Hillary Clinton email scandal

Amerika · 25-10-2016 02:37PM #1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Wow - lock her up!

She should already be locked up for the mishandling of classified and top secret materials, and for lying to the FBI.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 02:42PM

Amerika wrote: »

She should already be locked up for the mishandling of classified and top secret materials, and for lying to the FBI.

That's not what the FBI concluded.

Amerika · 25-10-2016 02:51PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's not what the FBI concluded.

That's not what Comely concluded... which seems to differ from what field agents concluded. But I guess we’ll never know the truth since the FBI suspiciously required agents to sign Non Disclosure Agreements.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-fbi-agents-believe-inside-deal-happened-in-clinton-email-probe/article/2596357

Overheal · 25-10-2016 02:52PM

Amerika wrote: »

That's what Comely concluded... and not according to field agents… but I guess we’ll never know the truth since the FBI suspiciously required agents to sign Non Disclosure Agreements.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-fbi-agents-believe-inside-deal-happened-in-clinton-email-probe/article/2596357

NDAs: suspicious when the Federal Bureau of Investigation does it; perfectly reasonable when Donald Trump does it with employees and ex wives.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 02:59PM

Amerika wrote: »

I guess we’ll never know the truth

I guess one of us never will.

Amerika · 25-10-2016 03:13PM

Overheal wrote: »

NDAs: suspicious when the Federal Bureau of Investigation does it; perfectly reasonable when Donald Trump does it with employees and ex wives.

Correct. The difference is one is a government agency who’s goal is to seek the truth and take action against those who commit crimes, the other is a private entity protecting themselves.

Overheal · 25-10-2016 03:58PM

Amerika wrote: »

Correct. The difference is one is a government agency who’s goal is to seek the truth and take action against those who commit crimes, the other is a private entity protecting themselves.

A private entity running for President...

Do you think it's odd that government agencies use NDAs? Why?

aloyisious · 25-10-2016 04:17PM

Amerika wrote: »

Correct. The difference is one is a government agency who’s goal is to seek the truth and take action against those who commit crimes, the other is a private entity protecting themselves.

Also mentioned by one of the former FBI agents interviewed. they were already under Non-disclosure agreements AND the new ones were reminders according to one description in the NY Post article. I'd imagine that Don, as a law-abiding citizen, wouldn't be happy if FBI agents were blabbing to the media on stuff they knew about him, any less than Hillary would.

It would be a crime to reveal info one became privy to, due to employment as an FBI law enforcement agent (especially for a purpose or profit of any kind) outside of offering it as legal evidence in a court case or pre-trial deposition.

Amerika · 25-10-2016 05:28PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Also mentioned by one of the former FBI agents interviewed. they were already under Non-disclosure agreements AND the new ones were reminders according to one description in the NY Post article. I'd imagine that Don, as a law-abiding citizen, wouldn't be happy if FBI agents were blabbing to the media on stuff they knew about him, any less than Hillary would.

It would be a crime to reveal info one became privy to, due to employment as an FBI law enforcement agent (especially for a purpose or profit of any kind) outside of offering it as legal evidence in a court case or pre-trial deposition.

This whole ‘gag’ order seems to have stunk to high heavens from the beginning. These were additional non-disclosure agreements that caused agents to be sworn to secrecy and subject to subsequent lie detector tests in the Hillary Clinton email probe. "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is reserved for "the most sensitive of sensitive cases and can have a "chilling effect" on agents. What makes this extremely suspicious is that the FBI gagged its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes. In recent House hearings FBI Director Comey provided some information on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case. The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is evidence that the probe was always a serious criminal investigation, and never a "security review" or "security inquiry" as described by Clinton and her campaign team.

House judiciary committee chairman Charles Grassley’s investigation into this matter will take time. It just recently became knowledge to the committee that the FBI had given immunity to some, made agreements that some questions would be off limits for some of Clinton’s associates under investigation, and that their computers would be destroyed by the FBI. Some of the people given immunity for testimony still refused to provide information and nothing was done to them. Unfortunately the truth won’t come out until after the election.

Part of what I believe will come out is Comely’s refusal to recommend charges in order to protect President Obama from the lies he told the people. Obama publicly claimed he learned about the email arrangement Clinton had through the media… "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports." Now we find out he used a code name in some of his correspondence to Hillary’s unsecured server. This all seems to be an extraordinary effort from top levels of our government to protect Hillary and get her elected.

