See, I was thinking another way to interpret this is that he wants to be damn sure he's crossed every i and dotted every t before recommending the indictment. In other words, he knows there's something there, but wants the case to be bulletproof (specifically so people like you don't pooh-pooh it as just another "fake scandal").
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think Henry would know but IMO based on local goings on targets and subjects are terms used with grand juries, such as with public corruption and Rico cases. The Feds are obligated to tell people if they are targets and also if they have been recorded at such stages. So I don't think those terms apply to the email investigation because as far as we know there is no GJ. However if someone is the last person interviewed out of a group then that's a bad sign for that that person because that means the Feds are gunning for them because they have tried to gather as much testimony and data as possible to identify any possible lying. That's one way you can tell who is the real 'target' or if there is one.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This has gotten too silly to discuss.
The Jacksonville Jaguars have won 5 Super Bowls: discuss. - It has just as much bearing on reality.
I will say though that if or when she is interviewed Hillary's legal counsel will have to have the greatest Come To Jesus moment in world history. Hillary sounds just deluded, she can't even say the word 'investigation.'
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That occurred to me too, especially in that they would never indict right on top of the convention or just before or after. He also can't possibly, no matter how ethical, no matter how Elliott Ness he wants to be, ignore the fact that one party will have its candidate kneecapped after the convention. Then I also read the comments about needing the proper resources and doing it 'well' before doing it timely. - I dunno, Comey didn't have to say any of that stuff. If true, we know he needs more resources for one thing which again leads us back to it being a bigger investigation than some acknowledge.
- eta - In retrospect, if true and if he does recommend indictment (of someone, anyone) this also does not help the DOJ or Hillary, because that then shortens their window to act, or it invites them to delay and delay and delay.... at which point it becomes it looks like a major problem because they are hiding something. Ordinarily (as mentioned in one of the articles further up) the DOJ will take months or even a year to decide on a case or they may never issue a decision at all. This would not help Hillary. Once president there's no way her own DOJ can reasonably decide on the fate of their own president.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
I'd agree that the comments on timing cannot be taken one way or the other. I just have one question for you, regarding what is occurring.
...as late as this weekend, Hillary referred to what the FBI is doing as a "security review." If you had a gun to your head and had to call it that or a criminal investigation, which would you call it?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
A target letter informs the recipient that he or she is the target of a Grand Jury investigation and that he or she will be called to testify before the grand jury. It comes from the U.S. Attorney's office, not the FBI.
Quint
Footballguy
thanks for the explanation.
so the sequence of events, as it relates to HRC and her cabal, would be for the FBI to complete their investigation and if based on the results they find criminal wrongdoing, would then recommend an indictment to US Attorney's Office in the appropriate jurisdiction? and then a GJ could/would be convened and target letter(s) issued to the parties involved?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Probably? I'd imagine that because it deals with classified information, things work differently than anything I've been involved with.
timschochet
Footballguy
Who's holding the gun?
Just kidding. I think it's a security review. I don't believe any criminality is involved. I've posted that several times. We'll see if I'm right.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
What happens when secure data which must by law be held on secured networks is not?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
In my opinion (and like everyone else here, I'm just speculating) if James Comey truly believed that it was even remotely possible that Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted, he would have a duty to immediately inform Lynch of this possibility, Lynch would have a duty to inform Obama, and Obama would have a duty to ask Hillary Clinton to step aside RIGHT NOW, not just for the good of the Democratic Party but for our political system and the nation. It would be terrible for us as a country to have either a President or a Presidential candidate charged with a federal crime. That is precisely the reason Richard Nixon resigned from office. It would be Obama's duty not to ever let things get that far. He would insist that Hillary declare herself ineligible.
The fact that this hasn't happened tells me there's nothing there. That is my logical assumption.
The fact that this hasn't happened tells me there's nothing there. That is my logical assumption.
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Okeedokee what happens if the data which should have been secure is found to have not been made secure at the proper time according to law during this security review?
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
That's a yuuuuuuge stretch in my opinion.
What you're saying, in essence, is that if the FBI believes there's a possibility that there was criminal activity, they should immediately set into motion a series of actions that will lead to Clinton and Co. knowing everything that's going on in the investigation. That's not really how investigations work.
