Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[RobRoy]

You mean other than all the evidence you handwaved away?

I read and addressed the evidence. Sorry if you missed it.

Dodge noted, as well as cherry picking.

Clearly no discussion to be had here.

Agreed. From the same article provided:

The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed.

"You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it," Pollitt said.​

So yeah, it's not even a "criminal" investigation at the time that article was written. Has it since become one?

 

[Fudbucker]

Dodge noted, as well as cherry picking.

Clearly no discussion to be had here.

Right, citing politifact to support one's claim is cherry picking and a dodge.

What point are you trying to make? Do you think the FBI isn't investigating to see if something criminal happened? You're wrong, for obvious reasons. Do you think Clinton isn't at the center of the investigation? Again, wrong for obvious reasons.

 

[RobRoy]

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

Although you chose to overlook the previous statement in the same article just a few lines up from it:

"If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate," Ouziel said, noting that she has no non-public knowledge of the case.​

So I guess we have one guy's "gut" over "Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Right, citing politifact to support one's claim is cherry picking and a dodge.

You again didn't answer my question about the referral. You didn't address the fact that the FBI conducts both security and criminal investigations.
That's the dodge.

The cherry picking was rather obvious, there's a whole ton of differing opinions in that article. You selectively picked one that agreed with you, ignoring the rest.

What point are you trying to make? Do you think the FBI isn't investigating to see if something criminal happened? You're wrong, for obvious reasons. Do you think Clinton isn't at the center of the investigation? Again, wrong for obvious reasons.

The point I am making was the main investigation was for security reasons.
Does that preclude criminal charges ? No. But neither does it make it a criminal investigation.

Is Clinton at the center of the investigation ? I read that as "target." There's no confirmation she is the target of a criminal investigation.

The rest of the point is simply this:

we don't know it's a criminal investigation, we don't know Clinton is the target.
The posters who keep claiming it is, and she is, are simply being intentionally dishonest.

 

[Fudbucker]

I read and addressed the evidence. Sorry if you missed it.



Agreed. From the same article provided:

The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed.

"You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it," Pollitt said.​

So yeah, it's not even a "criminal" investigation at the time that article was written. Has it since become one?

This does nothing to dispute the expert I cited that claims Clinton is the subject of a criminal investigation. That doesn't entail that Clinton IS a criminal, just that from this person's experience as an FBI agent who's handled these kinds of investigations, the FBI suspects Clinton of having done something criminal.

Politifact is not FoxNews. It is a reputable source and perfectly acceptable to use to back up claims.

 

[Fudbucker]

Although you chose to overlook the previous statement in the same article just a few lines up from it:

"If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate," Ouziel said, noting that she has no non-public knowledge of the case.​

So I guess we have one guy's "gut" over "Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law."

Has Clinton been informed by the DOJ she's not a target?

 

[Bob001]

You again didn't answer my question about the referral. You didn't address the fact that the FBI conducts both security and criminal investigations.
That's the dodge.
....

Can you find any formal descriptions of "security" investigations vs. "criminal" investigations? Your implication is that it's something like "We're just asking some questions, we don't think anybody did anything wrong." It's hard to believe that any FBI investigation that discovers criminal conduct won't pursue it. Whether they might find it in this case is an open question. But you can't say it's pre-ordained that they aren't looking for it. It's no different from coming home and finding your door unlocked: Maybe you forgot to lock it, or maybe a burglar has broken in. You won't know until you investigate, and what you do then will depend on what you learn.

 

[xjx388]

A brief analysis:

Is the FBI investigating whether or not there was criminal activity regarding the use of Hillary Clinton's server? I think the obvious answer is yes. This has been confirmed by a Federal Judge in a position to know as well as several other people with the proper expertise.

Is Hillary Clinton ultimately responsible for the security of the server? I think the obvious answer is yes. She arranged for it and it was in her home primarily for her benefit.

If my brief analysis is accurate (and please correct me where I am wrong), then i don't see how any reasonable observer could conclude that Hillary Clinton is not the target of an FBI led criminal investigation.

 

[Fudbucker]

You again didn't answer my question about the referral. You didn't address the fact that the FBI conducts both security and criminal investigations.
That's the dodge.

