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

[Stoffel]

22 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Yes anything about The Clinton's can't possibly be true. The Benghazi Thing, her private email server, her phony foundation.. Yes it is all a Vast Right Ring Conspiracy.

It's more that the GOP just slings anything at the wall and hopes that eventually something will stick.

So far no luck. It would be better if they first would gather evidence and then start slinging the mud.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

It's more that the GOP just slings anything at the wall and hopes that eventually something will stick.

So far no luck. It would be better if they first would gather evidence and then start slinging the mud.

They did  gather evidence. Fact: It is against the law for a secretary of state to use a Private email server. She had to sign a statement in front of two FBI agents stating that she would NOT. Now we all know she did. so she committed a Federal Crime.

[Joe User]

3 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

They did  gather evidence. Fact: It is against the law for a secretary of state to use a Private email server. She had to sign a statement in front of two FBI agents stating that she would NOT. Now we all know she did. so she committed a Federal Crime.

It was not against the law when she was Secretary of State. If you believe otherwise, please cite the specific law you believe she broke.

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, Joe User said:

It was not against the law when she was Secretary of State. If you believe otherwise, please cite the specific law you believe she broke.

 

You said it wasn't so you site the source that says so. But I will do it for you.

 

Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds - NBC News

 

Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.[30

 

FBI: Hillary Clinton Broke the Law, We Just Don't Really Care | Mediaite

 

Report: FBI 'increasingly certain' Clinton broke the law | Washington ...

 

Of Course Hillary Broke the Law, And Here's How | Common Sense ...

 

If that is not enough there are more.

[Joe User]

4 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

You said it wasn't so you site the source that says so.

You made the first claim, defend your claim or abandon it.

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Joe User said:

You made the first claim, defend your claim or abandon it.

 

Look UP

[Joe User]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

 

Quote

There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

 

[Joe User]

I really like to dislike edited posts.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Joe User

[Joe User]

 

15 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

You said it wasn't so you site the source that says so. But I will do it for you.

 

Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds - NBC News

 

Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.[30

 

FBI: Hillary Clinton Broke the Law, We Just Don't Really Care | Mediaite

 

Report: FBI 'increasingly certain' Clinton broke the law | Washington ...

 

Of Course Hillary Broke the Law, And Here's How | Common Sense ...

 

If that is not enough there are more.

 

None of those articles says

 

25 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Fact: It is against the law for a secretary of state to use a Private email server.

Your "fact" is false.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, Joe User said:

I really hate edited posts.

 

It is a feature that is available to use.

[Joe User]

37 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

It is a feature that is available to use.

And abuse.

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Joe User

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, Joe User said:

 

 

None of those articles says

 

Your "fact" is false.

You can believe all the bs in the world. She violated a federal law.

1 minute ago, Joe User said:

And abuse. Like when you took out your original statement and replaced it with a completely different one

 

 

 

I abused nothing. You have a problem sir.

[Joe User]

1 minute ago, Gary7 said:

You can believe all the bs in the world. She violated a federal law.

Your claim: 

 

32 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

 Fact:  It is against the law for a secretary of state to use a Private email server.

No such law exists. 

 

Your rebuttal:

 

'She violated a federal law'. Which cites a different law that does not say "It is against the law for a secretary of state to use a Private email server".

 

Therefore, the "fact" is false. 

 

Now, if you would have said 'FACT: Secretary Clinton violated record keeping law by not turning over documents', you would have been correct. 

[PGHammer]

9 minutes ago, Joe User said:

 

 

None of those articles says

 

Your "fact" is false.

Cabinet officials are government employees - according to every definition or regulation; therefore, said regulation DEFINITELY applies to the Secretary of State.  (It also applies to the President's Cabinet as a whole - at least one court case from Watergate applies there.)

Further, the Retention of Records Act DEFINITELY applies; that covers the entire government - including Congress and the agencies thereof.  (That came directly out of Watergate - specifically, that eighteen minute gap in the Nixon tapes - which were, in fact, considered official government records  - the original ruling came from then-District Court Judge Gerhard Gisele from the United States Court for the District of Columbia.  The RRA is a rare law because Congress did NOT exempt itself.)

[wakjak]

2 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Cabinet officials are government employees - according to every definition or regulation; therefore, said regulation DEFINITELY applies to the Secretary of State.  (It also applies to the President's Cabinet as a whole - at least one court case from Watergate applies there.)

Further, the Retention of Records Act DEFINITELY applies; that covers the entire government - including Congress and the agencies thereof.  (That came directly out of Watergate - specifically, that eighteen minute gap in the Nixon tapes - which were, in fact, considered official government records  - the original ruling came from then-District Court Judge Gerhard Gisele from the United States Court for the District of Columbia.  The RRA is a rare law because Congress did NOT exempt itself.

 

You think the fbi couldn't figure out if she broke the law or not? They didn't so she didn't. Otherwise she'd have been tried for such a breach of law. 

 

Anything stated otherwise is conjecture at best. Bs at worst. 

[Joe User]

1 minute ago, PGHammer said:

Cabinet officials are government employees - according to every definition or regulation; therefore, said regulation DEFINITELY applies to the Secretary of State.  (It also applies to the President's Cabinet as a whole - at least one court case from Watergate applies there.)

Further, the Retention of Records Act DEFINITELY applies; that covers the entire government - including Congress and the agencies thereof.  (That came directly out of Watergate - specifically, that eighteen minute gap in the Nixon tapes - which were, in fact, considered official government records  - the original ruling came from then-District Court Judge Gerhard Gisele from the United States Court for the District of Columbia.  The RRA is a rare law because Congress did NOT exempt itself.)

Which has no prohibitions on having a private mail server as long as records are are maintained and turned over.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

 

 

She Lied/

[PGHammer]

5 minutes ago, Joe User said:

Your claim: 

 

No such law exists. 

 

Your rebuttal:

 

'She violated a federal law'. Which cites a different law that does not say "It is against the law for a secretary of state to use a Private email server".

 

Therefore, the "fact" is false. 

 

Now, if you would have said 'FACT: Secretary Clinton violated record keeping law by not turning over documents', you would have been correct. 

Not merely hair-splitting, but incorrect hair-splitting at that.

 

The RRA (Retention of Records Act) is an Act of Congress - a law; NOT a regulation.  Further, it also applies to Congress and the agencies of Congress - and on purpose.  (That is what makes it rare air; Congress usually exempts itself.)  It also applies to the Courts - which have their own arm to enforce it (the Administrative Office of United States Courts).  The eighteen-minute gap in the White House Tapes (and Judge Gisele's ruling ON said gap) is the reason RRA (and laws like it on the state and local level) exist.

[Access-denied]

CNN was also guilty of not having a clue what they were talking about

[Joe User]

Just now, PGHammer said:

Not merely hair-splitting, but incorrect hair-splitting at that.

 

The RRA (Retention of Records Act) is an Act of Congress - a law; NOT a regulation.  Further, it also applies to Congress and the agencies of Congress - and on purpose.  (That is what makes it rare air; Congress usually exempts itself.)  It also applies to the Courts - which have their own arm to enforce it (the Administrative Office of United States Courts).  The eighteen-minute gap in the White House Tapes (and Judge Gisele's ruling ON said gap) is the reason RRA (and laws like it on the state and local level) exist.

Your point being?

[Joe User]

Listen, when someone writes "FACT: stuff" they're claiming a specific fact.  Not an opinion, not a related fact, a defined specific fact.

 

[Joe User]

Fact: The air above my house contains oxygen.

Fact: The air above my house contains giant boulders.

 

I can sample the air above my house, it will contain oxygen, it will not contain giant boulders. It may contain traces of fine rock particles, which are not giant boulders.

 

 

When you say "Fact: Law A was broken" and reality Law A does not exist, it's not a fact. Even if Law B, C, and D were broken, Law A still does not exist.

 

[PGHammer]

2 minutes ago, Joe User said:

Listen, when someone writes "FACT: stuff" they're claiming a specific fact.  Not an opinion, not a related fact, a defined specific fact.

 

What you are, in fact, trying to do is force a mistrial (by charging on the wrong statute or law or regulation) then running out the clock via the statute of limitations OR the double-jeopardy statutes - you want your putative client to stay free.  The problem is that there are multiple statutes, laws, and regulations that apply - all with different "clocks" under which legal action can be taken.  (Until 2003, Bill Clinton COULD have been indicted and charged under DC law with adultery - I actually read THAT item in the Washington Post - it came up after the Clinton impeachment case went nowhere.)  I get the bob and weave - however, depending on the "clock", they have a while yet to whack - the ONLY way to forestall everything ultimately is for her to win the election - period.

[Joe User]

2 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

What you are, in fact, trying to do is force a mistrial (by charging on the wrong statute or law or regulation) then running out the clock via the statute of limitations OR the double-jeopardy statutes - you want your putative client to stay free.  The problem is that there are multiple statutes, laws, and regulations that apply - all with different "clocks" under which legal action can be taken.  (Until 2003, Bill Clinton COULD have been indicted and charged under DC law with adultery - I actually read THAT item in the Washington Post - it came up after the Clinton impeachment case went nowhere.)  I get the bob and weave - however, depending on the "clock", they have a while yet to whack - the ONLY way to forestall everything ultimately is for her to win the election - period.

What point are you trying to make? That we can ignore reality if it makes a good sound bite?

[PGHammer]

22 minutes ago, Joe User said:

Your point being?

You cite one law where another law applies - it can be enough to get a case tossed out of court before a trial can take place - do it enough, and it can get you into hot water as a prosecutor (the Duke Lacrosse case, for example).  Then there is "overcharging" - which can also run a case aground (not enough evidence to support the charges); that can even happen in manslaughter cases - let alone murder cases up to and including capital murder. (Example - the Freddy Gray cases.)  With Hillary, there are two different SETS of legal clocks ticking - one is when she can be legally charged - the second is the Presidential election itself.  Thanks to the actions of the Obama Administration and the players thereof, the second clock is the critical one - not the first.  If she wins the election, she won't be charged - period.  (I get that.)  However, if she LOSES the election - the first clock resumes ticking after the inauguration; there is nothing short of a pardon that will block that first clock restarting from where it stopped.

 

However, a lot of you (even those that claim to prefer Bernie over Hillary) want her to escape prosecution altogether.  The question I have been asking ALL of you (since the allegations came up) is why is Hillary escaping facing the bar of justice so critical?  Nothing more -  or less.  You want her off the hook - why?  (And to those that prefer Bernie over Hillary, the question makes a lot more sense, I would think.)

 

Is there NO sense of justice left when it comes to politicians and crime?