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

https://conservativedailypost.com/fbi-documents-now-reveal-obama-used-code-name-in-clinton-emails/

alastair · 25-10-2016 05:54PM

Amerika wrote: »

This whole ‘gag’ order seems to have stunk to high heavens from the beginning. These were additional non-disclosure agreements that caused agents to be sworn to secrecy and subject to subsequent lie detector tests in the Hillary Clinton email probe. "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is reserved for "the most sensitive of sensitive cases and can have a "chilling effect" on agents. What makes this extremely suspicious is that the FBI gagged its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes. In recent House hearings FBI Director Comey provided some information on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case. The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is evidence that the probe was always a serious criminal investigation, and never a "security review" or "security inquiry" as described by Clinton and her campaign team.

House judiciary committee chairman Charles Grassley’s investigation into this matter will take time. It just recently became knowledge to the committee that the FBI had given immunity to some, made agreements that some questions would be off limits for some of Clinton’s associates under investigation, and that their computers would be destroyed by the FBI. Some of the people given immunity for testimony still refused to provide information and nothing was done to them. Unfortunately the truth won’t come out until after the election.

Part of what I believe will come out is Comely’s refusal to recommend charges in order to protect President Obama from the lies he told the people. Obama publicly claimed he learned about the email arrangement Clinton had through the media… "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports." Now we find out he used a code name in some of his correspondence to Hillary’s unsecured server. This all seems to be an extraordinary effort from top levels of our government to protect Hillary and get her elected.

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

https://conservativedailypost.com/fbi-documents-now-reveal-obama-used-code-name-in-clinton-emails/

What a load of nothing. The Feds investigated, found no grounds for charges, and, in the absence of anything meaningful to harass Hillary with, this whole dull affair is dragged out over and over by a desperate conservative base. Wild conjecture on the basis of precisely zilch evidence. The Feds didn't pursue the matter to charges because it's demonstrably not got any merit in doing so.

Permabear · 25-10-2016 06:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 25-10-2016 06:23PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can only assume you're referring to all those under Clinton involved in this who are currently rotting away in secret prisons following their criminal trials for their involvement?

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 06:24PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Clintons have been hounded by Republicans for decades now just because their last name is Clinton.

Do you know how many embassy staff were killed under Dubya? Now, how many were killed on Hillarys watch, more or less? How much time did the House spend investigating those deaths under Dubya vs. under Clinton?

Answer: Benghazi! Benghazi benghazi, benghazi benghazi benghazi!

Why? Klinton! Benghazi!

Permabear · 25-10-2016 06:44PM

This post has been deleted.

alastair · 25-10-2016 06:49PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It really isn't. Comey's testimony to Congress made very clear why she wasn't charged. Bill Clinton's chat with the AG played no role whatsoever.

ancapailldorcha · 25-10-2016 06:59PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness, "But Hillary..." is the standard Trump lobby defence.

Amerika · 25-10-2016 07:09PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In fairness, "But Hillary..." is the standard Trump lobby defence.

In fairness, it’s more like “If you have a problem with Trump in that matter, then you should REALLY have a problem with Hillary doing...”

And to which the standard reply from the Hillary lobby to the comment is... “It’s not the same thing,” no matter what.

alastair · 25-10-2016 07:11PM

Amerika wrote: »

In fairness, it’s more like “If you have a problem with Trump in that matter, then you should REALLY have a problem with Hillary doing...”

And to which the standard reply from the Hillary lobby to the comment is... “It’s not the same thing,” no matter what.

It's usually not the same thing at all. Trump, to give him credit, has a unique set of things to get wound up about.

ancapailldorcha · 25-10-2016 07:12PM

Amerika wrote: »

In fairness, it’s more like “If you have a problem with Trump in that matter, then you should REALLY have a problem with Hillary doing...”

And to which the standard reply from the Hillary lobby to the comment is... “It’s not the same thing,” no matter what.

It's still a deflection. I'm well aware of Clinton's record as Secretary of State, her hypocrisy in condemning the TPP that she'd previously championed, the emails scandal, etc... The problem is that deflection is the only way to shine the light away from Trump because his comments are simply indefensible.

alastair · 25-10-2016 07:13PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's still a deflection. I'm well aware of Clinton's record as Secretary of State, her hypocrisy in condemning the TPP that she'd previously championed

That's not hypocrisy though - that's called changing your mind. She acknowledges her changed position.