It's not a dodge because it's totally irrelevant. The FBI is investigating because criminal activity might have occurred. That's what the FBI does. The head of the FBI did not call it a "security investigation", when specifically asked if it was a "security review". If you think they're investigating for some other reason, post your source.

The cherry picking was rather obvious, there's a whole ton of differing opinions in that article. You selectively picked one that agreed with you, ignoring the rest.

There's not.

Clinton’s phrasing — calling it a "security inquiry" — is not necessarily wrong, said Mark Pollitt, former chief of the FBI’s computer forensics program. But it obscures the fact that an investigation can be both security-related and criminal.

A reasonable person might take Clinton’s phrasing to mean the FBI is simply conducting a risk assessment of her server to see whether it’s secure. Agents might do that as part of an investigation, but it’s not the end game, Pollitt said.

The point I am making was the main investigation was for security reasons.
Does that preclude criminal charges ? No. But neither does it make it a criminal investigation.

Your point is wrong.

The FBI is determining if criminal activity occurred in connection with the email setup.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/

You see how that's bolded in the Politifact article? Maybe they did that to emphasize it?

Is Clinton at the center of the investigation ? I read that as "target." There's no confirmation she is the target of a criminal investigation.

The rest of the point is simply this:

we don't know it's a criminal investigation, we don't know Clinton is the target.
The posters who keep claiming it is, and she is, are simply being intentionally dishonest.

This is why you cite people who are authorities on these sorts of things. Go find an authority that claims Clinton isn't the subject and all this is just a standard "security review".

 

[RobRoy]

This does nothing to dispute the expert I cited that claims Clinton is the subject of a criminal investigation.

Well, sorta it does. Your expert cited his "gut" which I guess we can say is his reaction based on past experience, but lacking the insider knowledge that everyone is seeking. He's giving a best guess—which would be great, if he was the only giving it and wasn't contradicted by other experts . . .

My two experts say that 1. Clinton isn't a target and 2. that it's not a criminal investigation (so I've been using the term wrong to begin with, but since I never claimed to be an expert, I assume that I can be forgiven this oversight).

Politifact is not FoxNews. It is a reputable source and perfectly acceptable to use to back up claims.

I'm aware. I cited the same article.

Has Clinton been informed by the DOJ she's not a target?

From the same article:

Clinton said in March that investigators have not told her that she or any of her staff members are targets of the investigation.​

So no, unless there's new information on this.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Can you find any formal descriptions of "security" investigations vs. "criminal" investigations? Your implication is that it's something like "We're just asking some questions, we don't think anybody did anything wrong." It's hard to believe that any FBI investigation that discovers criminal conduct won't pursue it. Whether they might find it in this case is an open question. But you can't say it's pre-ordained that they aren't looking for it. It's no different from coming home and finding your door unlocked: Maybe you forgot to lock it, or maybe a burglar has broken in. You won't know until you investigate, and what you do then will depend on what you learn.

Again, I'm not claiming a security investigation won't result in the same outcome as a criminal investigation. Just that was not the initial focus.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2008/10/03/guidelines.pdf

Activities within the definition of "threat to the national security" that are subject to investigation under these Guidelines commonly involve violations (or potential violations) of federal criminal laws. Hence, investigations of such threats may constitute an exercise both of the FBI's criminal investigation authority and of the FBI's authority to investigate threats to the national security. As with criminal investigations generally, detecting and solving the crimes, and eventually arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators, are likely to be among the objectives of investigations relating to threats to the national security. But these investigations also often serve important purposes outside the ambit of normal criminal investigation and prosecution, by providing the basis for, and informing decisions concerning, other measures needed to protect the national security. These measures may include, for example: excluding or removing persons involved in terrorism or espionage from the United States; recruitment of double agents; freezing assets of organizations that engage in or support terrorism; securing targets of terrorism or espionage; providing threat information and warnings to other federal, state, local, and private agencies and entities; diplomatic or military actions; and actions by other intelligence agencies to counter international terrorism or other national security threats.

 

[RobRoy]

It's not a dodge because it's totally irrelevant. The FBI is investigating because criminal activity might have occurred. That's what the FBI does. The head of the FBI did not call it a "security investigation", when specifically asked if it was a "security review". If you think they're investigating for some other reason, post your source.

Same source you provided (and which I cited above):

The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed.

"You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it," Pollitt said.​

 

[The_Animus]

The server isn't under criminal investigation anymore than a gun is under criminal investigation when someone is murdered.

The criminal investigation is of the murder but the focus is on the suspects of that criminal investigation.

Clinton is a suspect in the FBI criminal investigation.

I still say this is the most asinine example of word games I've seen on these forums

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's not a dodge because it's totally irrelevant. The FBI is investigating because criminal activity might have occurred. That's what the FBI does. The head of the FBI did not call it a "security investigation", when specifically asked if it was a "security review". If you think they're investigating for some other reason, post your source.

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.


The reason the DOJ is doing any investigation at all irrelevant ??

RobRoy already addressed the rest.

 

[Fudbucker]

Well, sorta it does. Your expert cited his "gut" which I guess we can say is his reaction based on past experience, but lacking the insider knowledge that everyone is seeking. He's giving a best guess—which would be great, if he was the only giving it and wasn't contradicted by other experts . . .

My two experts say that 1. Clinton isn't a target and 2. that it's not a criminal investigation (so I've been using the term wrong to begin with, but since I never claimed to be an expert, I assume that I can be forgiven this oversight).

Your one expert gave a conditional statement based on whether the DOJ has informed Clinton she's not a target. Clinton has only talked about whether the FBI has told her she's a target, not the DOJ.

Your other expert said we won't know if this is criminal until we get to the end. I'm OK with that. I don't really care if it's called a "criminal investigation" or "investigation". I pointed out Glasser's characterizing it as a "criminal investigation" because there's been so much mockery of that phrase. Serious people who know this stuff are including the word "criminal". They can't just be hand-waved away.

From the same article:

Clinton said in March that investigators have not told her that she or any of her staff members are targets of the investigation.​

So no, unless there's new information on this.

Clinton was referring to the FBI, not DOJ. AFAIK, she hasn't said anything about the DOJ talking to her, which was the point raised in the article.

 

[xjx388]

Same source you provided (and which I cited above):

The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed.

"You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it," Pollitt said.​

This is obvious. You investigate any suspect not knowing whether or not you will eventually file criminal charges. The evidence tells you whether or not you have enough to file charges. Many criminal cases close without ever filing charges. This doesn't change the fact that the investigation is indeed a criminal investigation.

IOW, everything Mr. Polliitt said is true in any criminal investigation.

 

[The_Animus]

Duplicate post

 

[Fudbucker]

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.


The reason the DOJ is doing any investigation at all irrelevant ??

RobRoy already addressed the rest.

I have no idea what you're arguing for anymore.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your one expert gave a conditional statement based on whether the DOJ has informed Clinton she's not a target. Clinton has only talked about whether the FBI has told her she's a target, not the DOJ.

Your other expert said we won't know if this is criminal until we get to the end. I'm OK with that. I don't really care if it's called a "criminal investigation" or "investigation". I pointed out Glasser's characterizing it as a "criminal investigation" because there's been so much mockery of that phrase. Serious people who know this stuff are including the word "criminal". They can't just be hand-waved away.



Clinton was referring to the FBI, not DOJ. AFAIK, she hasn't said anything about the DOJ talking to her, which was the point raised in the article.

Seriously ?
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs
The FBI is an intelligence-driven and threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities. It is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice and a full member of the U.S. Intelligence Community.

 

[xjx388]

Your one expert gave a conditional statement based on whether the DOJ has informed Clinton she's not a target. Clinton has only talked about whether the FBI has told her she's a target, not the DOJ.

Your other expert said we won't know if this is criminal until we get to the end. I'm OK with that. I don't really care if it's called a "criminal investigation" or "investigation". I pointed out Glasser's characterizing it as a "criminal investigation" because there's been so much mockery of that phrase. Serious people who know this stuff are including the word "criminal". They can't just be hand-waved away.



Clinton was referring to the FBI, not DOJ. AFAIK, she hasn't said anything about the DOJ talking to her, which was the point raised in the article.

And AFAIK no one ever has to specifically inform you that you are a target. Only when they actually question you do they have to make any statement at all about your rights.