Resurrected, the HRC e-mail scandal emerges from the mire, thanks to a Weiner

[2ADMNLOVER]

. Then again... I sure wouldn't want to rat out a Clinton. It's bad for your health from what I've read.

Correlation doesn't always equal causation but that trail is littered with coincidences and unfortunate circumstances .

 

[halfmileharry]

Correlation doesn't always equal causation but that trail is littered with coincidences and unfortunate circumstances .

That would be more than enough to scare the poop out of me.

 

[Cygnus]

I want to believe

When all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive, might we turn to the fantastic as plausible? (Or some like that)


It's good they all agree to release them. This has truly been a bizarre election.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I'll agree with this much. Hillary supporters won't even blink at this. I have a coworker who believes the email scandal is just a right wing conspiracy. I think there are enough people dug into their own positions that either candidate could be caught in the act of something heinous, with overwhelming evidence, and neither side would lose much support.

Playing "doctor" with a 15 yr old on the net could get him locked in a cell with a bigger pervert. IF he could rat his way out he may not get ratholed.
Then again... I sure wouldn't want to rat out a Clinton. It's bad for your health from what I've read.

And cooperating on a case this big to the point you are the key witness that ties it all together could be all he could wish for.

"I'll cooperate with you to bury her if you dont bury me. She's a bigger fish." (just like prosecutors cut deals with the small time dealers to get the big smugglers/kingpins busted)

 

[hopper68]

I think this would more than likely be a "unbuckle, and move around the cabin" moment. Wiener is a highly connected Democrat, that has been pretty loyal to the party, and the Clintons. He either knows theirs nothing to be seen on his phone, or he's confident that he has a solid avenue to walk. There's no benefit to him in helping take down the Clintons.

[video=youtube;bdCuDF4u5Yg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdCuDF4u5Yg[/video]

 

[LPMan59]

FBI has their warrant. *crosses fingers*

 

[daddymikey1975]

FBI has their warrant. *crosses fingers*

Source?

 

[LPMan59]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcn...nton-probe-reid-accuses-n675411?client=safari

 

[LPMan59]

http://www.chicksontheright.com/martin-omalley-hillary-isnt-a-criminal-the-server-is/

It gets really good around 6:30. Mental disorder.

 

[MCgrease08]

Source?

FBI obtains warrant for newly discovered emails in Clinton probe - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

 

[Greyson]

Back in the day when I handled Classified materials, two requirements needed to be met: 1) Proper security clearance granted and not lost and 2) need to know.

Allowing someone who did not meet both of these criteria is illegal. If the material was not kept secure, the event may be considered "aiding and abetting the enemy" which is sometimes referred to as treason.

Huma, was working as an aid and thus may meet the criteria (depending on the situation). Weiner, on the other hand, would have no need to know and might have (should have) lost his clearance.

That said, the FBI MUST prosecute HRC and Huma if Weiner has any classified on his machine from Hilary's private server.

I'm gonna hold my breath until Comey does the right thing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

FBI has their warrant. *crosses fingers*

Hence the glaring problem, with Comey publically making his statement. That way "most" LE agencies do it, is they get a warrant to find out if something criminal has occurred. You may stumble upon info that may lead you to think something criminal is going on, but you don't know for sure until you have the warrant to access whatever you need.
It's impossible to disconnect the idea that a Republican director of the FBI, releasing this info less than two weeks before the election, is doing so for political reasons.

 

[Vigilant]

Back in the day when I handled Classified materials, two requirements needed to be met: 1) Proper security clearance granted and not lost and 2) need to know.

Allowing someone who did not meet both of these criteria is illegal. If the material was not kept secure, the event may be considered "aiding and abetting the enemy" which is sometimes referred to as treason.

Huma, was working as an aid and thus may meet the criteria (depending on the situation). Weiner, on the other hand, would have no need to know and might have (should have) lost his clearance.

That said, the FBI MUST prosecute HRC and Huma if Weiner has any classified on his machine from Hilary's private server.

I'm gonna hold my breath until Comey does the right thing.

Welcome to the WTF crew! It's been rehashed over and over, simply having the classed material on a private server was illegal, but ONLY if there was intent! Where have you been?

 

[LPMan59]

Hence the glaring problem, with Comey publically making his statement. That way "most" LE agencies do it, is they get a warrant to find out if something criminal has occurred. You may stumble upon info that may lead you to think something criminal is going on, but you don't know for sure until you have the warrant to access whatever you need.
It's impossible to disconnect the idea that a Republican director of the FBI, releasing this info less than two weeks before the election, is doing so for political reasons.

I agree. I'm sure he will be prosecuted like that guy who lied about a candidate's tax crimes.

 

[Vigilant]

Hence the glaring problem, with Comey publically making his statement. That way "most" LE agencies do it, is they get a warrant to find out if something criminal has occurred. You may stumble upon info that may lead you to think something criminal is going on, but you don't know for sure until you have the warrant to access whatever you need.
It's impossible to disconnect the idea that a Republican director of the FBI, releasing this info less than two weeks before the election, is doing so for political reasons.

As was the "impossibility" of the husband of a person under investigation by the FBI, "running into" the AG on a runway in Arizona, and talking about "grandkids and golf"? Kut can't have it both ways, can he? It's impossible to disconnect the fact that the next week, the "results" exonerated Hillary, even though the evidence, as relayed in the media, convicted her! I don't know if you've ever held a clearance, but what she ADMITTED to was a crime, that many others have served time for?

 

[Kutnupe14]

As was the "impossibility" of the husband of a person under investigation by the FBI, "running into" the AG on a runway in Arizona, and talking about "grandkids and golf"? Kut can't have it both ways, can he?

That was also improper. We have a dirty govt, on both sides. I complain about both sides equally, depending on who is trying to justify what.

 

[Vigilant]

That was also improper. We have a dirty govt, on both sides. I complain about both sides equally, depending on who is trying to justify what.

As long as we agree, nothing more from me on that!

 

[LPMan59]

That was also improper. We have a dirty govt, on both sides. I complain about both sides equally, depending on who is trying to justify what.

Straight up

 

[jamil]

Back in the day when I handled Classified materials, two requirements needed to be met: 1) Proper security clearance granted and not lost and 2) need to know.

Allowing someone who did not meet both of these criteria is illegal. If the material was not kept secure, the event may be considered "aiding and abetting the enemy" which is sometimes referred to as treason.

Huma, was working as an aid and thus may meet the criteria (depending on the situation). Weiner, on the other hand, would have no need to know and might have (should have) lost his clearance.

That said, the FBI MUST prosecute HRC and Huma if Weiner has any classified on his machine from Hilary's private server.

I'm gonna hold my breath until Comey does the right thing.

I suspect you're not gonna make it.

 

[Greyson]

Welcome to the WTF crew! It's been rehashed over and over, simply having the classed material on a private server was illegal, but ONLY if there was intent! Where have you been?

Sorry if I upset you Vigilant. I thought that "need to know" was not common knowledge. Since you didn't comment about that, you may be one who needs to hear it (again). Or, maybe it doesn't matter to you. Oh well. To me, in light of the weiner, it comes into play (but didn't before).

OBTW: Is there some place in the law where you see the word "intent?" Methinks that has well been debunked by now. HRC paid a lot of $$$ to have that word inserted into the conversation.