Overheal · 25-10-2016 07:15PM

alastair wrote: »

That's not hypocrisy though - that's called changing your mind. She acknowledges her changed position.

Indeed. Trump also used to champion Hillary and her husband. He changed his mind on that too.

Permabear · 25-10-2016 07:16PM

This post has been deleted.

alastair · 25-10-2016 07:19PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's nothing naive in grasping the points that Comey made, and recognising that they didn't require any political interference to stand on their own merit. Occam's razor etc.

ancapailldorcha · 25-10-2016 07:19PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That wasn't levelled at you at all! Just a general observation based on the Trump supporters I've known. I know a gay chap who's a big Hillary fan sharing various videos hailing her as the hero the world needs instead of the deeply flawed individual she is and it makes me cringe.

The Aleppo incident didn't put you off, then? I did find it amusing that Johnson's Facebook page was sharing images of him climbing a mountain during the Trump/Clinton health scandals.

Permabear · 25-10-2016 07:32PM

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia · 26-10-2016 10:41AM

WSJ reports that a very close Clinton ally donated a half a million dollars to the poitical campaign of the wife of an FBI official who later became responsible for the investigation into Clinton.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114

The donation was made in 2015 and the FBI investigator was only appointed to the clinton case in 2016, so it's probably just a coincidence, but this is the kind of story that is very easy to spin into 'evidence' that clinton bribed the FBI.

aloyisious · 26-10-2016 11:10AM

Akrasia wrote: »

WSJ reports that a very close Clinton ally donated a half a million dollars to the poitical campaign of the wife of an FBI official who later became responsible for the investigation into Clinton.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114

The donation was made in 2015 and the FBI investigator was only appointed to the clinton case in 2016, so it's probably just a coincidence, but this is the kind of story that is very easy to spin into 'evidence' that clinton bribed the FBI.

Mental addition at play

Amerika · 26-10-2016 04:43PM

Is something wrong at The New York Times? Could it be a rare moment of conscience? They actually published a piece critical about both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the lies they told the American people in regards to Hillary’s unsecured server. I’m shocked, I say... shocked! [/political_sarcasm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

Overheal · 26-10-2016 04:44PM

Amerika wrote: »

Is something wrong at The New York Times? Could it be a rare moment of conscience? They actually published a piece critical about both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the lies they told the American people in regards to Hillary’s unsecured server. I’m shocked, I say... shocked!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

That shock may come for those following a false narrative that the media are some agent in a vast Orwellian conspiracy etc etc

alastair · 26-10-2016 05:23PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This quick hand waving away of Clinton's misdeeds is exactly the attitude that many, myself included, find infuriating. You're casually dismissing actions that are demonstrably illegal, re: emails, or demonstrate poor judgement and lack of political nous, i.e. Libya involvement, previous legislative efforts etc.

It's a consistent feature of her career, where she has demonstrated a disregard for established rules, exercised poor judgment in her actions and responded to exposure of said actions with dishonesty and evasion.

The emails are dismissed as not worthy of a charge by the very people who enforce the law. Nothing casual in dismissing them, and nothing to suggest illegal activity in what went on.

I'm dismissing the Libya thing, on exactly the same basis - a congressional investigation turned up nothing untoward in her dealings regarding Benghazi.

You can choose to be guided by unsubstantiated innuendo, or the facts. I'm going to go with facts, and make no apology for doing so.

AbusesToilets · 26-10-2016 05:39PM

alastair wrote: »

The emails are dismissed as not worthy of a charge by the very people who enforce the law. Nothing casual in dismissing them, and nothing to suggest illegal activity in what went on.

I'm dismissing the Libya thing, on exactly the same basis - a congressional investigation turned up nothing untoward in her dealings regarding Benghazi.

You can choose to be guided by unsubstantiated innuendo, or the facts. I'm going to go with facts, and make no apology for doing so.

Fact, her actions re: emails broke the law surrounding classified materials. The details of which I have bored people to death with 3 or 4 times to date in this thread. The decision to not prosecute doesn't change her actions and imo, was made based off of political considerations.

With reference to Libya, I was referring to her push for US involvement in overthrowing Quaddafi, not specifically Benghazi. She has been at the forefront of proponents for using US military power to overthrow unfriendly regimes. See her recent statements championing the idea of a no-fly zone in Syria, a terrible idea and one with potential to incite direct military conflict with Russia.

Hillary Clinton email scandal

Comments