FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary

Not without the approval of the puppet Loretta.

 

New spin seems to be around "intent" a variant of the "idiot" defense. The interesting thing about this tact is it concedes the central point that Hillary did violate these laws that protect our National secrets.

But, the statues likely to apply do not require "intent" in order to be convicted:

http://hotair.com/?p=3899888

So there need by no intent and the material need not be officially recognized as "classified" though the top secret documents on her server even exceed that category.

If if the fat little warmonger never “intended” for sensitive information to be exposed, she did "intend" to move outside of the normal storage and safeguards of the government, more than enough for the case to be prosecuted. Clinton was aware that there was a State Department email system in place and available for her use. It required active decisions on her part hire people to set up a completely independent server in their home and keep it’s contents away from FOI requests.

She was intentionally doing public business on her private server and she was doing it for the purposes of concealment.

And she is a short fat ugly crooked little neocon warmonger.

 

Maybe in your made up world, but in the real world, the case will revolve around intent. She'll be fine.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's get this straight. "Judge" Andrew Napolitano that hasn't sat on the bench since 1995 and has been a political analyst for Fox News (not known for unbiased reporting) that doesn't have access to the FBI files is expressing a political opinion unsupported by anything that hasn't been publically revealed and the FBI hasn't revealed any of it's confidential investigative information.

In short this is a BS right-wing political opinion unsupported by facts at least at this point in time. The FBI and only the FBI knows if it has the evidence necessary to obtain an indictment and, more importantly, only the FBI knows if it's likely to obtain a conviction based upon the evidence.

Of course we also know that there's a common expression in the legal circles that the "federal government could indict a peanut butter sandwich" but that doesn't imply a peanut butter sandwich actually violated the law or could be convicted based upon the evidence.

The "right-wing" has been very inclined to believing "right-wing political opinion" as opposed to actual facts for quite some time and this is just another case of claiming an opinion is a fact when it's not.

 

Yes but it is illegal to conduct classified State Department business on an unsecured unapproved site. Gee...didn't you know that? Or is it possible you want people to look at all the wrong issues when discussing this?

LOL, as they say! If ALL her government business is done on a personal server set up in her residence purely for her own usage, then ipso facto, you must be very stupid, with all due respect, to contend classified material was not deliberately moved there.

WRONG! As already stated ALL her State Department material intended for her eyes went to that very server.

Sure. How was she supposed to know when she deliberately opted for her own personal server instead of a vetted government channel that she was also deliberately placing all sensitive classified material at risk (as hacker Guccifer has attested)?

This is the fallback talking point...that classified material that Hillary Clinton carelessly placed at risk by running them through her own hackable server
weren't really all that sensitive at all. That's a wishful argument that's really doomed to failure before it's begins.

 

Intent isn't necessary, but she clearly acted with intent. That clandestine server didn't set itself up. Somebody purchased that equipment and paid the fees for its continued operation. Hillary Clinton is a proven security risk of a serious kind. More than a thousand of the emails were classified with at least 22 of them being top secret, the highest official classification level. She, with intent and deliberation, operated in a position of high trust and our nation's highest clearance levels and conducted official government business on unsecured, unsanctioned private equipment so that she could conceal her actions. If she wants to be a highly private person, fine. But she also chose to hold high public office.

Some of the top secret emails she deliberately, and with intent, had routed to her private rather than protected public server, included incredibly sensitive information about intelligence sources and methods. Details about our spies operating abroad under deep cover. Other emails included top secret-plus intelligence reports, including verbatim lifting of highly classified information, a felonious sort of plagiarism.

There is every reason to think that multiple foreign intelligence services had access to Ms. Clinton’s unencrypted email. The Romanian hacker who was extradited to the United States for his successful cracking into Ms. Clinton’s email in 2013 stated, “it was easy… easy for me, for everybody.” If a lone Balkan hacker was able to do this, imagine how simple a task this would have been for the Russian and Chinese intelligence services, with their thousands of highly trained cyber experts.

Nevertheless, the mainstream media continues to low-ball the national security implications of EmailGate, resorting to wordsmithing to obfuscate what Ms. Clinton and her staff we really up to at the State Department. The Obama White House has followed suit, insisting that, despite the FBI investigation into EmailGate, Ms. Clinton represents no security risk, and she should receive intelligence briefings as the putative Democratic nominee.

More:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

 

Like I said, maybe in your world, but in the real world, the case will be 100% dependent on intent. But I understand conservatives aren't really real world oriented, so carry on. And you're making stuff up. The Romanian hacker never hacked Hillary's email server.

 

Wrong again in the real world no intent need be shown but do quote the law that says so.

 

You are the one that does not understand but then being a foreigner should should not attempt to preach to us who do know how our own country works.

 

Nah, once again, you're wrong about pretty much everything you say. In the real world, it will come down to intent or gross negligence, regardless of what laws you googled, lol.

 

Not a single country or hacker has proven they had access to Hillary's server. Officials state that there is no sign of anyone having access to the server. And no one has said her emails were not encrypted. So, not sure where you are getting your made up information from. And yes, it will come down to intent or the classified information would have to be such secretive info that any reasonable person would know they were classified. But Hillary states they weren't classified at the time and she doesn't believe they should be classified now. It's going to be an uphill battle for conservatives to get anything out of this. I know you guys Google random laws and think your legal experts, but as we saw with Benghazi, Fast & Furious, the IRS "scandal", etc... you guys are usually wrong about these matters.

 

Did you really think they would?

 

Hackers for sure. Foreign governments might keep it a secret. But it's not that hard to tell if someone breached the server. So they would know if anyone had.

 

Here is a good discussion by one of the Power Line attorneys who helped bring down Dan Rather in the lying false reporting on the Bush National Guard issue.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/report-fbi-probe-of-hillary-is-focused-on-section-793f-of-espionage-act.php

- - - Updated - - -

Why no they wouldn't. Remember, Hillary wiped the server, like, with a cloth.

Do they wear orange jump suits at Leavenworth?

 

First off, Hillary deleted emails she found were personal. 100% legal, 100% allowed. She didn't "wipe the server". They still have the server logs of anyone who accessed the server.

 

That's what Madame Clinton wants you to believe, anyway, her lawyer says. How believable!

LOL...that tells you next to nothing. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472

 

No, that's actually the regulations. All federal government employees are allowed to delete emails they think are private at their discretion. Also, they were allowed to have private email servers. Has nothing to do with Clinton's lawyers. Just known laws.

You don't understand technology. Nor does Gowdy. She "deleted" her emails. She didn't "wipe the server clean" and there is still server logs that show anyone who accesses the server. She was allowed to delete emails that she thought were personal. That is allowed, not against the law whatsoever. I wouldn't take the word of conservatives on this, they are usually wrong about everything.

 

And are these employees also allowed to do all their government related work on their own private email servers?

That's sort of the point of all this, isn't it.

And once again, those logs don't tell what those accessing the server were doing on that server. And you would expect Hillary's own personal server to be used entirely by her, anyway. So that's pointless.

 

Yes, they actually were. There were regulations in place that allowed federal employees to use servers outside of government email servers.

Yea, but when you have a private server like that you can tell if anyone accessed it that didn't have permission. It was built by the same person that Bill Clinton used to build his. He knows what he is doing. She was fine, Hillary will be fine. You'll have 8 more years to find new worthless scandals to focus on. Should be fun times!

 

It's very clear that she intentionally circumvented the safeguards of her official email system and set up the clandestine system and housed classified, even top secret information. What is she going to claim she was in a trance and has no memory of setting up the clandestine system and then using for four years?

- - - Updated - - -

It's very clear that she intentionally circumvented the safeguards of her official email system and set up the clandestine system and housed classified, even top secret information. What is she going to claim she was in a trance and has no memory of setting up the clandestine system and then using for four years?

She clearly acted with intent. And what was it she was working to accomplish?

 

It's not clear to the real world. The conservative world is different though.

Everything she did was legal. It revolves around 100 email snippets that she claims shouldn't be and wasn't classified. That's pretty much all it will come down to. Otherwise, everything else was legal and allowed. You guys are wrong as usual.

 

To handle sensitive government material? You should document then because Hillary's computer had none of the security measures (encryption and such) that government approved email servers had. Also you should explain this then: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-ambassador/ .
How is this ambassador's case different than Hillary's? Do as I say...not as I violate government regulations.

No one is worried that Hillary Clinton's own personal private server in her own home was being used by unauthorized people.
That's a smelly red herring.

 

She never set it up to handle sensitive government material. You're making stuff up.

It wasn't being used by unauthorized people. Her emails fall under the FOIA, which is why she had to provide them. It's public information. Do you really not get this?

 

ROLMAO oh NOW you add in the gross negligence.... Trying to cover your arse now. Intent has nothing to do with. Gross negligence does not require intent.

So if you know so much and we so little post the law that says there must be intent that applies here.

 

"Intent” is not required to break the law in Hillary Clinton’s case and neither is classification. 18 USC 793 does not even mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document … or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.”

Hillary is most certainly guilty.

The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place.

And she is a fat ugly corrupt little warmonger.