FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery" And "Hide Traces Of" Deleted Emails

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Yeah i saw that one when it was happening.

The funny thing is, he only wants yes/no answers. He doesn't let him elaborate at all.

That's the best way to make sure your narrative comes out on top.

 

Trey is also clearly still ###### off that he didn't get anything out of Benghazi, so this is his revenge time.

The yews/no answers were to answers that Clinton testified to congress. Gowdy was asking was that true? How much detail do you want? Have you ever been in a court Room and listened to the questions a Prosecutor asks?  He wanted to know if she lied, and Comey's answer's proved that.

[Stoffel]

19 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

The yews/no answers were to answers that Clinton testified to congress. Gowdy was asking was that true? How much detail do you want? Have you ever been in a court Room and listened to the questions a Prosecutor asks?  He wanted to know if she lied, and Comey's answer's proved that.

Details are important.

Did she send classified info while she said she didn't? The short answer is yes and you can say, see she lied.

The slightly longer answer would be still yes, but since the documents weren't clearly marked, she may have been under the impression they weren't classified. So to here knowledge she never send classified info.

 

So she didn't lie, she replied to the best of her knowledge.

 

See how details matter.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

18 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Details are important.

Did she send classified info while she said she didn't? The short answer is yes and you can say, see she lied.

The slightly longer answer would be still yes, but since the documents weren't clearly marked, she may have been under the impression they weren't classified. So to here knowledge she never send classified info.

 

So she didn't lie, she replied to the best of her knowledge.

 

See how details matter.

Get over it she lied. Is this detailed enough for you?

 

Quote

FBI Director James Comey during his testimony last week indicated that several statements Hillary Clinton made in her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi were contradicted by findings in the FBI’s investigation.  However, he stated the FBI did not consider her congressional testimony as part of its investigation because they did not have a referral from Congress.  On Monday, Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Bob Goodlatte sent a referral letter to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia requesting an investigation into whether Clinton lied to Congress.  That’s a crime.

 

As you’ll see, and quite unfortunately for those wishing to see Clinton prosecuted, the law places a high burden on prosecutors to charge someone with perjury and/or lying to Congress.  Additionally, prior history shows that the Department of Justice very rarely prosecutes individuals for lying to Congress.  Therefore, even though Clinton probably lied to Congress, it is unlikely that she will be charged for perjury.

 

First, there are generally two statutes that come into play in prosecutions related to lying to Congress:  18 U.S.C. §1621 — perjury and 18 U.S.C. §1001 — false representations before Congress.

 

Under section 1621, the government must prove that a witness took an oath, before a competent tribunal, and “willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true.”  The most difficult element to prove is that the witness “willfully” or knowingly made a false statement beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the government can also prove this element through circumstantial evidence.

 

Continues...

Edited August 26, 2016 by Andrew

[Stoffel]

15 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Get over it she lied. Is this detailed enough for you?

 

Why Hillary Clinton Will Not be Charged for Lying to Congress — Even ...

Just like the GOP you lack nuance. Not everything is black/white.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Just like the GOP you lack nuance. Not everything is black/white.

In a court of law it is. All you have to do is first listen to the testimony of Clinton all 11 hours of it, then listen to what Comey said when he was not going to indict and then listen to the video I posted. If you cannot see that she lied then I don't know what to tell you as it is all there in black and white. I think the real reason that Comey did not indict was that he did not want Trump in the White House. Now The FBI is looking into her foundation and don't forget how the DNC screwed Sanders over.

[Stoffel]

3 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

In a court of law it is. All you have to do is first listen to the testimony of Clinton all 11 hours of it, then listen to what Comey said when he was not going to indict and then listen to the video I posted. If you cannot see that she lied then I don't know what to tell you as it is all there in black and white. I think the real reason that Comey did not indict was that he did not want Trump in the White House. Now The FBI is looking into her foundation and don't forget how the DNC screwed Sanders over.

If they could pin anything on Hilary they would have done it by now. This is all just BS to make sure it stays in the media until the election. All in the hope that this will be enough to get Trump elected.

 

I'm not even a Hilary fan, i was rooting for Bernie. Yeah, the DNC didn't screw Bernie over. You are talking about those emails in may/june right. By then sadly enough Bernie had no chance of winning anymore. Was it stupid and should DWS been fired, sure. The stuff had no effect on the primary though.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

If they could pin anything on Hilary they would have done it by now. This is all just BS to make sure it stays in the media until the election. All in the hope that this will be enough to get Trump elected.

 

I'm not even a Hilary fan, i was rooting for Bernie. Yeah, the DNC didn't screw Bernie over. You are talking about those emails in may/june right. By then sadly enough Bernie had no chance of winning anymore. Was it stupid and should DWS been fired, sure. The stuff had no effect on the primary though.

You believe what you want, you do not live here and what you think about Clinton is of no consequence as is what I think. There comes a time in everyone's life where they have to pay the Piper. Her time is getting close. Do not forget that Wikileaks still has a bunch of stuff to release.

