FBI to Hillary Clinton: LET'S TALK!

FBI to Hillary Clinton:  LET'S TALK!

As we all know, the FBI, as a general rule, won't interview the suspect until they already have the answers to the questions they will be asking.  See Martha Stewart, see Bill Clinton.

Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom
By Del Quentin Wilber  Contact Reporter
Marcy 27, 2016

Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.

Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks, all but guaranteeing that the investigation will continue to dog Clinton’s presidential campaign through most, if not all, of the remaining presidential primaries.

No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.

The interviews by FBI agents and prosecutors will play a significant role in helping them better understand whether Clinton or her aides knowingly or negligently discussed classified government secrets over a non-secure email system when she served as secretary of State.

The meetings also are an indication that much of the investigators' background work – recovering deleted emails, understanding how the server operated and determining whether it was breached – is nearing completion.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html

Negligent does not bring a criminal prosecution....strange use of the word. Knowingly is the correct statutory wording for a criminal indictment. Negligence means nothing without criminal intent. Of Course Hillary was an authorized person and did not have criminal intent like the General when he knowingly turned over classified material to a third person so that person could use that material. However, if somebody on her staff was improperly transferring items from the email account to a third party, and that party was unauthorized and met the requisite criminal intent turning material over to a third party who was not authorized.......then somebody could be charged. The chances of Hillary, SOS Powell, or now Defense Secretary Carter being charged criminally is zero, but the next month should be fun as the new innuendo will be that the President covered the whole thing up......simply stupid.

I guess Markle selected part of the article but decided not to quote the whole piece...of course without indicating that he did so. Here is the operative sentence:

"...Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks, all but guaranteeing that the investigation will continue to dog Clinton’s presidential campaign through most, if not all, of the remaining presidential primaries..."

That and the statement that she is highly unlikely to face charges over this non-scandal.

2seaoat wrote: Negligent does not bring a criminal prosecution....strange use of the word.  Knowingly is the correct statutory wording for a criminal indictment.  Negligence means nothing without criminal intent.  Of Course Hillary was an authorized person and did not have criminal intent like the General when he knowingly turned over classified material to a third person so that person could use that material.   However, if somebody on her staff was improperly transferring items from the email account to a third party, and that party was unauthorized and met the requisite criminal intent turning material over to a third party who was not authorized.......then somebody could be charged.  The chances of Hillary, SOS Powell, or now Defense Secretary Carter being charged criminally is zero, but the next month should be fun as the new innuendo will be that the President covered the whole thing up......simply stupid.

FALSE, as you well know but you continue to be a great foil!

FALSE, as you well know but you continue to be a great foil!


Nope, read the statute......foil....hell your are not in the same zip code with your interpretations.

2seaoat wrote:FALSE, as you well know but you continue to be a great foil!


Nope, read the statute......foil....hell your are not in the same zip code with your interpretations.

You have gone over the edge as a premiere FOIL. Progressives here are now beginning to suspect that I either pay you, or write under your screenname.

Source: FBI probe of Clinton email focused on ‘gross negligence’ provision
By Pamela K. Browne, Catherine Herridge  Published October 16, 2015

Three months after Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server while secretary of state was referred to the FBI, an intelligence source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News that the team is now focused on whether there were violations of an Espionage Act subsection pertaining to "gross negligence" in the safekeeping of national defense information.

Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton’s March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented.

[...]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/15/source-fbi-probe-clinton-email-focused-on-gross-negligence-provision.html

Of course now, it is known that there are over 1,000 emails containing classified information plus 100 classified ABOVE TOP SECRET.

Hillary Clinton continues to dig herself deeper and deeper into a legal hole.

She has forgotten the old saying that when you're in a hole, QUIT DIGGING.