[arista]

she has yet to respond to this.



Trump just said its Good news

http://news.sky.com/story/fbi-opens-...ation-10635942

[kirklancaster]

LMFAO - It's GOOD news week.

[Jamie89]

I love this, as soon as something happens that goes in his favour...

He also said the political system "might not be as rigged as I thought".

The thing I don't understand about this whole email thing is that they already know she had classified secrets in her private emails (right?)... so why didn't she face any action against her for that? What exactly are the consequences for handling classified information in the way she has done? Trumps suggested that it amounts to criminal corruption (and if the FBI are investigating it then I'd guess it is a crime), but if that's the case then how come she wasn't arrested or anything before over what they found?

[Maru]

Live...

Rewind to -44 minutes...

Youtube video

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Maru

Live...

Rewind to -44 minutes...

Youtube video

Hilarious

[LaLaLand]

Good. She's SO dodgy it's unbelievable.

[UserSince2005]

she need to be locked up and the key tossed to president trump.

[Jack_]

why did the Dems nominate this bloody woman

[bots]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I love this, as soon as something happens that goes in his favour...

He also said the political system "might not be as rigged as I thought".

The thing I don't understand about this whole email thing is that they already know she had classified secrets in her private emails (right?)... so why didn't she face any action against her for that? What exactly are the consequences for handling classified information in the way she has done? Trumps suggested that it amounts to criminal corruption (and if the FBI are investigating it then I'd guess it is a crime), but if that's the case then how come she wasn't arrested or anything before over what they found?

Well, its dodgy that she had classified stuff on a private server ... that's bad enough for someone in public office, but ... and its a huge but, she deleted these thousands of emails AFTER she received a subpoena for it .... its soooo dodgy ... I know Trump is well dodgy, but Clinton is actually worse

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Well, its dodgy that she had classified stuff on a private server ... that's bad enough for someone in public office, but ... and its a huge but, she deleted these thousands of emails AFTER she received a subpoena for it .... its soooo dodgy ... I know Trump is well dodgy, but Clinton is actually worse

Yeah it's definitely all very dodgy, and makes her a dodgy character, but it's more the legality of it all I'm not sure about really. Because I'd imagine if you're given classified information, there'd be repercussions if you don't handle it correctly? So why haven't there been already? Because they already know she didn't, so I don't understand why there were no consequences for that (or what consequences there'd be for this investigation)

[Maru]

I wonder if the FBI will handle this investigation differently, release more specifics on the investigation than normal... seeing as early voting has already begun in many states.[/I]

I imagine it had to be significant for them to restart the investigation this close to election day. Had to be something big.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Yeah it's definitely all very dodgy, and makes her a dodgy character, but it's more the legality of it all I'm not sure about really. Because I'd imagine if you're given classified information, there'd be repercussions if you don't handle it correctly? So why haven't there been already? Because they already know she didn't, so I don't understand why there were no consequences for that (or what consequences there'd be for this investigation)

i'm not familiar with American law, so what we may think isn't acceptable may be fine and dandy over there. If she had allowed the classified information to get into unauthorised hands, I'm sure it would be an offense, but proving that may be quite difficult, and without that proof, she can probably get away with it. I would have a wild guess and say some proof has surfaced.

[Maru]

I fully expected the email scandal to come back in some way, as well as other scandals to come out at least after her presidency began... surprised it happened so soon. Her presidency will be mired in scandal, just because of the apparent enemies she has lined up and probably other Easter eggs waiting to be found given her careless attitude and penchant for extreme secrecy... the same is likely to happen to Trump as well...

After watching media more closely here, I don't think they are all that biased towards either candidate tbf (aside from your average punditry). They have given Hillary hell about her email server and yet she's been painted as the apparent star... Yet they give Donald Trump a pass on not releasing his tax records... so back and forth.

So many books are going to be written on this election.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jack_

why did the Dems nominate this bloody woman

Who can take her place?


Bernie?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Yeah it's definitely all very dodgy, and makes her a dodgy character, but it's more the legality of it all I'm not sure about really. Because I'd imagine if you're given classified information, there'd be repercussions if you don't handle it correctly? So why haven't there been already? Because they already know she didn't, so I don't understand why there were no consequences for that (or what consequences there'd be for this investigation)

Supporters of Hillary Clinton continue to ask the equivalent of 'What difference does it make?' with regard to the former Secretary of State's use of a personal email account to conduct official State Department business.

Meanwhile, many investigative reporters are combing through federal rules and regulations to discover what criminal charges Clinton could face for her actions.

Here are the three most frequently cited laws that appear to have been violated by Clinton:

1. Mishandling Classified Information

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. Casey Harper at The Daily Caller delved into this angle:

"'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.

'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'”

Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently, including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch's security clearance was suspended for using his personal email to send classified information.

Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email.

2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

According to the original story on Clinton's emails published in The New York Times:

"Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.

In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department."

The fact that the State Department combs through the 55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton's private email account seems to verify that at least some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information.

3. Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:

“'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request.”

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:

“'Hillary Clinton’s system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'”

These are just three of the potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to conduct official State business. More information will be provided as this story continues to develop.

Source: http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-fede...mail-accounts/

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

I fully expected the email scandal to come back in some way, as well as other scandals to come out at least after her presidency began... surprised it happened so soon. Her presidency will be mired in scandal, just because of the apparent enemies she has lined up and probably other Easter eggs waiting to be found given her careless attitude and penchant for extreme secrecy... the same is likely to happen to Trump as well...

After watching media more closely here, I don't think they are all that biased towards either candidate tbf (aside from your average punditry). They have given Hillary hell about her email server and yet she's been painted as the apparent star... Yet they give Donald Trump a pass on not releasing his tax records... so back and forth.

So many books are going to be written on this election.

You have to ask the question though - what does it say about the pair of them that there are all these doubts and questions over their characters, yet they have still each fought to exclude anyone else from doing the job. its disgusting really.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

You have to ask the question though - what does it say about the pair of them that there are all these doubts and questions over their characters, yet they have still each fought to exclude anyone else from doing the job. its disgusting really.

I agree. It's a sad mess for the US.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Maru

Supporters of Hillary Clinton continue to ask the equivalent of 'What difference does it make?' with regard to the former Secretary of State's use of a personal email account to conduct official State Department business.

Meanwhile, many investigative reporters are combing through federal rules and regulations to discover what criminal charges Clinton could face for her actions.

Here are the three most frequently cited laws that appear to have been violated by Clinton:

1. Mishandling Classified Information

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. Casey Harper at The Daily Caller delved into this angle:

"'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.

'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'”

Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently, including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch's security clearance was suspended for using his personal email to send classified information.

Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email.

2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

According to the original story on Clinton's emails published in The New York Times:

"Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.

In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department."

The fact that the State Department combs through the 55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton's private email account seems to verify that at least some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information.

3. Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:

“'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request.”

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:

“'Hillary Clinton’s system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'”

These are just three of the potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to conduct official State business. More information will be provided as this story continues to develop.

Source: http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-fede...mail-accounts/

Urgh it's all such a mess isn't it. She's quite clearly violated laws then And it's not as though she could claim ignorance given her position, her knowledge of the system and her husband being an ex president etc... I think it's due to arrogance, her thinking she could just do what she wanted, so it's obviously worrying to consider that someone who thinks like that could be president.

[Maru]

Interesting... was trying to find the FBI director's statement and found this:

Why FBI Director Made Clinton Email Announcement Now

As of this writing, all three cable news networks are in a frenzy. FBI Director James Comey just sent a letter to Republican congressional committee chairs announcing that he’s taking a new look into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Another investigation! And right before the election! She could be indicted!

Well, probably not. Indeed, almost definitely not. Here’s what the letter actually says:

The relevant paragraph in this brief letter is the middle one, where Comey writes that the FBI “has learned of the existence” of emails that it previously did not review. In response to this new information, the FBI will now “allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information.”

The FBI, in other words, is not reexamining its previous findings. It is not questioning its previous legal conclusion that “no reasonable prosecutor” could determine that charges are warranted. Based on the letter, it appears that the FBI will simply provide the same scrutiny to these newly uncovered emails as it previously applied to the emails it already reviewed when it determined that criminal charges are not warranted.

Read more...

Source: https://thinkprogress.org/the-fbi-di...a97#.oy0f3dq4q

Newsweek's take on it: http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewin...-emails-514825

I don't know what to think

[bots]

Originally Posted by Maru

I don't know what to think

The emails must be relevant, because one could potentially examine every email ever written since she put the info on her server to see if it contains evidence of "email mismanagement"

Even if they found something they deemed relevant, it would involve teams of lawyers arguing it out before any decision could be made. I could see that lasting the whole length of her presidency and some

[_Tom_]

She's screwed

[Northern Monkey]

Cancel the election and bring two new candidates out.This is just a mess.

[Kizzy]

Oh for gods sake, if she knew she was up to her neck in it why didn't she just let Bernie run?...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The emails must be relevant, because one could potentially examine every email ever written since she put the info on her server to see if it contains evidence of "email mismanagement"

Even if they found something they deemed relevant, it would involve teams of lawyers arguing it out before any decision could be made. I could see that lasting the whole length of her presidency and some

I guess their argument is it is more of a coincidence the timing of what they found and therefore they had an obligation to investigate it, rather than pick and choose based on relevancy... I don't know about that. I think that the White House has to know about the FBI's investigation and that the FBI has a responsibility to the people to be forthright and honest, but I think even the timing has to be considered... I guess in a way it would've been worse if it came out right after she was elected. People would lose their ****.

It's a good/bad situation to be in. Hopefully more people vote and people actually read up on these things so that they are actually informed.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Oh for gods sake, if she knew she was up to her neck in it why didn't she just let Bernie run?...

Arrogance and power hunger over common sense and doing what's best for the country?