[Stoffel]

2 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

You believe what you want, you do not live here and what you think about Clinton is of no consequence as is what I think. There comes a time in everyone's life where they have to pay the Piper. Her time is getting close. Do not forget that Wikileaks still has a bunch of stuff to release.

The moment they come with proof i will take everything back i said, but as of now there is no real proof that she did anything wrong.

As said before, if they had anything that could possibly stick they would have used it by now.

[Solid Knight]

23 hours ago, warwagon said:

So if you are secretary of state and someone sends you a stupid FW:FW:FW:FW email, you can't delete it?

You can delete whatever you want out of your inbox but the server is supposed to archive everything work related which generally results in everything being archived because its the easiest way to comply.

[Morisato]

18 hours ago, Gary7 said:

There is a thread for Trump why not post this there -------->-------->Is Donald Trump Physically Unfit to be POTUS?

If there was something related to the context of the discussion of those I quoted I will be sure to make a post there.

[Buttus]

18 hours ago, Stoffel said:

Details are important.

Did she send classified info while she said she didn't? The short answer is yes and you can say, see she lied.

The slightly longer answer would be still yes, but since the documents weren't clearly marked, she may have been under the impression they weren't classified. So to here knowledge she never send classified info.

 

So she didn't lie, she replied to the best of her knowledge.

 

See how details matter.

this again, so she's either a liar or she's very ignorant.  the doc's were not 'clearly marked' when just by her reading them and understanding the content of the email, she would know if they were classified type material or just her "yoga instructions"

 

so, liar or very ignorant...   sounds like a great president

[rafter109]

On 8/26/2016 at 3:17 PM, Stoffel said:

The classic answer when you don't have any proof.

I was under the impression that the House and the Senate were run by the republicans, so you are telling me that with all that power, they are still to incompetent to make anything stick? And you want to turn the presidency over to them too? What are you people smoking? And stop hogging it, give us some too

The executive office is the ONLY office that holds the power of prosecution. This means that Loretta Lynch is the only person in the country with the authority to file charges against Hillary Clinton. FBI director Comey has already stated, in not so many words, that Hillary did in fact break federal law but said that she was too stupid to know what she was doing. I call BS on the stupid part, she knew exactly what she was doing, at least she better not be stupid if she is running for president. Loretta Lynch will not file charges unless she has no other option because 1) the only reason she has her job is because Bill Clinton made a name for her and 2) Hillary Clinton has already promised her a position in her cabinet if she kept her mouth shut (hence the tarmac meeting with Bill). The only way for the truth to come out is to elect someone who cares to know the truth (like Trump) and they must direct the Attorney General to investigate.

[rafter109]

23 hours ago, Stoffel said:

The moment they come with proof i will take everything back i said, but as of now there is no real proof that she did anything wrong.

As said before, if they had anything that could possibly stick they would have used it by now.

Right, so you think Loretta Lynch is going to use sound judgement and reason when handling the Clintons? I'd love to know when Ms. Lynch got her angel wings.

[Gone]

Why is this in "It's a Conspiracy"? This is true, whether or not the liberals on Neowin want to believe it.

[rafter109]

Just now, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Why is this in "It's a Conspiracy"? This is true, whether or not the liberals on Neowin want to believe it.

Because we no longer have journalists in our world. We have propaganda agents for a globalist communist regime run by George Soros and his goonies.

[Stoffel]

31 minutes ago, rafter109 said:

The executive office is the ONLY office that holds the power of prosecution. This means that Loretta Lynch is the only person in the country with the authority to file charges against Hillary Clinton. FBI director Comey has already stated, in not so many words, that Hillary did in fact break federal law but said that she was too stupid to know what she was doing. I call BS on the stupid part, she knew exactly what she was doing, at least she better not be stupid if she is running for president. Loretta Lynch will not file charges unless she has no other option because 1) the only reason she has her job is because Bill Clinton made a name for her and 2) Hillary Clinton has already promised her a position in her cabinet if she kept her mouth shut (hence the tarmac meeting with Bill). The only way for the truth to come out is to elect someone who cares to know the truth (like Trump) and they must direct the Attorney General to investigate.

If they come up with actual proof then maybe Loretta Lynch will do something. The fact that the GOP has been after Hilary for so many years, so many commissions, investigations, investigations of investigations,... and they still haven't come up with anything tells me it's all political.

If there was hard/real proof that she broke the law, do you really think the GOP would let it go?

32 minutes ago, rafter109 said:

Right, so you think Loretta Lynch is going to use sound judgement and reason when handling the Clintons? I'd love to know when Ms. Lynch got her angel wings.

If they provide here with some real proof there is no way around it for her.

But either there is nothing that sticks, or the GOP is just really bad at finding any proof.

[rafter109]

1 minute ago, Stoffel said:

If they come up with actual proof then maybe Loretta Lynch will do something. The fact that the GOP has been after Hilary for so many years, so many commissions, investigations, investigations of investigations,... and they still haven't come up with anything tells me it's all political.

