Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

From the article

-- snip --

This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information.

What General Petraeus did was at the most one tenth of what Hillary did, yet the Pentagon wants to take a star away from him

1 posted on 01/25/2016 11:44:48 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

TONS of EVIDENCE.....

ZERO POLITICAL WILL....

As long as Hillary is running for president as the “inevitable democrat” she is safe...

If Bernie Takes her down New Hampshire and Iowa, she may very well finally be put in jail...


2 posted on 01/25/2016 11:48:01 AM PST by GraceG (The election doesn't pick the next president, it is an audition for "American Emperor"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

If the DOJ refuses to indict Clinton, the FBI and the intelligence community will leak the details to the press.

Guaranteed.


3 posted on 01/25/2016 11:48:01 AM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton?

Yes. The very nature of what she's done is criminal on its face. A private in the Army would have been in Leavenworth a year ago.

4 posted on 01/25/2016 11:50:02 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The rules in our SCIF at Fort Huachuca wouldn’t even allow ANY removable media to leave the SCIF without a two-man rule controlled operation supervised by the SSO, and then the media had to leave wrapped properly for classified courier deliver. This was after Manning used a re-writable disk that looked like a music CD to get his material out of a SCIF. So what Clinton’s folks did should get them ALL a cell next to Aldrich Ames.


5 posted on 01/25/2016 11:50:45 AM PST by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton?

You mean that hasn't been deleted, hidden or altered?

6 posted on 01/25/2016 11:52:43 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (My Forefathers Would Be Shooting By Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

“a good DA can indict a ham sandwich”

Hillary is the whole hog, with trimmings.


7 posted on 01/25/2016 11:58:37 AM PST by bigbob ("Victorious warriors win first ande then go to war" Sun Tzu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Because she is such a “public” figure, the standard of evidence needed will be higher for her than usual. Rather than having the standard 80-95% chance of a conviction, they will want a 95% - 100% chance that the evidence would support a conviction.

That said, it would probably be impossible to find a jury of all 12 people to convict her, but that does not matter.

The evidence released in the indictment, or by the FBI agents if the indictment is killed by DOJ will be so damning, she will have to step aside.

Right now, they are working two major lines of inquiry:

1: Creating a timeline of how $ to the Clinton Foundation created benefits from USGOV to donor, and

2: Trying to find a victim of her emails. Find someone who was killed or hurt because she did not secure HUMINT. Insecure emails can be minimized. Dead people cannot.


12 posted on 01/25/2016 12:12:57 PM PST by The All Knowing All Seeing Oz (I carry a handgun because even a small police officer is too big and heavy to carry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

It seems likely, with all this elaborate maneuvering and migration, the information was put on a home brew server with intent to make it available to whomever knew enough to back in and access it.


13 posted on 01/25/2016 12:18:12 PM PST by Ahithophel (Communication is an art form susceptible to sudden technical failures)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton?

Evidence does not count in the Clinton Crime Family. We need the rough equivalent of semen on a blue dress, except in this case, the semen cannot be viewed since no one has the security clearance to test the semen much less acknowledge that the semen exists. So, the semen is simply the result of action from a leak and the vicious VRWC. Nothing to see here, ready the coronation, and seat the most corrupt President in the history of the nation.

17 posted on 01/25/2016 12:52:16 PM PST by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Looks like this was an espionage/bribery operation with info in return for money.

The Clintons first did this under Slick with nuclear secrets. They left them lying around, unsecured, at Oak Ridge and other places. Then they allowed Red Chinese nationals into the facilities where the secrets could just be picked up, with neither having direct contact and lower level types left on the hook. Lots of money, in the course of things, went to the DNC and the Clintons and they walked.

Fast forward to 2009 and they decided to go digital. Classification markings were stripped from totally classified documents and those stripped documents went on her highly hackable private server. Then, miracle of miracles, the Chinese, Russians, AQ, and whoever else were somehow informed where the treasure trove was, with subsequent hostile hacking assured. Also, and entirely by innocent coincidence, the Clintons were raking in tens of millions of dollars through speaking fees and contributions to their various “charities.”

19 posted on 01/25/2016 1:18:46 PM PST by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Something else that needs to be clearly explained to the American people: When Hillary Clinton says that she “never sent or received information marked “Classified” while she was Secretary of State, she’s playing word games. She’s choosing her words very carefully. There is no distinct category of secure information called “Classified” (except in the movies or on TV.) It’s a generic term that encompasses information marked as “Confidential”, “Secret”, “Top Secret”, etc. Most people do not realize this, and therefore are more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt when they here her make that statement. This is her version of “it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.”


21 posted on 01/25/2016 1:34:08 PM PST by GreenHornet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

while the focus is on damaging evidence contained in various e mails, in addition to spending time in cubicles analyzing them, agents can go into the field and question witnesses. These would be those that know of the day to day office procedure of both at Hillary’s right hand and those perhaps at some distance

If witnesses become targets then there will be offers for testimony that dare not be refused. After all, 2017 is right around the corner and guilty is guilty. within the state department there are probably an endless list og folks that actually have some knowledge of the lawless scandal that reflects poorly and even very badly on them personally.

The emails have revealed enough for even the lowest of the low secretaries to be questioned. Fear will permeate their being. The truth will out in all its horror. The whole State Department is in a state of disgrace

Obama can’t pardon one that is not convicted while he is in office


22 posted on 01/25/2016 1:49:22 PM PST by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;+12, 73, ....carson is the kinder gentler trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

There’s probably dump trucks - a convoy of semis full of evidence against her. Will it ever see the light of day? Not in this corrupt administration.


23 posted on 01/25/2016 1:55:32 PM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
The FBI cannot convene a grand jury and present an indictment. But you'd best believe the FBI can make the Obama administration look very bad if it shrinks from doing so." And then, there's the separate but highly relevant matter of the court of public opinion.

Let the sun shine in - do what is right.

24 posted on 01/25/2016 1:56:00 PM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The continuing question is, “What was the information used for, who benefited, and what risk specifically did this use subject us to?” This is, perhaps, what would be the final nail in Hillary’s coffin as far as the general public is concerned.


32 posted on 01/26/2016 12:41:13 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson