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

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

22 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.

I meant the DNC.

[PGHammer]

22 minutes ago, Joe User said:

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.  

 

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.

You are basically insinuating that the Secretary of State is not a government employee - where the heck did THAT come from?  (Further, if she isn't - what exactly was she?)

 

Cabinet officers (in any post) are not above the law - they are not Members of Congress.

 

Watergate (and the court cases that stemmed from it) settled this issue - there were no less than one dozen CIVIL cases that came out of Watergate; said civil cases were primarily ruled on by District Court Judge Gerhard Giselle (with two Ls)  and Senior District Court Judge John, J. Sirica; though one lower-tier case DID land before then junior District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (who would himself become famous for United States v. AT&T Corporation - the "Baby Bell Breakup Case").

If a law does not apply to the executive branch, it must say so in the legislative language - it's called "the letter of the law".  The same thing applies to Members of Congress.  (Congress ROUTINELY exempts itself from public laws via said language via boilerplate that is part of the basic law - it's why the RRA - which I referred to in an earlier post - is rare air; said "Congressional exemption" - which is routinely inserted into most legislation - is, in fact, missing.  The fact that it's not there means that it applies to members of Congress.

 

You are thinking of "executive privilege" which Nixon used, rused, and tried to abuse throughout Watergate - hence all the civil cases - which are precedent in and of themselves on the subject.

There are also post-Watergate rulings in executive privilege claims - from Carter to President Obama; those are ALSO precedents.  Look them up; the most relevant sources are the Washington Post (which follows all the local United States Courts, from District to Military Appeals to Tax), the Washington Times (which does the same thing), the Hill (which follows cases involving Congress and Congressional agencies) and the Administrative Office of the Courts - which keeps decision records for every United States Court - regardless of location.  Your key words are, in fact, "executive privilege" and "Cabinet officers".

[Joe User]

1 hour ago, PGHammer said:

You are basically insinuating that the Secretary of State is not a government employee - where the heck did THAT come from?  (Further, if she isn't - what exactly was she?)

 

Cabinet officers (in any post) are not above the law - they are not Members of Congress.

 

Watergate (and the court cases that stemmed from it) settled this issue - there were no less than one dozen CIVIL cases that came out of Watergate; said civil cases were primarily ruled on by District Court Judge Gerhard Giselle (with two Ls)  and Senior District Court Judge John, J. Sirica; though one lower-tier case DID land before then junior District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (who would himself become famous for United States v. AT&T Corporation - the "Baby Bell Breakup Case").

If a law does not apply to the executive branch, it must say so in the legislative language - it's called "the letter of the law".  The same thing applies to Members of Congress.  (Congress ROUTINELY exempts itself from public laws via said language via boilerplate that is part of the basic law - it's why the RRA - which I referred to in an earlier post - is rare air; said "Congressional exemption" - which is routinely inserted into most legislation - is, in fact, missing.  The fact that it's not there means that it applies to members of Congress.

 

You are thinking of "executive privilege" which Nixon used, rused, and tried to abuse throughout Watergate - hence all the civil cases - which are precedent in and of themselves on the subject.

There are also post-Watergate rulings in executive privilege claims - from Carter to President Obama; those are ALSO precedents.  Look them up; the most relevant sources are the Washington Post (which follows all the local United States Courts, from District to Military Appeals to Tax), the Washington Times (which does the same thing), the Hill (which follows cases involving Congress and Congressional agencies) and the Administrative Office of the Courts - which keeps decision records for every United States Court - regardless of location.  Your key words are, in fact, "executive privilege" and "Cabinet officers".

Yes, thank you for repeating yourself.

 

Now, I'll repeat myself. Which law, specifically, says the Secretary of State can not use a private mail server?

[rafter109]

7 hours ago, Joe User said:

Yes, thank you for repeating yourself.

 

Now, I'll repeat myself. Which law, specifically, says the Secretary of State can not use a private mail server?

There is no law that specifically states that the Secretary of State cannot use a private email server verbatim. There are however several laws that relate to how Hilliary Clinton used her private server that FBI Director Comey admitted she broke. Unfortunately that seems to be irrelevant to you since you keep repeating the same logical fallacies knowing full well that no specific law states specifically that the Secretary of State cannot use a private server while ignoring the reality that data retention and classified document handling laws have been in place for decades and have applied to ALL government employees. No one is asking you to agree with their argument but it is pretty obvious that people are getting frustrated with your continued insistence in relying on fallacious logic while ignoring substantiated fact.  

[bguy_1986]

17 hours ago, Joe User said:

Yes, thank you for repeating yourself.

 

Now, I'll repeat myself. Which law, specifically, says the Secretary of State can not use a private mail server?

Are emails considered documentation?

 

If so, she broke:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101

Quote

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

 

Another law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

Quote

(a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b)

For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c)

In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Another:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Quote

(a)

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b)

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c)

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d)

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e)

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g)

If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)(1)

Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2)

The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—(A)

property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B)

any seizure or disposition of such property; and

(C)

any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.

(4)

 

 

From the article I read there are about 18 other laws that she potentially broke, I'm not wasting any more of my time to find them.  I'm not posting that article because I'm tired of hearing the crap about how it's Fox News as the source and "I stopped reading after that".  The only information you need is above.  I took the laws from the article and searched for it to find the above links and quotes.  (Fox News wasn't my source for the laws above but I'm sure since it didn't come from Comedy Central, somebody would take issue with it and immediately stop reading.)

 

The Government is corrupt, especially this administration.  This isn't Watergate and data now-a-days can easily be hidden or wiped clean.  She'll probably get off free just like others did with the IRS targeting scandal over some emails that cannot be found.  Our Government is terrible when it comes to Cyber Security and technology in general (Most of the government is, some of government is probably way ahead IMO).  They're behind the times and this administration is taking advantage of it.  I'm sure the lawyers will twist the words to make their point with crap like it said "document" not "email", therefor the law does not apply.  She will probably find a way to weasel her way out of it.  Or a stupid argument that the Secretary of State is not an employee or officer of the united states.

 

Are you a Lawyer?  You sound like one.  Lawyers are good at twisting things around so that criminals go free.

Edited August 30, 2016 by bguy_1986
added a few lines

[bguy_1986]

On 8/29/2016 at 10:47 AM, wakjak said:

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.

It has a lot do do with this whole subject.  Is she above the rules that are set for those in Military, FBI, CIA, ect?

 

And she did lie.  Lets get that straight.  The FBI confirmed that.  She's just Hillary Clinton and can get away with it.

 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

12 minutes ago, bguy_1986 said:

It has a lot do do with this whole subject.  Is she above the rules that are set for those in Military, FBI, CIA, ect?

She believes that she is above the law that applies to everyone. The Clinton's live in their own little world that No laws that aplly to every citizen of this country applies to them. Their shady dealings go back to when Slick Willie was the AG for The state of Arkansas .

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

A new Development

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/politics/fbi-report-hillary-clinton-investigation/index.html?sr=twCNN083016fbi-report-hillary-clinton-investigation0301PMVODtopLink&linkId=28209570

[Joe User]

14 hours ago, rafter109 said:

There is no law that specifically states that the Secretary of State cannot use a private email server verbatim.

That was the only point I was trying to make. Thank you for agreeing with me. 

 

14 hours ago, rafter109 said:

There are however several laws that relate to how Hilliary Clinton used her private server that FBI Director Comey admitted she broke. Unfortunately that seems to be irrelevant to you since you keep repeating the same logical fallacies knowing full well that no specific law states specifically that the Secretary of State cannot use a private server while ignoring the reality that data retention and classified document handling laws have been in place for decades and have applied to ALL government employees. No one is asking you to agree with their argument but it is pretty obvious that people are getting frustrated with your continued insistence in relying on fallacious logic while ignoring substantiated fact.  

I wasn't debating other laws though, I was only commenting on a specific quote. I actually think she may have violated some rules and possibly broke a law somewhere. However, the FBI doesn't think it rises to the level that warrants an indictment,  so I'll reserve further judgement unless something changes.

[FunkyMike]

Conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact..

 

FBI Releases Full Report Into Hillary Clinton Email Probe - Key Excerpts

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-02/fbi-releases-58-page-heavily-redacted-report-extremely-reckless-hillary-clinton-inve

 

The "Oh XXXX" Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena

 

Quote

Here is a quick summary of the timeline of events:

February 2013 – Hillary resigns from State Department

Spring 2013 – Hillary aide Monica Hanley backs up Pagliano Server to Apple MacBook and a thumb drive

February 2014 – Monica Hanley attempts to upload Hillary email archives to new Platte River Networks (PRN) server but encounters technical issues

Early 2014 – Monica Hanley mails Apple MacBook to Undisclosed PRN Staff Member to upload Hillary email archives to new PRN server.  Undisclosed PRN Staff Member then uploads Hillary’s emails to a gmail account and then transfers them over to the new PRN server.  The Undisclosed PRN Staff Member deletes most of the emails from gmail but indvertently leaves 940.

Early 2014 – Monica Hanley advises Undisclosed PRN Staff Member to wipe the Apple MacBook clean after uploading Hillary’s emails to the new PRN server but he forgets to do it

Early 2014 - Undisclosed PRN Staff Member mails Apple MacBook back to Clinton and it is promptly lost

December 2014 – Hillary delivers 55,000 emails to State Department

December 2014 / January 2015 – Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills request emails be deleted from their computer using BleachBit

December 2014 / January 2015 – “Unknown Clinton staff member” instructs PRN to remove archives of Clinton emails from PRN server

March 2, 2015 - NYT releases an article showing that Hillary used a personal email server in violation of State Department rules

March 4, 2015 – Hillary receives subpoena from House Select Committee on Benghazi instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers

March 25, 2015 – Undisclosed PRN Staff Member has a conference call with “President Clinton’s Staff”

March 25 – 31, 2015 – Undisclosed PRN Staff Member has “oh XXXX” moment and realizes he forgot to wipe Hillary’s email archive from the PRN server back in December…which he promptly does using BleachBit despite later admitting he "was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail data on the PRN server."

June 2016 – FBI discovers that Undisclosed PRN Staff Member forgot to erase 940 emails from the gmail account he created to help with the PRN server upload

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-02/fbi-report-shows-how-bleachbit-deleted-hillary-clintons-oh-######-moment

 

 

Time to move this thread to another section.

 

Quote

BennyBoy Sep 2, 2016 5:54 PM

A headline coming soon:

Undisclosed PRN Staffmember found dead with 3 nails from nail gun to the back of head, ruled suicide.

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by FunkyMike

[FunkyMike]

The 26 Things Clinton "Could Not Recall" During Her FBI Interview

 

Quote

 

...

...

According to LifeZette, in total, Hillary "could not recall" the following 26 past events in her short interview the FBI. 

• When she received security clearance
• Being briefed on how to handle classified material
• How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
• Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
• How to select a target for a drone strike
• How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
• The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
• Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
• Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
• Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
• Getting guidance from state on email policy
• Who had access to her Blackberry account
• The process for deleting her emails
• Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
• Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
• Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
• Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
• Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
• Using an iPad mini
• An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
• Jacob Sullivan using personal email
• State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
• Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
• Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
• Being read out of her clearance
• Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

Unfortunately for him, it seems to be that the "Undisclosed PRN Staff Member," (who we spoke about yesterday "The "Oh ######" Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena") who had the infamous "oh #### moment" and admitted to deleting Hillary's emails even though he was aware of a federal subpoena, is the only person around Hillary who isn't suffering from a severe case of amnesia.  Poor guy, sanity is a curse.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-03/26-things-clinton-could-not-recall-during-her-fbi-interview