If there was hard/real proof that she broke the law, do you really think the GOP would let it go?

The FBI has already said they had proof that she illegally handled classified information but they declined to recommend prosecution and danced around the reason for their recommendation. 

[Stoffel]

3 minutes ago, rafter109 said:

The FBI has already said they had proof that she illegally handled classified information but they declined to recommend prosecution and danced around the reason for their recommendation. 

Didn't the FBI say the she was extremely careless? If they have a hard time proving that there was negligence and what she did wasn't against the law they have no leg to stand on.

[rafter109]

3 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

If they come up with actual proof then maybe Loretta Lynch will do something. The fact that the GOP has been after Hilary for so many years, so many commissions, investigations, investigations of investigations,... and they still haven't come up with anything tells me it's all political.

If there was hard/real proof that she broke the law, do you really think the GOP would let it go?

Your responses to this are akin to you saying "Nothing to see here, move along" while standing in front of a burning house. The reason Donald Trump is so popular is because people are so tired of the deception and misdirection employed by Democrats, European Socialists, and 3rd world Communists. Last I checked, Honduras was rife with corruption, and over half of its population live in poverty because people with the mindset you are employing have turned a blind eye and preferred to be oblivious to reality.

4 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Didn't the FBI say the she was extremely careless? If they have a hard time proving that there was negligence and what she did wasn't against the law they have no leg to stand on.

Last I checked an English thesaurus, careless and negligent were one and the same.

[bguy_1986]

It seems some of my posts disappeared like Hillary's email...

 

 

 

Any ways, you kids should stop getting your news from Comedy Central...

[rafter109]

 

13 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Didn't the FBI say the she was extremely careless? If they have a hard time proving that there was negligence and what she did wasn't against the law they have no leg to stand on.

Obviously your grasp on the American political system needs some work since you don't seem to be connecting the dots. I'll give you a brief primer - FBI works for Loretta Lynch, Loretta Lynch was appointed due to a recommendation by Bill Clinton, Lynch will not allow FBI to prosecute because Bill Clinton promised her a job in Hillary Clinton's cabinet. No one but Loretta Lynch has the authority to investigate or file charges. If this does not make any sense to you as to why people are outraged then, I'm sorry, you are destined to be oblivious.

[Stoffel]

10 minutes ago, rafter109 said:

Your responses to this are akin to you saying "Nothing to see here, move along" while standing in front of a burning house. The reason Donald Trump is so popular is because people are so tired of the deception and misdirection employed by Democrats, European Socialists, and 3rd world Communists. Last I checked, Honduras was rife with corruption, and over half of its population live in poverty because people with the mindset you are employing have turned a blind eye and preferred to be oblivious to reality.

Last I checked an English thesaurus, careless and negligent were one and the same.

For the law those two are very different things.

You can be very careless without you successfully being sued in court for being negligent.

 

To proof that somebody was negligent you need to proof 5 things i believe

establish there was some sort of duty

proof she breached that duty

proof there was damages because of that breach

...

The first 2 points are easy to proof, the third one is a lot harder.

[rafter109]

1 minute ago, Stoffel said:

For the law those two are very different things.

You can be very careless without you successfully being sued in court for being negligent.

 

To proof that somebody was negligent you need to proof 5 things i believe

establish there was some sort of duty

proof she breached that duty

proof there was damages because of that breach

...

The first 2 points are easy to proof, the third one is a lot harder.

1. Duty to protect classified information is codified into US Law

    Duty to maintain records of official business communications and to transfer to the National Archives upon the end of tenure (or other arbitrary departmental timeframe) is codified into US Law

2. It was found during the investigation by the FBI that not only did she use private computer systems to access classified information, It was also found that there was a deliberate attempt to delete information thus violating both parts of #1

3. Reports are currently circulating that the Russian government may have accessed sensitive information on Hillary Clinton's private server - establishing damages through negligence.

[Stoffel]

1 minute ago, rafter109 said:

1. Duty to protect classified information is codified into US Law

    Duty to maintain records of official business communications and to transfer to the National Archives upon the end of tenure (or other arbitrary departmental timeframe) is codified into US Law

2. It was found during the investigation by the FBI that not only did she use private computer systems to access classified information, It was also found that there was a deliberate attempt to delete information thus violating both parts of #1

3. Reports are currently circulating that the Russian government may have accessed sensitive information on Hillary Clinton's private server - establishing damages through negligence.

Key word in point 3 is MAY. There is a chance, but there is no concrete proof. So we are struggling with point 3 which means point 4 & 5 can't be proven either since they heavily rely on the previous points.

 

So director Comey did the right thing in suggesting not to prosecute because they would be struggling just like we are doing now. He saved the tax payer a lot of money.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Why is this in "It's a Conspiracy"? This is true, whether or not the liberals on Neowin want to believe it.

This DOES not belong in The Conspiracy Section