punished? Especially if you're rich, famous, or powerful? 

I've already gotten angry. Angry that this woman did something that would have gotten just about anyone else put into a prison, and she laughed it off. And a good deal of those in power, who were to decide if she should be investigated, and punished, laughed it off too, and did little to nothing to punish even the obvious crimes she committed.

He asks the question "Is there no prosecutor who knows the law well enough to take this on? " without realizing that it is the same one we are asking.  LMAO. I thoroughly abhor the "Well they didn't convict her so she must be innocent." crowd as they completely miss the basic question of how this woman has gotten away with her obvious crimes.

 

[+DieChecker]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/tillerson-state-clinton-emails-244626

Quote

Diplomats fear Tillerson transparency push is linked to Clinton emails

 

Quote

The staffers also suspect the move — which will reassign many of them from far more substantive duties and has already sparked a union complaint — is meant to force many of them to resign out of frustration with what are essentially clerical positions.

The issue spotlights the deepening distrust toward Tillerson at Foggy Bottom, where his attempts to restructure the department, cut its budget and centralize policymaking have already hurt morale. But it is drawing applause from conservative groups, which have been pressuring Tillerson to act on a backlog of 13,000 Freedom of Information Act requests — many of them relating to emails and other records from Clinton’s tenure.

Uhhhh.... So? Let them resign. Fill those positions with more conservative leaning, or at least non-political, personnel. The State Department has become a nest of snakes for Pres Trump. Let them quit, I say.

Quote

According to Judicial Watch, the State Department has yet to process about 40,000 pages of at least 72,000 records that contain Clinton emails. However, State Department officials have indicated they believe that many of those still-unreleased documents are duplicates of information already shared with the public. Recent waves of releases of Clinton-related records have yielded little fresh material.

Again, I'd say..... So? Tillerson doesn't want to hire new people, and the job has to be done, and if it gets some horribly left bias people to leave of their own accord?.......

Quote

Tillerson’s email said the department’s FOIA backlog stretches back roughly a decade and would take at least two years to clear without more resources. To cut that time, the department will commit more people to open-records duty and streamline the process so as to move toward a "goal of a more responsive, more accountable, and more transparent State Department," Tillerson wrote.

Tillerson did not say how many State officials would be reassigned, but sources familiar with the situation say hundreds of State staffers will be affected, either part-time or full-time, because every bureau has been told to commit people to review and release records. The sources also said Tillerson is calling for the backlog to be cleared by the end of the year, a goal that may prove impossible.

"It's a remarkable misuse of resources to advance what is at its core a partisan political aim," one affected State employee said. "We all know what's going on. And, of course, we're all unhappy that we're being made a part of it."

This sounds like political bias opinion from the staffer. Unless he's read all the requests and correlated the political motive of each one into some kind of database, then he has no idea what the reasons for trying to clear the FOIA back log is. He's probably only obsessed about releasing Clinton emails, and not about fulfilling the FedGov's responsibility to comply with the FOIA.

Edited November 25, 2017 by DieChecker

[stevemagegod]

On 9/14/2017 at 7:45 PM, Merc14 said:

Government watchdog Judicial Watch has just released a new batch of emails, more than 1600 pages worth, belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and longtime aide Huma Abedin. The emails, released by the State Department as part of a lawsuit, show further mishandling of classified information. 

The list of egregious incidents is long, including exposure of a classified conversation about U.S.-Israeli relations, the war against drug cartels in Mexico, details about Clinton's arrival in war torn Afghanistan, Afghanistan elections and much more. Here are a few.:

Article continues:  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/09/14/new-emails-show-clinton-mishandled-even-more-classified-information-n2381433?utm_campaign=socialflow_townhall&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

They have no problem prosecuting Generals but are deathly afraid of the Clinton Machine. You need a "Reasonable Prosecutor" to go after them. 

[ian hacktorp]

Well, they are finally dragging the satanic old witch back in to federal court to answer questions, under oath, about her home-brew computer server.

Hillary Clinton Ordered To Answer Additional Questions Under Oath About Private Email Server

Quote

"A federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to answer more questions about her illicit email system – which is good news," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "It is shameful that Judicial Watch attorneys must continue to battle the State and Justice Departments, which still defend Hillary Clinton, for basic answers to our questions about Clinton’s email misconduct."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/hillary-clinton-ordered-answer-additional-questions-under-oath-about-private-email

My guess is we'll hear a whole bunch of "I don't recall"s, and maybe even a few "What difference, at this point, does it make?"s.

The walls are closing in around her.

Edited November 16, 2018 by hacktorp

[ian hacktorp]

Whoops...and now James Comey and Loretta Lynch are to receive subpoenas to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.  Fun times.

Comey, Lynch To Receive Subpoenas From House GOP

Quote

Comey and Lynch were under threat of subpoena earlier this year by Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (R-IA), only to be blocked by the panel's top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/comey-lynch-receive-subpoenas-house-gop

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

Whoops...and now James Comey and Loretta Lynch are to receive subpoenas to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.  Fun times.

Comey, Lynch To Receive Subpoenas From House GOP

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/comey-lynch-receive-subpoenas-house-gop

They’ll pull a “I cannot recall” loop on the investigators. 

[Farmer77]

10 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Well, they are finally dragging the satanic old witch back in to federal court to answer questions, under oath, about her home-brew computer server.

Hillary Clinton Ordered To Answer Additional Questions Under Oath About Private Email Server

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/hillary-clinton-ordered-answer-additional-questions-under-oath-about-private-email

My guess is we'll hear a whole bunch of "I don't recall"s, and maybe even a few "What difference, at this point, does it make?"s.

The walls are closing in around her.

Not a whole bunch. Its only two very specific questions that we'll get very specific and non exciting answers for.

[ian hacktorp]

13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Not a whole bunch. Its only two very specific questions that we'll get very specific and non exciting answers for.

If you bothered to actually read the questions they will ask her, you'd see that each of the "two" questions have numerous detailed questions within them.

If you bothered...

[Tatetopa]

On 10/7/2017 at 7:38 AM, Merc14 said:

Yes, she and her husband are two of the most prolific liars in US history

Yep.  So we are talking about Hillary mostly, but Bill is more that elbow deep in the Clinton foundation.  He has made a fortune from "speaking engagements"  The Foundation has tied Clinton business associates up with lucrative resource development deals all over  from former soviet republics to Africa and Asia.  Under the guise of a little philanthropy (and there has been some for sure)  they have tied together a network of business and government officials using Bill's terms as president and Hillary's Sec. of State tenure. The Clinton Foundation is run by  both the Clintons.  That seems to me to be the most substantive investigation and the most needed.  It may be that they were smart enough to avoid illegal activities, but the deals should come out in the open.  I know that major international mega-corporations  also cross the line between business and government, so in the end maybe nothing will change. 

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, hacktorp said:

If you bothered to actually read the questions they will ask her, you'd see that each of the "two" questions have numerous detailed questions within them.

If you bothered...

I not only read them I posted them in another thread a couple of days ago. Its a very limited line of questioning

[+OverSword]

On 11/16/2018 at 9:06 PM, Farmer77 said:

Not a whole bunch. Its only two very specific questions that we'll get very specific and non exciting answers for.

It's not really two questions imo as both questions ask for multiple details:

Quote

 

1. Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

 

2. During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

 

 

[Agent0range]

I agree.  Lock Hillary up and set the precedent for using personal email.  Lock her up!  Lock her up!

[+DieChecker]

On 11/16/2018 at 10:43 AM, hacktorp said:

Well, they are finally dragging the satanic old witch back in to federal court to answer questions, under oath, about her home-brew computer server.

Hillary Clinton Ordered To Answer Additional Questions Under Oath About Private Email Server

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/hillary-clinton-ordered-answer-additional-questions-under-oath-about-private-email

My guess is we'll hear a whole bunch of "I don't recall"s, and maybe even a few "What difference, at this point, does it make?"s.

The walls are closing in around her.

On 11/16/2018 at 11:40 AM, hacktorp said:

Whoops...and now James Comey and Loretta Lynch are to receive subpoenas to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.  Fun times.

Comey, Lynch To Receive Subpoenas From House GOP

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-16/comey-lynch-receive-subpoenas-house-gop

My original guess was that the Republicans, and Trump, were saving a big Clinton investigation for late 2019, as a run up to the Presidential races. But, now that the Democrats have taken the House, they're trying to salvage what they can before they lose the leadership of the various committees.

I wish them well, but I believe little to nothing will get done regarding the The Crimes of Grindelwald... errr... Clinton. 

On 11/16/2018 at 12:58 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

They’ll pull a “I cannot recall” loop on the investigators. 

Quite possibly. After all it has been almost 10 years since she was brought on as Secretary of State and then completely ignored the many, many Federal agencies security warnings she received over three years. 

I'm sure Lynch and Comey will prove equally forgetful. I mean, it was only daily national headlines, but probably they've simply forgotten whatever it is they will be asked...