State Dept. to Reopen Clinton Email Probe

[Knot Again]

Heads will roll

Just not ExCuntClintons

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They'll clear her.



Only the American people can now indict her and punish her...

 

[Knot Again]

They wont

America is brain DEAD

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Brainwashed...

 

[miles]

The DOJ will be as open, honest, and transparent as every other smarmy and corrupt agency in this administration. It starts at the top.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The DOJ will be as open, honest, and transparent as every other smarmy and corrupt agency in this administration. It starts at the top.

What are you talking about? The Justice Department investigation is now over. The State Department investigation is resuming. The State Department does not have the authority to bring criminal charges -- only to suspend current employees, suggest revocation of current security clearances and/or to refer to the DOJ other alleged violations of administrative law (such as improper handling of government records) which the FBI did not investigate, if in fact such improper handling was not part of the investigation just concluded.

The State Department investigation will not likely be about sending someone to jail.

 

[lovecraft68]

When you look at this situation, the first thing that comes to mind is what a joke Nixon being impeached was in comparison to what has gone on over the last three presidents and now this.

Of course back in the 70's the American people weren't all brain dead lemmings with their faces buried in social media wondering what the Kardashians are doing.

They also had some pride and dignity in their country and that is long since gone.

 

[contrifan32]

When you look at this situation, the first thing that comes to mind is what a joke Nixon being impeached was in comparison to what has gone on over the last three presidents and now this.

Of course back in the 70's the American people weren't all brain dead lemmings with their faces buried in social media wondering what the Kardashians are doing.

They also had some pride and dignity in their country and that is long since gone.

Except, Nixon was not impeached.

Did you mean Clinton, he actually was impeached.

 

[Knot Again]

What are you talking about? The Justice Department investigation is now over. The State Department investigation is resuming. The State Department does not have the authority to bring criminal charges -- only to suspend current employees, suggest revocation of current security clearances and/or to refer to the DOJ other alleged violations of administrative law (such as improper handling of government records) which the FBI did not investigate, if in fact such improper handling was not part of the investigation just concluded.

The State Department investigation will not likely be about sending someone to jail.

little people will pay the price

 

[JohnnySavage]

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/f/f2/Midget_gang.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110620223252

 

[Knot Again]

LittleSavage, is short on humor

 

[miles]

What are you talking about? The Justice Department investigation is now over. The State Department investigation is resuming. The State Department does not have the authority to bring criminal charges -- only to suspend current employees, suggest revocation of current security clearances and/or to refer to the DOJ other alleged violations of administrative law (such as improper handling of government records) which the FBI did not investigate, if in fact such improper handling was not part of the investigation just concluded.

The State Department investigation will not likely be about sending someone to jail.

This has absolutely nothing to do with a State Dept. investigation. It's a straw man argument.

Can we agree on the this?

Clinton lied under oath to a Congressional Committee investigating Banghazi, not a State Department investigation.She testified that she never sent/received classified emails. She also testified she used one mobile device to check her email.

In this week's Congressional investigation - not a State Dept. investigation or the Benghazi Committee- Comey said her testimony was untrue. That committee - not a State Department investigation - wants her investigated for lying under oath to Congress.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

When you look at this situation, the first thing that comes to mind is what a joke Nixon being impeached was in comparison to what has gone on over the last three presidents and now this.

Of course back in the 70's the American people weren't all brain dead lemmings with their faces buried in social media wondering what the Kardashians are doing.

They also had some pride and dignity in their country and that is long since gone.

Nixon's near impeachment was not a joke. The Watergate break-in was not a legitimate intelligence operation conducted by any government agency. It was funded entirely by the Committee to Re-elect the President. Nixon and his closest circle of advisers did everything they could to impede the subsequent investigation into the crime. That in itself is a crime known as "obstruction of justice."

The Bush administration's requests to the DOJ for detailed legal opinions on enhanced interrogations or the habeas corpus rights of unlawful combatants as well as Hillary Clinton's contempt for State Department administrative regulations concerning emails do not begin to approach the legal liability of Watergate.

 

[Ramone45]

When you look at this situation, the first thing that comes to mind is what a joke Nixon being impeached was in comparison to what has gone on over the last three presidents and now this.

Of course back in the 70's the American people weren't all brain dead lemmings with their faces buried in social media wondering what the Kardashians are doing.

They also had some pride and dignity in their country and that is long since gone.

I could not agree more. It's such a said commentary on the electorate, and it happened I. A remarkably short time. Without minimizing g the corruption of RMN, what is happening now is exponentially worse, and we still want her to be president. What the hell happened to us? My wife thought that video games were a Japanese plot to turn our minds to mush. I'm beginning to think she's right. That stupid Mario and Luigi sing disrupts your synapses or something.

 

[miles]

This is an account of what happened. There is no mention of any State Dept. investigation.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-demands-criminal-investigation-clinton-172400820.html

 

[contrifan32]

Nixon's near impeachment was not a joke. The Watergate break-in was not a legitimate intelligence operation conducted by any government agency. It was funded entirely by the Committee to Re-elect the President. Nixon and his closest circle of advisers did everything they could to impede the subsequent investigation into the crime. That in itself is a crime known as "obstruction of justice."

The Bush administration's requests to the DOJ for detailed legal opinions on enhanced interrogations or the habeas corpus rights of unlawful combatants as well as Hillary Clinton's contempt for State Department administrative regulations concerning emails do not begin to approach the legal liability of Watergate.

"Near impeachment"... is that like being nearly pregnant?

 

[Knot Again]

The IG at State already did one and concluded ExCuntClinton LIED and is guilty

The purpose of this new investigation is to throw some LITTLE PEOPLE under bus

 

[Colonel Hogan]

"Near impeachment"... is that like being nearly pregnant?

