New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

An indictment SHOULD be handed down, but I have a hard time believing that it will actually happen given who is in control of those kinds of things.

 

Just because YOU want indictments......doesnt mean there should be. They have found NOTHING. Everything that was Classified....was classified AFTER the fact.

 

Yes, I agree that just because I want indictments doesn't mean that there should be. The reason there should be indictments is because of the laws that were broken and the severity of those crimes.

The argument that everything that was classified was classified after the fact is not exactly true. The emails themselves weren't classified because they were unmarked, but the information inside of the emails was classified before the fact....which is why they had to apply classification to the emails themselves after the fact.

 

Are you asking if Barack Obama and his regime are going to indict the Democrat's presumptive nominee to replace Obama as president?

LOL.

No way. Obama and his crew are thoroughly corrupt. They value power and control above all else. It appears highly likely that the FBI will recommend criminal charges, perhaps even dozens of counts. Then the Obama Justice Department will obstruct justice on Hillary Clinton's behalf by refusing to act on the charges, regardless of what they are or how many there are. Watch and see.

Also, the most serious charges here is not the email server stuff, it is the pay for play by Hillary with some of the most vile regimes on Earth, while she was Secretary of State, in exchange for payments to the Clinton Foundation. Charges recommended for that will blow the Watergate scandal smooth out of the water. And then if Obama tries to whitewash it, that will be a greater scandal than Watergate also.

Or Obama can indict Hillary, which would very likely end her quest for the presidency, which would put Obama's 'executive order' based legacy in real jeopardy. Who really believes there is any real chance of that happening?

 

So...someone is supposed the information is classified...eventhough it is not marked Classified? LOL. How is a staffer supposed to know the information is Classified if it is not marked? That is just dumb. Staffers are not always in the loop on that.

 

It's pretty clear you've never handled classified information before so I can understand why this would confuse you.

The information was marked classified, then was put into an email with the classification removed....you know, just like Hillary instructed one of her staffers to do with a fax that was classified. They were having trouble with the system so she instructed them to remove classification and send it via unsecured fax....which is a crime to even ask someone to do.

There are people serving prison sentences for FAR less than what we know for a fact Hillary did.

 

Seems clear to me. She created emails on an unsecured server with restricted information. What is also clear is there is no way this will ever mean anything because even if it isn't completely blocked at every turn Obama will just pardon her.

 

Such bizarre logic. Why then has the "Obama regime" bothered to take on this investigation?

And this isn't anywhere near Watergate. Nixon resigned. Clinton has not dropped out of the presidential race.

 

of course this isn't anywhere near Watergate, this is actually a lot worse than what happened in the Watergate scandal. That was merely obstruction of justice.

 

I am just curious, how do you know the content of the email? Do you have an inside source at the FBI?

 

if any of us came into the info she had and did what she did with said info we'd all be in jail or even worse. it's that simple for me.

 

The FBI is the investigative arm of the Obama regime. In fact, the FBI is part of the Obama DOJ. When the FBI took on this investigation, the Obama regime took it ln.

Of course the FBI recommends charges, while attorneys at the DOJ under Obama appointee Loretta Lynch are responsible for filing indictments. If they refuse to file any indictments against Hillary despite massive evidence of wrongdoing, that will clearly be an obstruction of the justice process and effective a massive cover up as well.

This is shaping up to be far worse than Watergate, leftist lies, denials and deflection attempts, notwithstanding.

 

When did the FBI "recommend" to the DOJ that they charge Hillary Clinton with a crime?

 

BTG's informative response aside.....

Using your scenario.... Don't you feel that with over 2000 e-mails siting on her home brew server with classified content on them that Hillary should have been able to recognize the content upon reading the majority of the e-mails as classified information? It was her duty to fix a problem that was risking leaking confidential info.

