L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,703
It was a FOIA request to the FBI.If it's coming from the Justice dept, you have my attention, if it's from Fox and Friends, not so much.
It was a FOIA request to the FBI.If it's coming from the Justice dept, you have my attention, if it's from Fox and Friends, not so much.
You keep wanting to make every action and request criminal.It was a FOIA request to the FBI.
Where are you deriving your information from? Because I assume you didn't submit a FOIA request.It was a FOIA request to the FBI.
About a month ago, Sullivan asked the State Department to reach out to the FBI for assistance in addressing a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Judicial Watch regarding Clinton aide Huma Abedin's employment arrangements. The judge also asked State to report on arrangements for the FBI to share information about the ongoing investigation.
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-detailsAnd this is who is requesting this info, how do you see this group prosecuting Hillary?
Looks like another Republican fishing expedition.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/fbi-rejects-judges-request-for-clinton-email-info-213889#ixzz47eRssypv
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
That's old news and it still does not back up any of your claims.https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details
Pay attention to the area where the FBI is offering immunity to an individual. This is only done for testimony.
There's literally no proof of there being a criminal investigation. Everything so far has been rote speculation based on levels of non-cooperation from the FBI.I have never said she has been charged.
I said there is a criminal investigation being done to which you stated wasn't true. It is true and if this individual testifies she could be in hot water. If you deny that you are still in your bubble.
You obviously don't know how the system works. The article stated that one of the FOIA,s was responded to that information couldn't be released because of an ongoing criminal investigation. Further it stated that the individual was granted immunity for his testimony. That's a deal that is only made when the party has knowledge that can help convict soneone. In the instant case that would be matters pertaining to classified documents that were released through the server ofThere's literally no proof of there being a criminal investigation. Everything so far has been rote speculation based on levels of non-cooperation from the FBI.
This feels more like wishful thinking.
There is no criminal investigation taking place, it is an investigation to see if anything criminal has occurred.I have never said she has been charged.
I said there is a criminal investigation being done to which you stated wasn't true. It is true and if this individual testifies she could be in hot water. If you deny that you are still in your bubble.
Nope.You obviously don't know how the system works. The article stated that one of the FOIA,s was responded to that information couldn't be released because of an ongoing criminal investigation. Further it stated that the individual was granted immunity for his testimony. That's a deal that is only made when the party has knowledge that can help convict soneone. In the instant case that would be matters pertaining to classified documents that were released through the server of
Clintons.
"At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time," Baker wrote to senior State Department attorney Mary McLeod.
DOJ confirmed in July that it received a referral from the Intelligence Community inspector general regarding possible compromise of classified information in Clinton's email account. The agency initially said the referral was criminal, but later said it was not and that it was sent under a counterintelligence law regarding possible breaches involving national security secrets.
That may well be the case, but criminal charges would probably not hinge on when the emails were classified, lawyer Abbe David Lowell says. Lowell, who recently wrote about America's broken classification system for the New York Times, explains that what actually matters in a case like this is Clinton's intent.
"All criminal laws require a certain level of intent and, in the area of classified document cases, the intent to disclose it to someone not authorized to receive it," says Lowell, who has a long history of defending politicians in ethics cases, and served as chief counsel to the House Democrats during Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings. "Secretary Clinton's use of an email server was [for correspondence with] her own staff and other officials. It was not [intended to be provided] to the press or to a foreign country or any other entity, so it would be ridiculous [for her to] even be considered charged under these laws."
Lowell notes that the two cases sometimes invoked as possible analogs to emailgate — David Petraeus' mishandling of classified information, and Edward Snowden's wide dispersal of classified documents — are both quite different in intent. "Giving books filled with classified information, including the identities of covert people, to the person writing your biography who you want to sleep with? ... Taking 11 trillion bytes of information and dispersing it to the globe?" Lowell says. "Remember what I said about the intent to disclose to someone not authorized to receive it: That really is the distinguishing character in classified information cases."
Nathan Sales, an associate law professor at Syracuse University, disagrees with Lowell's and others' assessment. "Many scholars and lawyers think it's unlikely. I'm actually kind of in the minority on this," Sales says. "But, based on what we do know so far, I think there is a not insignificant chance that a grand jury could look at the facts and say, 'Actually, she may have violated various laws protecting classified information.'"
Sales points to the Petraeus case in particular, noting that the former CIA head did not, in the end, plead guilty to charges related to sharing classified information with his mistress and biographer, but rather to those related to him keeping the information in a desk drawer inside his home. "The conduct that is being investigated [in Clinton's case] — keeping the documents on an unclassified server — that's kind of the digital equivalent of locking it in your desk drawer, which is ultimately what did in General Petraeus," he says.
That's actually a very poor explanation of "intent" when it comes to criminal law. Not saying he is wrong in his conclusion with Hilary but his explanation of the word intent is actually pretty poor.This sums up why calling this criminal at this point is a stretch and why everything L.T. has claimed has been wrong.
You flew past the airport in your zeal. There is a criminal investigation being conducted. The FBI has confirmed this with their refusal to disclose the information in the FOIA request citing criminal investigation as the cause for refusal. They have also disclosed the individual was granted immunity for their testimony. All this other stuff you posted is nothing but a lot of people's opinions about the matter. Post something that refutes what I said not someone else's opinion. It is a documented fact that the FBI cited a criminal case was being conducted as a Reason for not disclosing a FOIA request. It is also a fact disclosed by the FBI that an individual has been granted immunity for their testimony in the server issue. That is what I have posted and documented. When you have something to refute that feel free to post it otherwise the opinion of others is just flak you are serving up.This sums up why calling this criminal at this point is a stretch and why everything L.T. has claimed has been wrong.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-should-we-make-of-the-hillary-clinton-indictment-speculation-20160503#ixzz47iCcNRzT
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Or for that matter if the information requested had information relating to criminal actions by someone else they were investigating.You keep wanting to make every action and request criminal.
You have no idea what is in the documents requested or if it rises to a criminal offense.
What about this FOIA changes anything?
I heard about this last week you continue to be shown to be wrong.
This individual was tied to the servers. They would only give immunity to someone who directly implicate the party they were conducting the investigation about. The investigation is about classified documents being received and transmitted on Clinton's privat server. Doesn't take a lot to connect the dots.Or for that matter if the information requested had information relating to criminal actions by someone else they were investigating.
We can speculate all we want, but they could be investigating someone completely different in the State Department as well. I think she is crooked and a liar, but the fact remains we don't know she is the one being investigated at this time.This individual was tied to the servers. They would only give immunity to someone who directly implicate the party they were conducting the investigation about. The investigation is about classified documents being received and transmitted on Clinton's privat server. Doesn't take a lot to connect the dots.
You are not aware that Clinton is being investigated about classified documents allegedly being transmitted and received on her personal server? It's her server. That has been going on for some time. Maybe this will help.We can speculate all we want, but they could be investigating someone completely different in the State Department as well. I think she is crooked and a liar, but the fact remains we don't know she is the one being investigated at this time.
Normally, I'd say fine, but I'd ask you to reconsider to avoid getting the real life version of this:Still not voting for her.