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

[Stoffel]

5 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

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?

 

You assume that we think she is guilty of what the GOP tries to pin on her. I for one don't think anything was done wrong with Benghazi.

Could she have handled the email situation better, YES, absolutely, but once again, i don't think she did anything criminal, otherwise the FBI would have prosecuted her.

 

And i'm a Bernie supporter, don't even like Hilary too much, but that doesn't mean i think she is a mastermind criminal either, not more than any other politician.

[Joe User]

6 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

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?

Interesting post, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I've written, why was it directed at me?

[Depicus]

Is it just me or does anybody else thing one of our contributors has a secret crush on Mrs Clinton - a bit like when you were at school and pushed the girl you really liked 

[PGHammer]

28 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

 

You assume that we think she is guilty of what the GOP tries to pin on her. I for one don't think anything was done wrong with Benghazi.

Could she have handled the email situation better, YES, absolutely, but once again, i don't think she did anything criminal, otherwise the FBI would have prosecuted her.

 

And i'm a Bernie supporter, don't even like Hilary too much, but that doesn't mean i think she is a mastermind criminal either, not more than any other politician.

If anything, I'm assuming you think that she is innocent - where I am curious is WHY are you assuming she is innocent.

I'm assuming nothing - either innocence OR guilt; however, I want the trial to go forward so it can be proven - one way or the other.

Hillary IS attractive for her age; however, that's NOT the first time I've said that (even on Neowin).

 

However, cuteness or sex appeal matters diddly-squat in a court of law - nor should it.

 

[PGHammer]

32 minutes ago, Joe User said:

Interesting post, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I've written, why was it directed at me?

I directed it (quoting your posts) because you are, in fact, the last poster trying to wish the whole affair away as a political witch hunt.

 

Not everything (even in Congress) can be so easily dismissed; the same allegations have been made before even in the rare-air cases of impeachment of judges.

 

I don't like sweeping political scandals under the rug - involving anybody - the inevitable results are a VERY lumpy rug and even greater distrust of the entirety of our political system - which collects enough brickbats, even when it works the way it is supposed to.

 

Is that plain enough?

[Stoffel]

3 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

If anything, I'm assuming you think that she is innocent - where I am curious is WHY are you assuming she is innocent.

I'm assuming nothing - either innocence OR guilt; however, I want the trial to go forward so it can be proven - one way or the other.

Hillary IS attractive for her age; however, that's NOT the first time I've said that (even on Neowin).

 

However, cuteness or sex appeal matters diddly-squat in a court of law - nor should it.

 

The reason i assume she is innocent is that for 25 years the GOP has been after her. They have started numerous investigations and they still haven't come up with anything that would warrant a trial. All they have is smoke, they never come out and show us the fire.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

2 hours ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Also a member of the house select committee, an investigative committee to investigate the Benghazi incident. Also, he is an attorney. I give him more credibility than your friend Clinton, who has oceans of scandal behind her.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on his being an attorney, they're a dime a dozen and as far as credibility, that's a laugh, they are well known for spin.

 

As far as the friend part, never claimed I was.

 

2 hours 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.

I don't believe many are saying that it can't be possibly true, just that you have to have viable, factual evidence to convict someone of a crime in this country.  So gather the evidence, check and verify the facts and, if any crimes have allegedly been committed, let the court of law decide guilt or not.

 

So why hasn't the GOP or the Right Wing or anyone done this?  Are they incompetent, uncaring or helpless?  Is it a vast Left Wing Conspiracy preventing that from occurring?  So many claims of wrongdoing, the number of which is simply incredible (but not necessarily unbelievable) , yet no charges, no trials or convictions.  (Yet!)

 

If she is ever charged, tried and convicted I would more than happy to lock her up and throw away the key. 

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Wikileaks will release more damaging Data in September or when they get around to it.

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on his being an attorney, they're a dime a dozen and as far as credibility, that's a laugh, they are well known for spin.

 

As far as the friend part, never claimed I was.

 

I don't believe many are saying that it can't be possibly true, just that you have to have viable, factual evidence to convict someone of a crime in this country.  So gather the evidence, check and verify the facts and, if any crimes have allegedly been committed, let the court of law decide guilt or not.

 

So why hasn't the GOP or the Right Wing or anyone done this?  Are they incompetent, uncaring or helpless?  Is it a vast Left Wing Conspiracy preventing that from occurring?  So many claims of wrongdoing, the number of which is simply incredible (but not necessarily unbelievable) , yet no charges, no trials or convictions.  (Yet!)

 

If she is ever charged, tried and convicted I would more than happy to lock her up and throw away the key. 

 

They are not done with her yet. This thread is in The Conspiracy section so they may try her on Mars.

[PGHammer]

1 minute ago, Stoffel said:

The reason i assume she is innocent is that for 25 years the GOP has been after her. They have started numerous investigations and they still haven't come up with anything that would warrant a trial. All they have is smoke, they never come out and show us the fire.

Twenty-five years?  That would assume the animus started when Bill was President (and she was merely FLOTUS) - what would they have against her back that far?

 

Other than HillaryCare, the only issue back then was Whitewater (and that was the Rose Law Firm - not necessarily her directly - and what is the state of said firm today).

 

Even that was more the actions of the Democratic party (and their leadership in both House AND Senate) - not her.

 

Again I ask - who would have the animus against Hillary - and why?

[wakjak]

3 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Wikileaks will release more damaging Data in September or when they get around to it.

They are not done with her yet.

You've got no proof that it is damaging days.  They've been "not done with her"  for 25 years.  Here's to 25 more incompetent GOP filled years. 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Other than HillaryCare, the only issue back then was Whitewater (and that was the Rose Law Firm - not necessarily her directly - and what is the state of said firm today).

 

I believe she was a partner in that firm.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Twenty-five years?  That would assume the animus started when Bill was President (and she was merely FLOTUS) - what would they have against her back that far?

 

Other than HillaryCare, the only issue back then was Whitewater (and that was the Rose Law Firm - not necessarily her directly - and what is the state of said firm today).

 

Even that was more the actions of the Democratic party (and their leadership in both House AND Senate) - not her.

 

Again I ask - who would have the animus against Hillary - and why?

Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

[wakjak]

Here's a neat opinion piece which fits the topic at hand. 

 

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/

[PGHammer]

14 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

I believe she was a partner in that firm.

Was she, in fact, a SENIOR partner in the firm (a senior partner would, in fact, have influence on what the firm itself does - including taking on of cases)?  If that was the case, then MAYBE I could see it; however, that would impact then-Independent Kenneth Starr - not Congress.

 

What the DB is basically saying is that "Hillary is Innocent Because She Is Hillary" - that would no more fly than the same thing about Donald Trump - nor should it.

 

If there is smoke, investigate it - period.  (That is, after all, the very purpose OF a firewatcher.)

 

Anything less is partisan.

[wakjak]

11 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Was she, in fact, a SENIOR partner in the firm (a senior partner would, in fact, have influence on what the firm itself does - including taking on of cases)?  If that was the case, then MAYBE I could see it; however, that would impact then-Independent Kenneth Starr - not Congress.

 

What the DB is basically saying is that "Hillary is Innocent Because She Is Hillary" - that would no more fly than the same thing about Donald Trump - nor should it.

 

If there is smoke, investigate it - period.  (That is, after all, the very purpose OF a firewatcher.)

 

Anything less is partisan.

Hillary is innocent because she has not been tried and convicted of any crimes. 

 

Innocent until proven guilty PG. Anything less is hatred of your own country. 

[Stoffel]

54 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Was she, in fact, a SENIOR partner in the firm (a senior partner would, in fact, have influence on what the firm itself does - including taking on of cases)?  If that was the case, then MAYBE I could see it; however, that would impact then-Independent Kenneth Starr - not Congress.

 

What the DB is basically saying is that "Hillary is Innocent Because She Is Hillary" - that would no more fly than the same thing about Donald Trump - nor should it.

 

If there is smoke, investigate it - period.  (That is, after all, the very purpose OF a firewatcher.)

 

Anything less is partisan.

I agree and i think they have done that too.

How many separate investigations did we have about Benghazi?

They've been investigating the email scandal for over a year.

Twice they have come up empty handed.

 

So now they are moving over to something else yet again to see if they can derail her campaign that way.

[Joe User]

4 hours ago, PGHammer said:

I directed it (quoting your posts) because you are, in fact, the last poster trying to wish the whole affair away as a political witch hunt.

 

Not everything (even in Congress) can be so easily dismissed; the same allegations have been made before even in the rare-air cases of impeachment of judges.

 

I don't like sweeping political scandals under the rug - involving anybody - the inevitable results are a VERY lumpy rug and even greater distrust of the entirety of our political system - which collects enough brickbats, even when it works the way it is supposed to.

 

Is that plain enough?

Yup. I posted a message that says stop making up stuff and actually discuss real facts.

 

Apparently, that means I'm trying to wish the whole affair away. I have news for you, what I posted means exactly what I posted. People can get their point across without trolling, which is exactly what that original message was.

 

"FACT:..." is a load of "CRAP:..." and I proved that in 30 seconds.

 

The only fact here is that people are all too willing to ignore our legal system, to ignore the proper procedures and to ignore any chance at finding the truth, as long as they don't like the person. That doesn't just do her a disservice, it does everyone in the country a disservice.

 

People need to stop making up "facts", it doesn't help their cause.

 

Is that plain enough? 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Joe User

[bguy_1986]

12 hours ago, Joe User said:

Yup. I posted a message that says stop making up stuff and actually discuss real facts.

 

Apparently, that means I'm trying to wish the whole affair away. I have news for you, what I posted means exactly what I posted. People can get their point across without trolling, which is exactly what that original message was.

 

"FACT:..." is a load of "CRAP:..." and I proved that in 30 seconds.

 

The only fact here is that people are all too willing to ignore our legal system, to ignore the proper procedures and to ignore any chance at finding the truth, as long as they don't like the person. That doesn't just do her a disservice, it does everyone in the country a disservice.

 

People need to stop making up "facts", it doesn't help their cause.

 

Is that plain enough? 

 

Have you ever talked to anybody that works for the FBI/CIA/Government or is in the military that knows the rules/laws on confidential/top secret information?

[wakjak]

55 minutes ago, bguy_1986 said:

Have you ever talked to anybody that works for the FBI/CIA/Government or is in the military that knows the rules/laws on confidential/top secret information?

What does that have to do with anything? IF they knew the rules, and they did find that she lied, she would have been charged. That's really all there is to it. Your witch hunt has landed nothing. 9 benghazi investigations, ended with nothing. Fail fail fail fail fail. The GOP are nothing but failures.

[Joe User]

3 hours ago, bguy_1986 said:

Have you ever talked to anybody that works for the FBI/CIA/Government or is in the military that knows the rules/laws on confidential/top secret information?

Actually, yes, I have. Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that there was still no law against Clinton using a private mail server as Sec of State, which is the only point I've argued.

 

Apparently there's a disconnect between what I've written and what people are reading. I'm not really sure why, because I've basically said the same thing several times over.  I'll explain one last time.  

 

21 hours ago, Gary7 said:

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

No, there was no law prohibiting a secretary of state from using a private email server.

 

But what about X? I'm not arguing X.

What about Y? I'm not arguing Y.

 

I'm arguing one point only, and I don't think there's anything left to say on the subject.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

20 hours ago, Stoffel said:

And i'm a Bernie supporter, don't even like Hilary too much, but that doesn't mean i think she is a mastermind criminal either, not more than any other politician.

I hate to tell you this but Bernie dropped out or rather was forced out by The Clinton Machine and The RNC

[Hum]

[PGHammer]

6 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

I hate to tell you this but Bernie dropped out or rather was forced out by The Clinton Machine and The RNC

Hate to tell you; the RNC had exactly diddly to do with Bernie dropping out.  You must mean the DNC (and Hillary pall Debbie Wassermann-Shultz); the RNC (and Reince Priebus) had the Trump Insurrection to deal with; which left him too busy to do ANY machinations outside of his own bailiwick.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

21 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Hate to tell you; the RNC had exactly diddly to do with Bernie dropping out.  You must mean the DNC (and Hillary pall Debbie Wassermann-Shultz); the RNC (and Reince Priebus) had the Trump Insurrection to deal with; which left him too busy to do ANY machinations outside of his own bailiwick.

Well the top people were fired and The DNC was led by Debbie Wassermaan -Shultz. But yes it was Berny's Call . He should have filed a lawsuit!

Edited August 29, 2016 by Gary7
Typo

[+Raze Subscriber²]

10 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Well the top people were fired and The RNC was led by Debbie Wassermaan -Shultz. But yes it was Berny's Call . He should have filed a lawsuit!

pssst, Gary....Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman Schultz was the chairperson of the DNC, not the RNC.    Just a heads-up.