So Anthony Wiener is being investigated for sexting a known 15 year old and if found guilty = jail time. His wife Huma Abedin, Hillary's "best friend", admits she shared that same computer her husband used. She has immunity granted by the DoJ subject to her providing all papers and electronic equipment and records to the FBI. Failure to comply = jail time. Now the FBI have discovered 650,000 previously undeclared email on the pervert's hard drive. Leaving aside what they may reveal about Hillary's "intent" to hide her emails, or important information relating to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative currently under investigation, let's look at other possible consequences.
What could be a better gift to a foreign power than a disgraced man with a lot to hide. A wife who has access to some of the USA's greatest secrets being Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. She claims to have no idea how the emails came to be on the hard drive, even though she admits forwarding them to her unsecured Yahoo account making them easier to print! If she didn't download them, who did and why?
Its a hell of a mess and for some reason the FBI has made a rod for its own back.
I suspect its all about Bias. No doubt in my mind the press has been disinterested and lazy for a few years now in following any of the revelations about the Clintons. Most of this is due to the presidency of Obama-a most awkward revered arse licking by the already heavily democratic media has become so self supportive it has ceased to be effective...there was a time when I thought id never say this , but thank god for FOX news.
Lets put aside what we already knew and just ponder how anyone in a position of responsibility can just be allowed to carry on with no punishment. sure there may be a legitimate dispute about criminal proceedings but no one is in any doubt she hid, then lied repeatedly...now we know they were lying and actually concealing and conspiring...and still ...not even a golden hand shake. Thats the awful mess the states is in. Not content with conspiracy and lies at home they then spread the lies abroad and threaten a very risky world escalation by dragging Russia into their pathetic politically unaccountable system.
No one can be in any doubt as to the DNC's corruption and its poisoned leader.
But, amazingly the American public are in doubt. They doubt so much because they have been fed decades of lies about the world and their place in it.An adolescent nation of spotty teenagers and risk taking immaturity.
Still, what can they do? They darent vote for Trump as this is an admission of just how bad their own party is, and they wont vote for any alternative because they are Americans and they only have a belly for conquest. What a pathetic nation. what a despicable set of cir***stances. No one fit to run the country. No one half fit to take the office in the worlds most powerful and aggressive country. What shall the rest of the world do?
I find the OP interesting but cannot imagine the actual link between weaner , his missus and the *****. When I say link I mean conspiracy. I dont for a minute doubt they conspired to control and profit from their office but I cannot imagine what else might be revealed-maybe nothing but isnt there enough already!
I suspect Hillary and her pals are simply unfit. You cant trust em, they have no empathy and they certainly dont care about the "great American society".
I feel rather pessimistic about America. Its so diverse and so black and white that I dont see anything but more and more paranoia (for which we have had several examples of in the last few decades) . I see it becoming more aggressive and more controlling and less and less expansive culturally and intellectually. With the rise of China and the assertiveness of Russia poor Juvenile America only knows brinkmanship to solve its dynamic relationship problems and that is a worry for the rest of the ancient world. Underneath no one likes America but she is so powerful that we all have to shelter under its web of power and deceit and out up with the kind of crap it dishes out to the world economically and militarily...but its changing and that may or may not be a good thing depending on how the USA brings into line its own house. And that has to start with the Clinton's.
-- Edited by ian on Monday 31st of October 2016 08:18:39 PM
-- Edited by ian on Monday 31st of October 2016 08:28:39 PM
I'm no big fan of the USA or their wonky politics, but a similar level of detail on the inner shenanigans of Russia or China would probably make this look tame. I mean things such as how is Putin allowed to amass personal wealth of £250bn?
UPDATE:
FBI states at least 5 foreign countries have all Hillary's emails ( even those chemically deleted ).
As more and more proof of massive corruption is retrieved from Weiner's computer, the circle of donors and recipients of the Clinton Foundation pay for play operation is being revealed and the birds are starting to sing.
As for Putin, if you've got facts put them up and let's discuss this sorry state of global governance.
'At least five countries have all Hilary's emails'. Evidence of 'massive corruption' being retrieved from Weiner's emails.
May I assume that these gems come from the same source as your 'top neurologists' claim some weeks ago?
Clinton is awful, but i think she'll win simply because she isn't Trump.
In light of today's news, it looks like not everyone in the FBI got the memo about evidence of 'massive corruption'.
I'm going to take a punt here and suggest that you don't have a mole in the FBI and that when you declare them as your source you actually mean that you've read some speculation on a website that accords with your conspiracy theory view of the world.
Any word in your source for your 'top neurologists' claim some weeks ago? The same websites, possibly?
P.s. The FBI put the blame for 9/11 squarely on Al Qaeda. I'm going to have another punt and suggest that you have a reason why you don't accept that
Yesterday's news from the FBI did not address the four ongoing investigations into the massive corruption in the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Health initiative, it merely underlined their position of 5th July as outlined by Comey's statement ;- "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton"
What were those conclusions?
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails about those same matters.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on e-mail. That is excluding any later up-classified e-mails.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system. But their presence is especially concerning because all of the e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial e-mail service like Gmail."
As seen from the above, Comey identified all Clinton's law breaking, but could find no intent then or now.
As we know, intent is not addressed in the laws, only gross negligence, which Comey agrees she practised.
What laws did she contravene? Possibly
18USC§201 Bribery 18USC§208 Acts Effecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations) 18USC§371 Conspiracy 18USC§1001 False Statements 18USC§1341 Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud) 18USC§1343 Fraud By Wire 18USC§1349 Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud) 18USC§1505 Obstruction Of Justice 18USC§1519 Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation 18USC§1621 Perjury (Including Do***ents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury) 18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information 18USC§1924 Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Do***ents Or Material 18USC§2071 Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records 18USC§7201 Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes) 18USC§7212 Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)
Of the 650,000 emails supposedly investigated in the last 8 days, only those relating to those to and from Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State were checked. There may be more to come from the remainder.
Basically Clinton has not been cleared.
She has been outed as a serious serial security risk, and with the 95% probability of all her emails being in the possesion of at least five foreign entities, a compromised candidate for President.
As for Al Qaeda involvement in the 9/11 attack, I refer you to the FBI's own assessment that there is no evidence against Bin Laden.
You've got me there. Where did that copy and paste come from? I confess that I know nothing of the American legislation that you cite. Which law school did you attend? Harvard?
At least you are giving up your 'evidence of massive corruption' claim. Or maybe you aren't? Maybe you think the FBI once again found no evidence of criminality despite the 'evidence of massive corruption' that they told you they had found?
You've got me there. Where did that copy and paste come from? I confess that I know nothing of the American legislation that you cite. Which law school did you attend? Harvard? At least you are giving up your 'evidence of massive corruption' claim. Or maybe you aren't? Maybe you think the FBI once again found no evidence of criminality despite the 'evidence of massive corruption' that they told you they had found?
I may be able to shed some light on this.
While on the face of a plain reading of some of the offences cited by Jimmy require only gross negligence rather than intent for the offence to be committed, the reality is that the Supreme Court has effectively re-written the statute over the years so that according to established legal precedent (I believe the leading authority is a case known as Gorin) the modern reality is that intent to put the national defence at risk is an integral part of what would have to be proven for Clinton to be found guilty of the most serious offences.
Some of the other offences cited by Jimmy do, even on a plain reading, require intent.
Whilst those who oppose Clinton may not like it, the fact is that the FBI has said very clearly that it has concluded its work and that there no evidence to merit her being prosecuted.
I do not like Clinton. At best she has shown herself to have very questionable judgment. I wish there was a better candidate running. But if it is her or Trump, then for all our sakes I have to hope that she wins.
-- Edited by smiler on Tuesday 8th of November 2016 09:06:07 AM
-- Edited by smiler on Tuesday 8th of November 2016 09:07:50 AM
-- Edited by smiler on Tuesday 8th of November 2016 09:35:28 AM
Please show where the FBI has said very clearly that it has concluded its work
and that there no evidence to merit her being prosecuted, or are you merely
alluding to the notion of intent.
You are aware of her instructions to her Filipino maid to enter the SCIF and
print out classified material for her records, or is that unintentional?
Did her instructed attorneys have the necessary security clearance to inspect 30000 emails?
Just curious.
I may be mistaken, and you are entitled to your own opinion which may or may not be more qualified than mine (whatever that means). I thought I could add something useful to the discussion. Isn't that what a forum like this is for?
I have looked again at what the FBI have said and also at the statute and some case law, and I am very comfortable with what I put in my earlier post. Clinton has no doubt shown poor judgment and it looks like in a close run election where there a percentage point or so between the two main candidates that may have cost her dear, but it seems that the opinion of the people who really matter is that she did not commit any criminal offence and looking at the statute and the decided law I can see why that is so.
I prefer not to base my opinion on what might be a possible interpretation of what I might be able to read into what the FBI might not have said. There are three mights in that sentence and that to me is quite a bit too flimsy to represent the basis of any argument that I would be willing to support.
I am going to leave it there. I am happy with what I think and I doubt that you are going to change your approach. Let's agree to differ in a civilised way shall we?
Is that the same Giuliani who attributes the 9/11 attack to Al Qaeda and who some of the tin foil hat brigade say was implicated in it? Do you anticipate a prosecution for the alleged security breaches or upon the evidence of 'massive corruption' that the FBI told you about?
I'm no lover of Giuliani, always wondered why he abandoned his purpose built emergency bunker in WTC7 and his relationship to his crooked CoP , Bernard Kerik.
But from what he has said lately re: the corrupt Clintons, I am prepared to give him a pass if he is true to his word.
BTW the list of crimes posted above are his, and he foresees successful prosecution of any and all counts.
Ok Smiler I'll say no more until we see what Guiliani does as AG in January.
OK Jimmy.
Let me tell you though that what Guiliani or any other Trump appointed AG might do is not necessarily going to be definitive as far as I am concerned. Apart from anything else how the hell could Clinton get a fair trial if charges are brought at the instigation of an AG appointed by a man who has already told the entire world that she is crooked, guilty and going to jail?
Although the US suffers from having a politically appointed judiciary (thank goodness we don't yet although The Mail would have it otherwise) we have to hope that the USA won't reduce itself to the same standards as authoritarian and dictatorial regimes where politically motivated detentions and trials are the norm.
This is just one of the very many concerns that the world needs to have about someone with Trump's values being the Head of State of the most powerful nation on the planet.
I agree with you Smiler, the executive should stay well clear from the judiciary.
That is why I was surprised that Obama weighed in saying Clinton was innocent whilst the investigation was in progress.
So to be clear Jimmy, are you saying that you think Giuliani is wrong about 9/11 (or was even actively involved in it), but right when he expresses the opinion that Clinton could be successfully prosecuted? How do you reach that position? And how do you suppose that Giuliani can reach a considered opinion about whether Clinton should be prosecuted? How would he have had access to the evidence? Do you share your mole at the FBI?