The FBI is not an elected body for a reason. I believe that it is sensitive to the fact that it's an election year, but it simply cannot work based on it being an election year. The fact that no one has said whether there will or will not be charges recommended says exactly one thing to me: it hasn't been decided for certain one way or the other.
Why are they granting immunity for a "security review"?
I agree with your assessment that nothing against Hillary will likely come from this investigation, but I think we are beyond playing word games about what the FBI are doing here.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Presumably because the person granted immunity wouldn't be willing to talk about facts without it, since he may or may not be charged with a crime.
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
That's not how investigations of us common folk work...we all know Hillary has her own rules that she lives by and that's the way it should be.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK. I don't know precisely how the law works BUT IN MY OPINION:
If Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, had classified data in her possession which was marked as classified data at the time she possessed it and which she knew was classified data at the time she possessed it and if she herself knowingly placed the classified data in an unclassified email server and sent it herself to another party who was not classified to receive it, OR if she knowingly placed the classified data in such a manner as it could be easily hacked because it was not secure, OR if any of the above was done with Hillary Clinton's direct knowledge and/or direction, then she is guilty of a crime and should be indicted.
Now in terms of the Commish's last point: I don't understand the distinction between "secure data" and "classified data", so at this time I'm not willing to replace one with the other in the above paragraph.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
"Listen, if there's a chance we might indict this guy for murder, before we talk to him formally we should tell his best friend we're probably going to indict him for murder, so the guy can just go ahead and do the right thing."
cobalt_27
Footballguy
That's not what the FBI does. That's not its role. Comey's comments are clearly in line with being an independent investigative authority. They are not going to hustle up --or slow play-- for any political reason. Reasonable to assume they are going to methodically investigate potential crimes and to think the are going to tip their hand is, I suspect, mostly wishful thinking on your part.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
...and that is a criminal investigation, which is what is happening. That baby was put to bed.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
My understanding is that there are Republican House committees eager to follow up the FBI review with "witch hunt" style investigations of their own, especially if Hillary is elected. Obviously there is a history behind this. If I were asked to testify to the FBI I would ask for immunity, not because I was afraid of what the FBI would do, but because I was afraid that some House Committee or future special prosecutor with an axe to grind could try to send me to jail because I was connected to Hillary Clinton. (See Susan McDougal.)
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Susan McDougal went to jail for not cooperating. Immunity is for people who do cooperate. HTH.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm sorry, but the FBI from J Edgar Hoover to the present day has played politics with it's high level government investigations. The notion that they're just going to ignore a Presidential election is extremely naive IMO.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
My understanding of the story so far, though I'm not as up on it as many are:
Yes.
Unknown if it was marked, though if she did the sharing, I'm not sure what you mean by "marked." If she failed to mark it, she's the one at fault here.
Unknown, but is the center of the investigation, I'd suspect.
Yes.
Unknown at this time.
Whether or not it's "secure" is a judgment call, but whether or not it's allowed to be on that server will not be. Why does the relative security matter, rather than removal to a storage device not under the control of the government, which is removal and retention of classified information? If I remove copies of files from a CIA office and put them in my safe at home, aren't I still doing something illegal?
It looks likely it was at least done with her knowledge, if we include the caveat in green directly above.
That, plus the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". If the FBI suspects criminal wrongdoing, but isn't yet sure, it probably shouldn't ruin Clinton's (very good) chance of pursuing her career goals.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
pettifogger
Footballguy
Except the announcement indicated "the IC IG did not make a criminal referral -- ### was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes."
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok, yes, you're aware of the two filings now in federal court submitted by the FBI itself referring to "law enforcement" activities?
And you're aware that the FBI suspended State's own investigation in early February, right after the highest class emails were withheld?
And as for the IG letter, you're aware of what happens in a security referral if it is determined that data which must be held on secure networks was actually handled on non-secure networks, and what the outcome is of that?
"Counterintelligence" counters what, per chance, any idea? Hint: it's not legal. From the letter:
Last edited by a moderator:
pettifogger
Footballguy
"you're aware of what happens in a security referral if it is determined that data which must be held on secure networks was actually handled on non-secure networks"SaintsInDome2006 said:
Actually, no I am not. Which statute or regulation says how the data "must" be held? What is the consequence? Is failure to comply a criminal offense? What are the elements of the crime? Does it result in loss of security clearance, or an actual criminal penalty? Was it in place at the time or something adopted later? The only statute I noticed cited in this thread was the one Petraeus was charged under. I looked it up under Westlaw. There are only a few published cases on it in the history of the statute. It appears to require criminal intent. That is why the DOJ insisted Petraeus admit that he knew it was a violation when he pled to giving his mistress top secret war plans and secret code names.
You have done an astoundingly thorough job collecting facts on this dispute (and I mean that with respect, not as a backhanded compliment) but I am having a hard time with the jump people keep making to criminal conduct, reciting a series of facts and announcing this is proof. Proof of what?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well the crimes are laid out here in the NDA Hillary signed. I think Part 1 covers intent. Parts 10-11 appear to cover the crimes.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf
Let me know if you need more info.
(eta - btw thanks for the compliment, I've enjoyed the subject matter and talking about it).
eta2 - about intent, that's the tough one, I agree. I think Henry has covered the statutes pretty well. I'm not really arguing for conviction but I do see how this could go to a jury. I don't think for most people who work in that area that they would have gotten the leeway Hillary has gotten, I think indictment would be a done deal.
To me the intent comes in with the warnings that Hillary and other employees got (there were two at least), there is the precedent at State by Powell and Rice (Powell had a desk and desktop CPU just for classified review in SCIF while Hillary did neither, Rice almost never emailed, both had gov accounts, neither were found to have Secret or higher emails after 1.5 year review, under Rice secure blackberrys were phased out as too dangerous & unsecure bb's were never ok), there is the joint IG letter (classified when sent), there is the NDA I just posted, there is the fact that Hillary has provided no emails before 3/18/09, and there was the meeting with the NSA in March 2009, the memo NSA showed Hillary, and maybe 1-2 other meetings before that with DSS. That might be one place where Pagliano comes in, WaPo has published at least two articles where it appears Hillary got a digital certificate because she was warned that using the blackberry for personal use could be dangerous. Here is one example of just one of the warnings (though this was after the digital certificate):
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Since you're using Westlaw, I assume you're also a lawyer.
I don't understand why you're citing criminal intent as a reason for requiring admission of knowledge of the statute. You don't have to know there's a LaW against murder to have had the intent to kill someone. You don't have to have known that embezzlement is a crime to have intended to deprive someone of property in an employment context. Those are still criminal intent.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Where do you see this? WI hasn't released any results yet. The polls aren't closed for another 1.5 hours.
Last edited by a moderator:
lod01
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Never.tommyGunZ said:
pettifogger
Footballguy
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Because the statute refers in its various sub-parts to purpose, intent, willfulness. (And gross negligence, in one supbpart.)
Henry Ford
Footballguy
So? That doesn't mean it requires knowledge of the statute
The only possible exception (and it's a possible exception, not a certainty) is (g) for conspiracy, because it could be interpreted as a willful conspiracy to violate the statute rather than a conspiracy to commit the acts that violate the statute.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Poor Hillary - it's all just a never ending political witch hunt isn't it?timschochet said:
If they said they'd try to wrap it up before the convention you'd be the first person to say that was proof they were out to get her. If she's really innocent of any wrongdoing with these emails you should be thrilled the FBI is going to clear her good name.
timschochet
Footballguy
You're very wrong about the first part. If the FBI recommends an indictment against Hillary Clinton I will at once drop my support of her. I think the modern FBI is still political but I don't think they're corrupt.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
...and now one of the Panama Papers players is the guy who wrote the Georgian memo Blumenthal sent to Clinton. Hooray.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Just curious - is there anything else that will do it? Does it have to be an outright indictment? What if there's overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and poor judgment - but no actual crime - would that do it? If there were, say, a repeated pattern of deception and underhanded dealings?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Always good to have a shot before the chaser.
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05792791.pdf
- Status
Similar threads