 

Op-ed from WaPo. Like so many things in American politics, I know on this issue all of you have made your minds up already and are already experts, but still, here's a grounded left-leaning take. Another tempest in a teapot, with no indictment coming. You can already in this thread see the pivot from "indictment coming" to "corrupt Obama administration of course won't indict this criminal."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/

"So here’s what we know at this point, put as succinctly as I can:

1. Clinton set up a personal email account and used it for work. Even though previous Secretaries of State did the same thing, and even though thousands of people in government use personal emails for work, she still shouldn’t have done it. She may have violated department policies, but there’s no evidence she broke any laws.
2. Clinton has said it was a mistake and apologized for it.
3. There were concerns that her email server could have been vulnerable to hacking from a foreign power. But it does not appear to have been hacked.
4. None of the work-related emails she sent and received were marked classified at the time. However, some 200 of them were retroactively classified. This is now the subject of a spat between the State Department and the intelligence community, which classifies many things that people elsewhere in the government think are absurd to classify.
5. For Clinton to be charged with mishandling classified information, she would have had to knowingly passed such information to someone not authorized to have it — like David Petraeus showing classified documents to his mistress — or acted with such gross negligence that people without authorization were bound to see it. According to what we know, neither of those things happened.
6. The FBI is investigating the matter, but has said that Clinton herself is not a target of that investigation, meaning that they don’t suspect that she committed any crime.
7. That former aide, Bryan Pagliano, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department and is working with them as they complete their investigation, which will probably conclude this spring.
...
Tune to (sic) to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long you’ll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that she’s about to be indicted or that she won’t be permitted to run for president because she’ll be on trial. It hasn’t happened and it won’t happen, but that isn’t going to stop them from saying it."

 

Having a personal email server for work like many others in gov't have done before is worse than breaking into a rival's party's offices and then covering it up?

Wow, you don't sound biased at all!

 

Taking this point by point.

1. There's no evidence that previous Secretaries of State used private e-mails to send or receive classified information. They may have had a private email as well as their official email, but there's no evidence that they broke the law. There is however evidence that Hillary broke the law by sending and receiving classified information on her private email. There's also evidence that she told staffers to send classified faxes through unclassified systems with the classification removed.....even telling someone to do that is illegal. It may be Democratic talking points that there is no evidence of Hillary breaking the law, but it's divorced from reality.

2. Good of her to apologize for multiple felonies, but that doesn't make it okay.

3. There are still concerns that it could have been compromised, but even if it wasn't, she put national security at risk for personal convenience/control over her emails and broke the law in doing so.

4. We know that she had a policy of telling people to remove classification from documents when asking them to send them through unclassified means. The fact that the highly classified documents were stripped of classification doesn't mean that it wasn't classified information at the time it was sent. The emails themselves were later classified, but that also doesn't mean that the information was at any point unclassified. Also, just because someone doesn't think that something should be classified isn't an excuse for breaking the law.

5. That's factually inaccurate. Simply putting classified information on an unclassified server or computer is enough to be guilty of mishandling classified information.

6. This is spin. The FBI is investigating the matter and they aren't going to say exactly who they are going after.....that's not unusual. Given that Hillary is one of the people who broke the law in this incident, OF COURSE they are going after her among others.

7. Yes, and the fact that he's been granted immunity shows that this is a lot further along than just the investigation phase. The FBI can't offer immunity, and the justice department isn't going to offer immunity unless there is going to be testimony in court.

 

Yes that fact summary is accurate from what I've been able to read about. I'll continue to wait and see what the final result of the investigations are, before calling for Clinton's head.

If they have evidence she broke the law, then I'm fine with going after her for it no matter who's done it before. Until the investigation is complete and final, it's pointless to make lines in the sand and say that she deserves or doesn't deserve something.

 

Transmitting and receiving classified information on a private server and telling others to strip classification from documents and send them via unclassified means is a lot worse than a simple B&E and some obstruction of justice.

Hell a case could be made that Clinton's effort to wipe the servers was obstruction of justice.....and she wouldn't be the first Clinton to obstruct justice. That's a much lesser issue than being criminally incompetent with national security for personal convenience.

 

That is a transparently partisan assertion and a good way to telegraph your own desperation to see a Democrat prosecuted and imprisoned regardless of the facts and precedent.