Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[RobRoy]

Charlie Sheen style?

Warlocks and tiger's blood!

 

[Fudbucker]

How is this relevant ?



Yes, and the judge may or may not be correct in his characterization.

When the head of the FBI was offered the opportunity to characterize it as a criminal investigation, he declined.

I know who I believe has better insight into the truth of the matter, and it's not the judge.

My point is there is SOME merit in characterizing this as a criminal investigation. Judges parse their words carefully in their rulings. For whatever reason he felt he needed to include the word "criminal" (maybe to justify keeping Pagliano's immunity deal sealed). Judge Sullivan has been a federal judge for over 20 years.

 

[RobRoy]

It's just really to avoid that word when talking about this, isn't it? There's something about FBI investigations and crime...some link between the two.

I'm not certain which word you're talking about. I'm certainly not attempting to avoid any particular words. I simply prefer truth in advertising.

Let me delve a bit deeper. An investigation to determine wrong-doing does not mean those people associated with the wrong-doing or the investigation have done anything wrong. That's why they have an investigation—to determine what, if anything, happened and who, if anyone, did it. For example: I was in a car accident ten years ago, a five-car pileup. I didn't cause the accident, and I did everything my defensive driving instructor told me, and the law required. However, that didn't stop the police from questioning me about the accident, in the course of a full investigation to determine wrong-doing. I was present, I gave my statement, as did other witnesses. The police took several weeks to sift through everything. At the end it was determined that although I was part of the accident, I had no fault in causing it, and no fault in any of the subsequent damage that occurred.

One can be part of an investigation, even a criminal investigation, and yet that investigation is not actually into them specifically. That's certainly the case here.

So are we back to the fantasy that Clinton's server will be indicted? Perhaps perp-walked out of the evidence locker in cuffs? I wonder which racial gang it will join in the stir. Will there be a joyful reunion with Clinton waiting outside the prison gates when the server finally serves his time? Maybe the server will become institutionalized in prison and have trouble adjusting to normal society.

This is so silly, it doesn't warrant a response. I did laugh at the concept though. You're welcome.

ctrl-f "Secretary Clinton’s use": no results.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

'k! Although I certainly concede that Secretary Clinton would be a "witness" regarding "Secretary Clinton's use" of her homebrew server.

Of course, as would others who sent email into that server for Clinton to read, as is the server itself—the main source of information to determine if wrong-doing actually occurred. That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton is under a criminal investigation.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, the people who have been following this issue understand it was a "security referral made for counterintelligence purposes."

Therefor, the FBI is conducting a security investigation into the mail server and information on it, that may or may not possible result in recommendation of (criminal) charges for people.

Why is this so difficult for people to differentiate from a criminal investigation ?

Your link is to the State Department's office of inspector general.

Director Comey was asked during the briefing about Clinton’s continued characterization of the investigation as a “security inquiry,” according to Fox News.

“[I am] not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry,’” Comey replied. “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

 

[RobRoy]

My point is there is SOME merit in characterizing this as a criminal investigation. Judges parse their words carefully in their rulings. For whatever reason he felt he needed to include the word "criminal" (maybe to justify keeping Pagliano's immunity deal sealed). Judge Sullivan has been a federal judge for over 20 years.

And it is. But it is not a "criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton".

Let me ask, is Andy Boian under criminal investigation? He was, after all, asked questions as part of the investigation. So, could we safely say he is now, or was at one time, under criminal investigation?

 

[The Big Dog]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

we know.... we know.

 

[RobRoy]

we know.... we know.

I guess that proves your point then. Well done!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your link is to the State Department's office of inspector general.

Right, they made the security referral to the DOJ. Don't you find the type of referral sent to the DOJ relevant ???

Director Comey was asked during the briefing about Clinton’s continued characterization of the investigation as a “security inquiry,” according to Fox News.

“[I am] not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry,’” Comey replied. “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...arks-during-may-11-pen-and-pad-with-reporters

Catherine: On the e-mails are you doing a security inquiry?
Director Comey: I don’t know what that means?
Catherine: So it’s a criminal investigation? Director Comey: We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do. That’s probably all I can say about it.
Catherine: The reason I ask is because Mrs. Clinton consistently refers to it as a security inquiry, but the FBI does criminal investigations. I just want to see if you can clear that up.
Director Comey: Right, it’s in our name

Yes, but the FBI certainly conducts security investigations.

Why did you avoid addressing the difference between a security investigation and a criminal investigation ?

 

[The Big Dog]

I guess that proves your point then. Well done!

thanks man.

 

[Fudbucker]

And it is. But it is not a "criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton".

Let me ask, is Andy Boian under criminal investigation? He was, after all, asked questions as part of the investigation. So, could we safely say he is now, or was at one time, under criminal investigation?

Of course it is. Was it Andy Boian's server? Did Andy Boian choose to circumvent State Department rules by exclusively using a private email address for government business? Were thousands of classified emails found on Andy Boian's email account? Did Andy Boian delete work-related exchanges (that shouldn't have been deleted) between himself and others?

Other people may get dragged into this, but to pretend that Clinton is not at the center of the investigation into Clinton's use of Clinton's private server is absurd.

 

[DavidJames]

Other people may get dragged into this, but to pretend that Clinton is not at the center of the investigation into Clinton's use of Clinton's private server is absurd.

You have it backwards. When one is drawing conclusions without all the facts, that is pretending.

You are the one pretending.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, the people who have been following this issue understand it was a "security referral made for counterintelligence purposes."

Therefor, the FBI is conducting a security investigation into the mail server and information on it, that may or may not possible result in recommendation of (criminal) charges for people.

Why is this so difficult for people to differentiate from a criminal investigation ?

Because Fudbucker is magically thinking Sanders can still become the POTUS.

 

[Fudbucker]

Right, they made the security referral to the DOJ. Don't you find the type of referral sent to the DOJ relevant ???



https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...arks-during-may-11-pen-and-pad-with-reporters

Catherine: On the e-mails are you doing a security inquiry?
Director Comey: I don’t know what that means?
Catherine: So it’s a criminal investigation? Director Comey: We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do. That’s probably all I can say about it.
Catherine: The reason I ask is because Mrs. Clinton consistently refers to it as a security inquiry, but the FBI does criminal investigations. I just want to see if you can clear that up.
Director Comey: Right, it’s in our name

Yes, but the FBI certainly conducts security investigations.

Why did you avoid addressing the difference between a security investigation and a criminal investigation ?

Because no one has called what the FBI is doing a "security investigation", including the head of the FBI.

The whole "criminal" "not criminal" side-discussion is largely irrelevant (although I find it amusing that a Clinton-appointed judge and WH Press Secretary would give the "criminal side" ammunition). The FBI got involved because there might be criminal behavior. If there was no criminal behavior, the investigation will end. Clinton will go on to probably beat Trump.

 

[Fudbucker]

You have it backwards. When one is drawing conclusions without all the facts, that is pretending.

You are the one pretending.

OK, we're back to the server itself under investigation. Poor little guy.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because no one has called what the FBI is doing a "security investigation", including the head of the FBI.

Yes, and as (repeatedly) pointed out, he chose not to call it a criminal investigation.

The OIG made the security referral (As opposed to a criminal referral.) to the DOJ. Don't you find the type of referral sent to the DOJ relevant ??? ( I hilited this so maybe you answer this time)

The whole "criminal" "not criminal" side-discussion is largely irrelevant (although I find it amusing that a Clinton-appointed judge and WH Press Secretary would give the "criminal side" ammunition). The FBI got involved because there might be criminal behavior. If there was no criminal behavior, the investigation will end. Clinton will go on to probably beat Trump.

Again, your wrong. The FBI got involved because there might be criminal behavior. classified information potentially became compromised.

That's why the OIG made the security referral.
That's what makes it a security investigation.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes, and as (repeatedly) pointed out, he chose not to call it a criminal investigation.

The OIG made the security referral (As opposed to a criminal referral.) to the DOJ. Don't you find the type of referral sent to the DOJ relevant ??? ( I hilited this so maybe you answer this time)

Again, your wrong. The FBI got involved because there might be criminal behavior. classified information potentially became compromised.

That's why the OIG made the security referral.
That's what makes it a security investigation.

Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clinton’s email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach — namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities.

Clinton says she never knowingly sent or received classified information, a possibly criminal action.

In August, the FBI entered the case.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

So there you have it.

 

[RobRoy]

Of course it is. Was it Andy Boian's server? Did Andy Boian choose to circumvent State Department rules by exclusively using a private email address for government business? Were thousands of classified emails found on Andy Boian's email account? Did Andy Boian delete work-related exchanges (that shouldn't have been deleted) between himself and others?

You're being obtuse. I can't really tell if it's deliberate or if you're just blinded by your own bias. In either case, I'm not going to explain this again as it's clearly fruitless.

Other people may get dragged into this, but to pretend that Clinton is not at the center of the investigation into Clinton's use of Clinton's private server is absurd.

Well, she's not. She might be in the future, when the investigation determines there was wrong-doing on her part. But she isn't at this time. Hence the reason the investigation questioned Clinton's aides to determine if they had done anything wrong or criminal. That's how an investigation works. At the risk of exasperation based on your previous responses, it is the server and how the server was used and by whom that is the center of the investigation at this time.

I assume, at this point, you can't actually show me that Clinton herself is being criminally investigated, else you would have done so. Correct?

 

[The Big Dog]

I assume, at this point, you can't actually show me that Clinton herself is being criminally investigated, else you would have done so. Correct?

You mean other than all the evidence you handwaved away?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clinton’s email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach — namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities.

Clinton says she never knowingly sent or received classified information, a possibly criminal action.

In August, the FBI entered the case.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.

We talked to experts in federal criminal investigations, and they told us that the FBI doesn’t look into issues just for the heck of it. They assess cases to find out whether criminal activity occurred."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

So there you have it.

Dodge noted, as well as cherry picking.

Clearly no discussion to be had here.

 

[Fudbucker]

You're being obtuse. I can't really tell if it's deliberate or if you're just blinded by your own bias. In either case, I'm not going to explain this again as it's clearly fruitless.



Well, she's not. She might be in the future, when the investigation determines there was wrong-doing on her part. But she isn't at this time. Hence the reason the investigation questioned Clinton's aides to determine if they had done anything wrong or criminal. That's how an investigation works. At the risk of exasperation based on your previous responses, it is the server and how the server was used and by whom that is the center of the investigation at this time.

I assume, at this point, you can't actually show me that Clinton herself is being criminally investigated, else you would have done so. Correct?

"But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser* said."

*retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

Glasser is an expert on this and I agree with her analysis.