Moultrie Mobile
Hillary Indicted, Yes/No?
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Woods Walker 28-Aug-15
Bluetick 29-Aug-15
Woods Walker 29-Aug-15
HA/KS 29-Aug-15
Jim Moore 29-Aug-15
venisonjunky 29-Aug-15
woodguy65 29-Aug-15
itshot 29-Aug-15
'Ike' (Phone) 29-Aug-15
Huntcell 29-Aug-15
DL 29-Aug-15
Rocky 29-Aug-15
joshuaf 29-Aug-15
Woods Walker 29-Aug-15
Shuteye 29-Aug-15
HA/KS 29-Aug-15
Shuteye 29-Aug-15
Woods Walker 30-Aug-15
Shuteye 30-Aug-15
HA/KS 30-Aug-15
Pat C. 30-Aug-15
Thunderflight 30-Aug-15
Narlyhorn 30-Aug-15
Sixby 30-Aug-15
Woods Walker 30-Aug-15
Pat C. 30-Aug-15
Rocky 30-Aug-15
Woods Walker 31-Aug-15
Mint 31-Aug-15
sureshot 31-Aug-15
Shuteye 31-Aug-15
Woods Walker 31-Aug-15
DL 01-Sep-15
Woods Walker 01-Sep-15
DL 01-Sep-15
Rocky 01-Sep-15
Shuteye 01-Sep-15
Woods Walker 01-Sep-15
Anony Mouse 02-Sep-15
IdyllwildArcher 02-Sep-15
slade 02-Sep-15
Anony Mouse 02-Sep-15
From: Woods Walker
28-Aug-15
Let's take a little poll here shall we?

Who here thinks that Hillary will ever be indicted for her email/security fraud? And the question isn't if you THINK she should be, or WANT her to be indicted (I think that would pretty well be an overwhemimg "YES"!), but IF she will.

My answer is that as long as the Obama DOJ is overseeing it then NO.

What say you?

From: Bluetick
29-Aug-15
That was the golf course deal: she gets out so Joey can get in, and in return, no indictment.

From: Woods Walker
29-Aug-15
I can't argue with that Blue. We are no longer a nation of laws.

From: HA/KS
29-Aug-15
No. She is probably guilty of treason, but will never face any charges.

From: Jim Moore
29-Aug-15
Nope. Teflon witch.

From: venisonjunky
29-Aug-15
No , nothing will happen to demon bitch !

From: woodguy65
29-Aug-15
no

From: itshot
29-Aug-15
maybe a symbolic slap on the wrist for something that hasnt even been exposed yet, a show trial just to prove to the minions that nobody is above the law

29-Aug-15
Nope....

From: Huntcell
29-Aug-15
You can't do that to a former First Lady of a two term president Secretary of state Presidential candidate That would bring so much world shame on this great nation!

Stop her shame behavior BRING it ON!

From: DL
29-Aug-15
If it was any of us we would already be in Gitmo. Politicians do oversights they don't break the law in their world.

From: Rocky
29-Aug-15
Yes. If there is a modicum of integrity left in this country she will be indicted.

The consequences as far as I am concerned will have served its purpose of negating her candidacy. To hope for jail time would be starry eyed to say the least. The conundrum would be who would assume?

The Rock

From: joshuaf
29-Aug-15
My heart says "Yes" but my head says "No Way".

Be interesting to see what might happen if Cruz got elected President, though, with the Justice Department in the hands of a real leader, not a political crony.

From: Woods Walker
29-Aug-15
"Be interesting to see what might happen if Cruz got elected President, though, with the Justice Department in the hands of a real leader, not a political "

It sure as hell would be! And I'd like to see him make Trey Gowdy the AG too.

From: Shuteye
29-Aug-15
WW, that would be a dream come true.

From: HA/KS
29-Aug-15
I still think there will be some under the table deal where she gets out of the race and obama grants her clemency.

From: Shuteye
29-Aug-15
If she is indicted she can still be president and there enough fools that would vote for her. She could be elected if she was a felon. I too think she will drop out but time will tell.

From: Woods Walker
30-Aug-15
WOW! I realy expected at least a few of you to say "yes"!

From: Shuteye
30-Aug-15
Well when the next Attorney General is Trey Gowdy a bunch of them will be headed to jail. What do you think of that WW?

From: HA/KS
30-Aug-15

HA/KS's Link

From: Pat C.
30-Aug-15
Unfortunately she's a Clinton and you can't indict a Clinton.

30-Aug-15
Nope

I also think that come primary time she'll "mysteriously" be cleared of any wrong doings, will get the party nomination, and will use all the negative press against the GOP.

From: Narlyhorn
30-Aug-15
Indicted? Laughable. That's a no.

From: Sixby
30-Aug-15
NO, I have lost faith in our system. When the entire Justice Department runs guns and thieves from businesses and the US Public by coercion and threatenings and illegal fining then how can you have any faith in it except to do wrong? I actually see this as a sign of the coming of Jesus because the prophecy said justice is fallen in the streets.

God bless, Steve

From: Woods Walker
30-Aug-15
"Well when the next Attorney General is Trey Gowdy a bunch of them will be headed to jail. What do you think of that WW?"

Well right now I'd say it's a pipe dream...one hell of a GOOD one...but a pipe dream none the less.

We can hope.......

From: Pat C.
30-Aug-15
I wish that witch would crash her broom!

From: Rocky
30-Aug-15
Well, well.

Everyone is basically on the same page on this one.

I better re-read all the posts again because something here is just not right. ;-)

The Rock

From: Woods Walker
31-Aug-15
For the most part almost all of us here are on the same page. We just sometimes disagree on how to get to the page and who should read it!

I'd share a campfire with any "real" person here.

