What if the FBI is onto her?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Yard Dart, Mar 14, 2016.

  1. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    What if Hillary Clinton is in legal hot water and she knows it but won’t admit it? What if she has decided to go on the offensive and make her case that she did nothing unlawful with her emails that contained state secrets?

    What if the essence of her defense is that other secretaries of state used non-secure email devices and thus it was lawful for her to do so, as well as the point that none of her emails was “marked classified” at the time she sent or received them? What if these defenses do not hold up to even cursory examination?

    What if the other secretaries of state to whom she refers are Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? What if neither of them diverted all of their emails to a private server? What if neither of them sent or received state secrets -- secrets that under the law of the land are marked “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret,” not “classified” -- using a non-secure email account?

    What if neither of them hired an information technology expert and paid him to divert both a standard State Department email stream and a secret State Department email stream to a private server in one of their homes?

    What if neither Powell nor Rice is currently running for president? What if neither Powell nor Rice has had his or her behavior as secretary of state referred to the FBI for a criminal investigation by the inspector general of the State Department?

    What if the law of the land is that a document or email contains state secrets by virtue of the information or data in the document or email and not by virtue of any warning label? What if the legal definition of a "state secret" in the U.S. is "information the revelation of which could cause harm to the security of the United States"?

    What if it is the law of the land that people in the government to whom state secrets are entrusted are required to recognize the secrets when they see them and protect them from intentional or inadvertent revelation?

    What if it is the law of the land that everyone in the government to whom state secrets are entrusted receives a multi-hour tutorial from the FBI on how to protect state secrets? What if the successful completion of that tutorial is a legal prerequisite to the receipt of a national security clearance and thus the receipt of state secrets?

    What if that tutorial reminds the people to whom secrets are being reposed that it is their legal obligation to recognize and accept and understand the law before they can receive any state secrets? What if, in order to confirm that understanding, all people who receive the tutorial are required to sign an oath at the end of the tutorial recognizing, accepting and understanding the law and agreeing to be bound by it? What if Clinton signed just such an oath?

    What if Clinton had no intention of complying with the oath she signed at the time she signed it? What if we know that because we know she hired the information technologist to divert her emails the same week she received the FBI tutorial? What if she never told the FBI that she planned to divert all her emails -- including those that would contain state secrets -- to a private non-secure email server in her home?

    What if it is the law of the land that the failure to secure state secrets is a felony, known as espionage? What if it is the law of the land that espionage can be committed by a person who intends to expose state secrets or by a person who doesn’t care if she exposes state secrets? What if the FBI explained to Clinton in her first day as secretary of state that the grossly negligent exposure of state secrets constitutes espionage?

    What if before Clinton was secretary of state, she was a U.S. senator from New York for eight years? What if during that time, she was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee? What if during her time in the Senate, she was exposed to hundreds of military-related state secrets?

    What if Clinton is smart enough and shrewd enough and experienced enough to recognize a state secret when she sees one?

    What if the FBI has seen emails in which Clinton ordered subordinates deliberately to avoid State Department secure channels of communications and to send state secrets to her through channels she knew were not secure? What if Clinton passed on state secrets to others who had no security clearances? What if she did so knowing she was sending state secrets from her non-secure server to other non-secure servers?

    What if Clinton sent or received more than 2,000 emails that contained state secrets? What if she authored more than 100 of them herself? What if some of the 2,000 emails were so secret that the FBI agents investigating her lack the security clearances to view those emails?

    What if Clinton did all this so that she could keep her behavior as secretary of state secret and away from all officials in the State Department outside her inner circle, away from the president and away from the American people? What if she orchestrated and carried out a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act?

    What if the FBI is onto her? What if the Democrats are not?

    The big question about Hillary Clinton: What if the FBI is onto her? | Fox News
    stg58, Dont, Seepalaces and 1 other person like this.
  2. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I like peeling bananas and (occasionally) people.

    My only question about Hillary Clinton is what if the Feds arrest her this week? I'd really like to see the Democrat Party go berserk, and I'd really like to see how Bernie reacts when there's blood in the water. And I'd really like to see if Nobama would give her a blanket Presidential pardon to keep her in the running--but then, they aren't friends anymore, and I think he wants Michael elected next...

    Interesting times.
    Seepalaces likes this.
  3. T. Riley

    T. Riley Monkey+++

    Excellent. I would add, "what if she is guilty of all the above but Barry gives her a blanket pardon (for her misjudgment he will say, for the good of the country he will say, to get this matter behind us he will say)any day now to make the whole matter come to nothing and she is elected anyway".
    Ganado and Seepalaces like this.
  4. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    Normally, it is the originator of a document that ascertains its classification. Having said that, that does not mean the recipient cannot classify it higher - they can - but they cannot classify it lower. For that they need to get with the originator and give reason and cause and etc...

    I have not heard that she is saying that other Sec of States have done the same thing but even so that would not justify her.

    I think the Democrats are holding their collective breath and will not make a move until they know for certain that HC will be indicted because only she can beat Trump, Sanders wouldn't stand a chance.

    But, I would love to be a fly on the wall to the shady deals that are going on right now, real history being made. I think if it was a different President that she would have already been indicted.

    But I wonder... Remember now Obama is worried about his legacy, how history will see him...and if she is indicted, and she will not be unless they feel they got an iron clad case, then if he pardons her...well, not so nice in the history books but definitely just like Chicago politics.