In 1974 the House Judiciary committee passed three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and submitted those articles to the full House for debate on an impeachment resolution and a possible future trial in the Senate.

Nixon resigned before a vote was taken by the full House because he most certainly knew he did not have the votes to prevent passage of said impeachment resolution.

That's what I meant by "near impeachment," and your pretending not to understand that is transparently disingenuous.

 

[contrifan32]

In 1974 the House Judiciary committee passed three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and submitted those articles to the full House for debate on an impeachment resolution and a possible future trial in the Senate.

Nixon resigned before a vote was taken by the full House because he most certainly knew he did not have the votes to prevent passage of said impeachment resolution.

That's what I meant by "near impeachment," and your pretending not to understand that is transparently disingenuous.

I fully understood what you said and am familiar with the particulars. I would suggest that the term "near impeachment" is incorrect in that even Nixon was innocent until proven guilty. The house never had an opportunity to vote for impeachment as you correctly pointed out.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I fully understood what you said and am familiar with the particulars. I would suggest that the term "near impeachment" is incorrect in that even Nixon was innocent until proven guilty. The house never had an opportunity to vote for impeachment as you correctly pointed out.

Gerald Ford would disagree with you.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This has absolutely nothing to do with a State Dept. investigation. It's a straw man argument.

Can we agree on the this?

Clinton lied under oath to a Congressional Committee investigating Banghazi, not a State Department investigation.She testified that she never sent/received classified emails. She also testified she used one mobile device to check her email.

In this week's Congressional investigation - not a State Dept. investigation or the Benghazi Committee- Comey said her testimony was untrue. That committee - not a State Department investigation - wants her investigated for lying under oath to Congress.

In his pointed questioning of FBI Director Comey, Rep. Trey Gowdy concluded his remarks with the following:

"You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

Both Gowdy and Comey understand the law in the way you and others do not. Statutes defining perjury REQUIRE the state of mind of "knowledge" and "willful intent." The carelessness and recklessness that Comey has referred to does not rise to that standard.

There is a lesser federal "false statements" statute (18 USC 1001) which is normally invoked when witnesses lie to Congress, but it too contains the "knowingly and willfully" statutory language.

The pattern of behavior that seems obviously willful to you, is easily mitigated in an actual court of law by evidence such as email discussions of sensitive information that SHOULD have been classified but wasn't, classification markings in the body of an email message rather than prominently displayed in the message header, or, for that matter, the PROPER handling of a GREATER number of classified communications contrasted with a handful that were IMPROPERLY handled.

In other words, if I'm Hillary Clinton and I can show that the improper emailing of classified information was an aberration, THAT speaks persuasively to my INTENT. If there is any evidence that I might not have understood (either through negligence or stupidity) that an item was (or should have been) classified, that also mitigates the issue of INTENT.

What is obviously NOT an aberration is her insistence and INTENT on maintaining a private, non-governmental, insecure email server in her private home in the first place. Unfortunately -- and I do regard it as unfortunate -- that INTENT does not apparently constitute criminal or even civil liability.

I hope I'm wrong on the civil liability question, but as for criminality, you can kiss that one goodbye.

 

[Knot Again]

In his pointed questioning of FBI Director Comey, Rep. Trey Gowdy concluded his remarks with the following:



Both Gowdy and Comey understand the law in the way you and others do not. Statutes defining perjury REQUIRE the state of mind of "knowledge" and "willful intent." The carelessness and recklessness that Comey has referred to does not rise to that standard.

There is a lesser federal "false statements" statute (18 USC 1001) which is normally invoked when witnesses lie to Congress, but it too contains the "knowingly and willfully" statutory language.

The pattern of behavior that seems obviously willful to you, is easily mitigated in an actual court of law by evidence such as email discussions of sensitive information that SHOULD have been classified but wasn't, classification markings in the body of an email message rather than prominently displayed in the message header, or, for that matter, the PROPER handling of a GREATER number of classified communications contrasted with a handful that were IMPROPERLY handled.

In other words, if I'm Hillary Clinton and I can show that the improper emailing of classified information was an aberration, THAT speaks persuasively to my INTENT. If there is any evidence that I might not have understood (either through negligence or stupidity) that an item was (or should have been) classified, that also mitigates the issue of INTENT.

What is obviously NOT an aberration is her insistence and INTENT on maintaining a private, non-governmental, insecure email server in her private home in the first place. Unfortunately -- and I do regard it as unfortunate -- that INTENT does not apparently constitute criminal or even civil liability.

I hope I'm wrong on the civil liability question, but as for criminality, you can kiss that one goodbye.

there is a video out there where she says

given all the investigations

"WHY SHOULD I USE A GOV EMAIL?"


Inten

 

[Knot Again]

intent

negligent?


then NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE shouldnt be prosecuted

NO?

YES!

 

[feistyphoenix]

What are you talking about? The Justice Department investigation is now over. The State Department investigation is resuming. The State Department does not have the authority to bring criminal charges -- only to suspend current employees, suggest revocation of current security clearances and/or to refer to the DOJ other alleged violations of administrative law (such as improper handling of government records) which the FBI did not investigate, if in fact such improper handling was not part of the investigation just concluded.

The State Department investigation will not likely be about sending someone to jail.

My only hope at this point is that her security clearance is revoked and she is suspended from having another one for 10 years minimum. This would effectively end her presidential campaign, you can't be President of you have no security cleanace.

 

[Knot Again]

My only hope at this point is that her security clearance is revoked and she is suspended from having another one for 10 years minimum. This would effectively end her presidential campaign, you can't be President of you have no security cleanace.

silly

you KNOW that wont happen ever