From: Mint
31-Aug-15
If the Dems think Biden can win they will indict her on a misdemeanor to get her out of the race. If they think Hilary can win they will not indict her even if it was proven that she was a mass murderer.

From: sureshot
31-Aug-15
Indicted. ..YES.........but with no other consequences.

From: Shuteye
31-Aug-15
More e mails just released and 150 are classified. They will redacted so you won't be able to read them but Hillary is guilty as all get out. I don't see how she can possibly get out of this but time will tell.

From: Woods Walker
31-Aug-15
They'll never touch her Shut. If they had any intention of doing it they'd have done it already.

And what's really sad is that if she does lose to the Republican candidate THEY won't do anything either!

From: DL
01-Sep-15
What a load of crap.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Experts in government secrecy law see almost no possibility of criminal action against Hillary Clinton or her top aides in connection with now-classified information sent over unsecure email while she was secretary of state, based on the public evidence thus far.

Some Republicans, including leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, have called Clinton's actions criminal and compared her situation to that of David Petraeus, the former CIA director who was prosecuted after giving top secret information to his paramour. Others have cited the case of another past CIA chief, John Deutch, who took highly classified material home.

But in both of those cases, no one disputed that the information was highly classified and in many cases top secret. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor; Deutch was pardoned by President Bill Clinton.

By contrast, there is no evidence of emails stored in Hillary Clinton's private server bearing classified markings. State Department officials say they don't believe that emails she sent or received included material classified at the time. And even if other government officials dispute that assertion, it is extremely difficult to prove anyone knowingly mishandled secrets.

"How can you be on notice if there are no markings?" said Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases.

Clinton's critics have focused on the unusual, home-brew email server Clinton used while in office and suggested that she should have known that secrets were improperly coursing through an unsecure system, leaving them easily hackable for foreign intelligence agencies. But to prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information — not that she should have known.

A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced. And among the thousands of documents made public, nothing appears near the magnitude of the Top Secret material Petraeus and Deutch mishandled.

Trump, last week, argued differently, saying Petraeus' case involved "far less important documents." Clinton's documents, he told Fox News, "were more highly secret, they were more important, there were more of them. It's really General Petraeus on steroids."

Petraeus, a married former four-star general who headed the CIA from 2011-2012, admitted he gave his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell, journals containing Top Secret information. These included "the identifies of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings . and discussions with the president of the United States," according to court documents.

Petraeus also admitted lying to the FBI, while his emails showed he knew the journals contained highly classified information.

He pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, a misdemeanor. Though eligible for up to one year in prison, he was sentenced to two years' probation and a $100,000 fine. Broadwell didn't publish the material.

Deutch ran the agency from 1995-1996. He took Top Secret information home and stored it on computers connected to the Internet, something he also did when he worked at the Pentagon. In January 2001, he agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government secrets, but Bill Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case.

Another Clinton administration official, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2005 after admitting to removing five classified documents involving a terrorism study from a National Archives facility. Berger served four years as Clinton's national security adviser.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, now says her use of home email server for government business was a mistake. Last year she provided about 30,000 emails to the State Department, which is public releasing another batch Monday. The department is only publishing documents after scrubbing them of any classified or sensitive information.

Two government inspectors have told Congress they found material in the emails was secret at the time it was sent to Clinton and "never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."

The State Department and the Clinton campaign dispute that the material was classified at the time.

At least one email involved the CIA drone strikes, government officials have told the Associated Press. The counterterrorism program is a poorly kept secret, but a secret nonetheless. Another email appeared to reference a highly classified matter, the officials said, though there was some question about whether the information came in through classified or open channels.

Emails posted on the State Department's web site, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, show diplomats commonly slipping and discussing classified information over email. Unlike an intelligence agency, the department seeks to operate in the open when it can.

But arguing that violations are common isn't a valid defense for ordinary government employees, said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who often represents such people. They face discipline "all the time, in far more nuanced disputes than this," he said.

Although political controversy has centered on Clinton's use of private email instead of an unsecured government account, the distinction matters little in the context of classified information. Clinton says State Department rules allowed her to use private email and officials knew about it.

But another law could be relevant. Under the Federal Records Act, destroying official records can be a crime. Clinton ordered around 32,000 emails deleted from her server because she said they were personal. The server was then wiped, making the emails unretrievable.

"If one person has a copy of one of those deleted emails, and it was about government business, the whole game changes," said Kel McClanahan, a lawyer and expert in government records.

_____

Follow Ken Dilanian on Twitter at https://twitter.com/KenDilanianAP

From: Woods Walker
01-Sep-15
Nothing to see here folks, nothing to see. Let's move along now.

LOOK! It's Donald Trump! I'll bet he just said something outrageous again!

Face it....between Hillary slipping out of this, sanctuary cities, and unenforced immigration laws, the rule of law is dead in this country.

From: DL
01-Sep-15
I sure would think that every communication should be Classified unil it's declassified. This is the person that represents the US Government around the world. Saying that something isn't Classified until it's reviewed is Ludicrous. But she will act dumb like usual.

From: Rocky
01-Sep-15
This one is not over by a long shot. There is a bombshell coming and I can feel it. Something is cooking. Lets us see if reality can out do reality TV.

The Rock

From: Shuteye
01-Sep-15
Rocky, I think you may be correct. I have had that feeling lately but we will see.

From: Woods Walker
01-Sep-15
You'll be waiting a LONG time, like maybe eternity.

I hope to God I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

From: Anony Mouse
02-Sep-15

02-Sep-15
No.

Only 30% of the country cares about this/thinks it's a big deal.

From: slade
02-Sep-15
Yes/Maybe/No, by Christmas she will drop out of the race.

From: Anony Mouse
02-Sep-15

  • Sitka Gear