Skip to comments.
Investigators: Scant evidence Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails
Washington Post ^
| May 5, 2016
| Matt Zapotosky
Posted on 05/05/2016 8:17:51 PM PDT by Fasceto
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clintons use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clinton; clintongate; fascetorattroll; news
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161 next last
To: Rabin
As the Washington Post clearly states,there is evidence that Mz Clinton had malicious intent in handling the emails.
Sort of like only one, mere fingerprint on the smoking gun.
TWB
To: Fasceto
No there doesn’t. You are mistaken. Stop posting crap.
62
posted on
05/05/2016 8:41:56 PM PDT
by
FredZarguna
(And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Fifth Avenue to be Born?)
To: Fasceto
LoL - more lame attempts at moving the goal posts by the Clintonistas. They're a walking, talking Monty Python sketch.
63
posted on
05/05/2016 8:43:04 PM PDT
by
lapsus calami
(What's that stink? Code Pink ! ! And their buddy Murtha, too!)
To: USNBandit
I do believe you are correct.
To: Fasceto
Queen Cankles the First is above the law you foolish peons!!
the FBI will knell in subservience to Her Crustiness by the prayer of King Obunghole First DickTater of the USSA and Chief Affirmative Action Reciepiant Lor-Et-A Catfish.
65
posted on
05/05/2016 8:44:55 PM PDT
by
Gasshog
(Clinton denies... Except to see a lot of this)
To: Fasceto
Scant evidence of “intent” when Robert Hansen passively left SCI/TS info in certain cafes. Of course, we now know his intent; Hillary is likely just an arrogant idiot. Hansen was an arrogant idiot traitor. How many years does dippy get?
66
posted on
05/05/2016 8:45:05 PM PDT
by
LittleBillyInfidel
(This tagline has been formatted to fit the screen. Some content has been edited.)
To: Fasceto
At the very least it is gross incompetence, such that she should never be allowed access to classified materials ever again. That in itself would preclude her from the presidency. A president so incompetent and so self-absorbed, in the way she conducts the handling of such materials, is too great a risk to our national security.
But she really did violate the law, and what she intended to do with the materials does not change that. It is impossible that she could have been married to a sitting president, be in the U.S. Senate, and be Secretary of State without having an adequate understanding of such things.
To: Fasceto
The law does not take intent into account. The law says if you mishandle classified information, you have committed a felony.
68
posted on
05/05/2016 8:46:20 PM PDT
by
taxcontrol
( The GOPe treats the conservative base like slaves by taking their votes and refuses to pay)
To: Fasceto
The question is really pretty straight forward. If I kept and disseminated classified information in an unsecure, unsanctioned manner, would I be charged with a crime? Yes or no? That same answer applies to Hillary.
69
posted on
05/05/2016 8:47:18 PM PDT
by
lafroste
To: Fasceto
Thats Not the Point. THE point is that she knowingly, willingly broke a multitude of laws concerning national security, classified and TOP SECRET MATERIALS, committed numerous crimes and felonies AND to top it all off; she wilfully, malimciously did everything within her power to try to destroy all evidence of her plethora of crimes! The FBI and all of the intelligence agencies and agents have obtained rock solid EVIDENCE, AND EYE WITNESSES WHO CAN AND HAVE TESTIFIED TO ALL OF THE ABOVE! THAT IS THE POINT, ALL THAT REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED IS THE QUESTION:
Will Mrs. Clinton be INDICTED AND PROSECUTED FOR ALL FOR THE LAWS SHE AS BROKEN AND CRIMES SHE HAS COMMITTED? ...
70
posted on
05/05/2016 8:47:45 PM PDT
by
Jmouse007
(Lord God Almighty, deliver us from this evil in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, amen.)
To: John Leland 1789
John, you bring up the pertinent point, it was for the Foundation and anything to keep away from the watchdog.
71
posted on
05/05/2016 8:48:02 PM PDT
by
eyedigress
((Old storm chaser from the west))
To: Fasceto
Here we go with the definition of “is”.....
To: Gasshog
I doubt you could take a Crintoon to jail even if they confess to the crime.
The crooked political allies would claim insanity.
73
posted on
05/05/2016 8:49:17 PM PDT
by
Gasshog
(Clinton denies... Except to see a lot of this)
To: Fasceto; All
In cases of Secrecy Laws and National Security, intent is not necessary to be in criminal violation.
Negligence alone is felonious.
74
posted on
05/05/2016 8:50:19 PM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: USNBandit; blueunicorn6; Fasceto
75
posted on
05/05/2016 8:50:48 PM PDT
by
FredZarguna
(And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Fifth Avenue to be Born?)
To: Fasceto; Admin Moderator; Old Sarge; 50mm
Fasceto
Since Jan 6, 2016
Mostly posts articles about Hillary and/or Bernie and their comments on Trump.
Very few comments.
Now defending Hillary.
SNIFF.
76
posted on
05/05/2016 8:50:57 PM PDT
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Gasshog
Now they get to play against a strong man who doesn’t drink, smoke and works 18 hours a day for 70 years.
Let’s watch.
77
posted on
05/05/2016 8:51:47 PM PDT
by
eyedigress
((Old storm chaser from the west))
To: Mariner
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
78
posted on
05/05/2016 8:52:50 PM PDT
by
Fasceto
To: Fasceto
The fix is in.
To the surprise of absolutely no one.
79
posted on
05/05/2016 8:52:59 PM PDT
by
comebacknewt
(Newt (sigh) what could have been . . .)
To: BenLurkin
Intent is absolutely not required. Everyone knows she is stupid. That is NO defense. Get this indictment going NOW . Why is there any more delay?
80
posted on
05/05/2016 8:54:12 PM PDT
by
WENDLE
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIhGgrhQeE)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson