FBI Has 'Overwhelming' Evidence to Indict and Convict Hillary

Not really, but I want a democrat picking the next supreme court justices. Sadly I think she'll be a corrupt and vindictive president ....but still better than the other options

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, that's the smart play.

 

Yea, maybe, but then maybe not. We're not talking about some low level person here, so, I'm guessing the FBI is keeping a VERY tight lid on this regardless of their findings. If they can connect the dots, they file charges, if not, well...life goes on.

 

Well that sort of debunks the OP doesn't it?

 

So you're saying if she sent a classified document in a letter from her home addressed to Obama, that's not illegal?

Im pretty sure you're 100% wrong.

 

the same FBI that has leaked every chance they got?

- - - Updated - - -

just like phone calls have different laws then voip or chat, same with email

many in Congress and the prev republicans SOS's used private email, if repubs want to make it illegal, then pass a bill making it illegal

.

 

Look the bottom line is until an indictment, arrest or conviction is made NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE. You can vote based on whatever criteria you want. You can vote for a presidential candidate because you like the color of their eyes if you want. But no action can be taken against Hillary at this point. Unless you want to throw out due process and the constitution. If you think this is an indication of her character then take that into account. I assure you I am taking into account the draft dodging, 4 bankruptcies, and fraud allegations of one former reality tv star.

 

You give the American populous credit for more than the deserve. The average person has an attention span of about 3 days after which they are gullible for anything that comes along.

 

Illegal maybe, but since he's authorized to view it shed be unlikely to face prosecution based on past precedents

 

This story has been on steroids in the RW media for almost a week. It originated with a Fox News broadcast of Judge Nap’s opinion based upon what he has decided is evidence in public domain. The “story” is repeated over and over again by the talking heads at Fox News.

The fate of HRC” alleged wrongdoing is yet unknown…. And the dream of her indictment is but a dream.

At this point no one knows her fate but the history of similar cases and the political upheaval of an indictment weighs heavily against this ending in an indictment….

To have an indictment there must be overwhelming evidence of serious wrongdoing……. And of what we know of this case there is none……..

And without an airtight case of a crime of a serious nature.....

I doubt anyone at DOJ would indict HRC because of the personal and historic blowback the person deciding so

Sorry folks, IMHO the dream of HRC indictment will remain just that………..a dream

And then the RW media can move on to the next big scandal

 

Never had time for Egyptology. I did take 2 years of History-western, US, world, and European.

I really wanted to take Roman or Greek.

I stayed with one professor because I loved him.

Get this, though he never told the class (he did tell me early on), he is a Catholic priest and historian, married to a British historian. Apparently there is a catholic bylaw somewhere that allows married Church of England priests to convert to Catholicism.

All at a public university. He's a fascinating guy, outstanding professor, and exceedingly intelligent.

 

Wrong. If you look at the confidentiality documents Canks signed-it specifically states the medium is irrelevant.

The data is what is illegal to transmit, not the way that it was transmitted.

 

It clearly states classified is marked or unmarked, including oral communications.

 

What I have found is Hillary supporters are generally unaware of these basic facts of the case.

 

she has broken now laws.... like I said, many used personal email prior to this... including the prev SOS's

 

It's not a good situation. Evil approaches the White House and there is no force to stop her, because the GOP is just ridiculous at this point.

 

You are having comprehension issues. The medium does not matter-she transmitted top secret info, and was in possession of it on an unsecured server.


The facts are damning.

 

Somewhere in Hell, Adolf Hitler is protesting his innocence, swearing that he didn't INTEND to start World War II. "Intend"? Intend, my ass! This is the weakest, fallback position I can imagine that this simple-minded, stupid old bag could possibly use.

Example: So the average Joe says, "Hey, IRS -- I didn't intend to cheat on my taxes (huh, huh, huh)...." But he gets his ass nailed with prosecution, fines, and possible jail time anyway! Don't you hyperlibs see how stupid and defenseless this kind of "intent" crap sounds to the rest of us, who actually are capable of understanding reality?!

To make it simpler for some of you to understand:

. "I only intended to fart, but instead I (*)(*)(*)(*) my pants!" -- "Presidential much...?!"

 

When it comes to handling classified information, intent plays a big part. It's written into the statutes. You have to KNOWINGLY violate classification rules, and usually it has to involve malicious intent.

And even when the secrecy laws are written broadly, they are rarely enforced broadly. The history of prosecutions in cases like this show there is no prosecution unless there was malicious intent.

I'm consistently amazed at how little conservatives know about the laws they accuse Hillary of breaking.

I predict that if Hillary faces any charges, it will be for violating government-records laws, not for anything involving classified information. And such cases are almost never criminal -- they tend to be administrative, geared toward recovering the records and ensuring the violation doesn't happen again. It's small potatoes.

 

Napolitano's drawing on years of legal experience, so I respect his insight, but again, until the FBI releases it's conclusions nothings a sure thing. Having "overwhelming evidence" is one thing, having the evidence to recommend prosecuting is another. And, I'd imagine the FBI's set a rather high bar for the evidence needed to recommend prosecuting Hillary, so we'll just have to wait & see.

 

???? Not sure how you can draw that conclusion, but whatever.

 

Amazing how you can claim Clinton signed that form when it was revised in July 2013 -- after she had served her term as SoS.

 

The facts SEEM so damming to your partisan heart but still....no arrest, no indictment, no conviction.

 

No one needs to sign a form to be guilty of espionage.

 

Espionage! Now that is hilarious! LOL