    They have given the server tech immunity and they found SCI emails on the server so...I don't see how she can get out of it.
    The fact that she had SCI material on the server is enough to get her jail time because I am sure they didn't tennis shoe those to that unclass server - meaning - there was an network connection - meaning - the SCI network was compromised.

    But, having said all that I will bet money (and hope to lose) that she gets off. She will blame others, like Benghazi. She is a political animal. I need to see if Vegas is giving odds...if it's 10-1 then I am going in for a $1000 because she knows where every body is buried and every dirty deal that has been struck for at least the last two decades.
    Seepalaces likes this.
  5. azrancher

    azrancher Monkey +++

    I'll be honest with you all if I had done what Hillary has done I would have been sharing a cell with Bubba a long time ago. And yes I am an ex-federal employee.
  6. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    If this "government" actually holds Hildabeast accountable, that would mean at least two things:

    First, that the moon is actually made out of cheese, and second, politicians have a pulse.
    Dont, kellory, Ganado and 4 others like this.
  7. Capt. Tyree

    Capt. Tyree Hawkeye

    What if Broom Hilda was "paid" for all her electronic communications by foreign interests that donated previously for several years through the Clinton Foundation? She simply made those US Sec State e-mail conversations more easily hacked into by having all her official and personal communications routed through the private server. In other words, it's there for the hacking....Quid pro quo.
    Seepalaces, Altoidfishfins and Brokor like this.
  8. Motomom34

    Motomom34 Monkey+++

    What if it doesn't matter or make a difference? Truthfully it doesn't. We have a society that has lost its sense of privacy. Privacy of ones self is very different, that is all important but privacy of gov documents and laws of the land are no longer important to many. If an act doesn't harm a Democratic voter, effect them personally then they really do not care. Many democrats feel she is the best candidate, the best person to save this country. These people will pull the lever for Hillary and all that other stuff, the e-mails and corruption is all just conservative rhetoric.
    Seepalaces likes this.
  9. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    It's rhetoric until real damage is done. The value of classified material is often in its timeliness, if the intelligence is known on time, effective reactions can be implemented. It is incredible to think no harm can be done to the US by poor handling of classified materials, even if the hoi polloi can't see, or don't want to see it.
    Brokor, Capt. Tyree and Seepalaces like this.
  10. Seepalaces

    Seepalaces Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    Additionally, she put a random videographer in jail to save her fanny. That's the definition of tyranny. Cannot. Believe. People. Support. Her.
  11. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey+++ Site Supporter+

    Yes! People don't seem to understand that as clearance holders one is constantly threaten with fines and jail time not to mention even the smallest incident could lose you your job and clearance - never to be had again. Last night I was giving thought if any individual who had had a classified incident would certainly have grounds for a lawsuit should she slip out of this. I would imagine, even already it would be easy to prove a double-standard.

    @Capt. Tyree
    I had this thought also rolling around in my head last night... It does make a lot of sense. In the video, Judge Nap said that it is quite likely the Russians had hack her server but they will have to prove that which more than likely the logs will prove. And, then they would have to prove intent but certainly no problem proven negligence. Can you imagine the fallout if this could be true?!?!?!

    Yes, the government has got itself into a mess this time and it will be interesting to see how they cover it up and make the sour pill easier to swallow.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2016
  12. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    WELL the real question is will Loretta Lynch bring charges? Will we have a special prosecutor? without those the Beast won't have anything done to her
  13. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    I am not sure that a Pardon can be granted by the president, until a conviction was handed down. I think that a person under indictment can not be pardoned...because at that point, they would technically still be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

    Time will tell for sure!!! But as AZ said above.... if it had been anyone else but Hillary, this would be a settled matter. At the minimum, she would be sitting in front of a jury instead of pressing her political agenda. Look how fast they burned down the career of Petraus..... and he just whispered into his girlfriends ear!!
    3M-TA3 likes this.
  14. UncleMorgan

    UncleMorgan I like peeling bananas and (occasionally) people.

    After Nixon resigned, Ford pardoned him for any and all federal crimes he “committed or may have committed or taken part in” during his Presidency. Nixon was never charged with any such misdeeds.

    That also goes back to the at least the Civil War when blanket amnesties were handed out several times to cement the new peace and prevent retaliations arising from war crimes committed during the Civil War.
    PapaGrune and Yard Dart like this.
  15. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Pre-emptive. Completely took away any need or desire for investigations and charges. Didn't like the concept then, and less so now. The reverse of pre crime arrests, it seems to me.
    T. Riley likes this.
  16. mysterymet

    mysterymet Monkey+++

    What if he gives her a blanket pardon to keep her from spilling the beans on stuff he's done that was criminal?
  17. Idahoser

    Idahoser Monkey+++ Founding Member

    for clinton to be so much as indicted would have to be considered a miracle after so many years of democrats and bushes compromising the law enforcement industry. Not going to happen.
  1. Altoidfishfins
  2. Yard Dart
  3. chelloveck
  4. Yard Dart
  5. Yard Dart
  6. Bandit99
  7. Yard Dart
  8. Yard Dart
  9. Yard Dart
  10. ghrit
    [IMG] Note the date.
    Thread by: ghrit, Jun 14, 2016, 2 replies, in forum: Politics
  11. Legion489
  12. Mindgrinder
  13. AD1
  14. VisuTrac
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary