COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

FBI to soon release documents related to Clinton email probe

94 Comments
By ERIC TUCKER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

94 Comments
Login to comment

And......no ones cares.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Only the Republican Asylum is interested in the largest smear campaign against a couple ever seen in history.

And the Trump Meltdown continues...

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

The apologists are up early I see. Well despite the massive cognitive dissonance, this information clearly reveals hillary lied under oath. So basically you can stick sand in your ears all day but the walls of justice are closing in. You can only lie so much without repercussions. No one is above the law.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

I was reading through the Yahoo story on the 30 Benghazi emails that were discovered in the batch of 15,000 new FBI emails Hillary claimed to be personal. Over 1,000 comments 20 minutes after being posted. There is definitely a market for this information..Her massive criminal empires are slowly crumbling. There will be some October surprises, and this is only one of them.

State: Benghazi emails involving Clinton recovered by FBI

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-soon-release-documents-related-clinton-email-probe-154047921--election.html

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

And the bleating about Benghazi continues.

Let's waste a few more million dollars on the matter!

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

HIllary could end all of the speculation if she would hold a press conference where reporters are allowed to ask questions and she would have to answer them.

Don't hold your breath.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Black Sabbath: And......no ones cares.

Pro-Hillary would want to limit any discussion at all about Hillary's bad things. Anti-Hillary are not expecting much from this. Not after Comey's extraordinary wiggling to avoid accusing Hillary of anything other than a slight case of bad judgment.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

There is definitely a market for this information

Yes - it seems that this "market" you are referring to consists of a rather large group (though still a minority) who seem to be grasping at straws. I suppose desperate people do what desperate people do best - hold on to even the most remote of possibilities by a smear campaign. Low doesn't describe it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The majority of Americans definitely believe that the FBI findings show that she committed a crime. Whether they are still going to vote for it is another matter.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Are Republicans hoping that these 30 emails will confirm about 4 dozen wild theories they have put forth? Good luck. Seriously. I've seen you go down this road many times and I feel like it's happening all over again.

Lizz: The majority of Americans definitely believe that the FBI findings show that she committed a crime.

Pretty sad, isn't it? Such a large amount of people refuse to believe the director of the FBI. Do you think the right wing media has anything to do with it?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Since that first press conference in March 2015 when Mrs. Bill Clinton said she turned over all her emails, not one thing she has said has been true:

“90-95% of my emails were captured by other servers because they were sent to .gov email addresses”

---- that was a lie

“we turned over everything that was work related, every single thing”

---- that was a lie

“we turned over 30,000 emails that I assumed were already in the government system”

---- that was a lie

The only truth: The FBI did not find one email on Yoga.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The content isn't as important as the court orders that she was under to produce all documents related to Benghazi. The constant about emails as well is that they are never alone they are always a chain or string of correspondence and rarely are single letters, So the iceberg below is much larger than what is seen above the waterline. This should lead to all kinds of new discovery.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

@Lizz " This should lead to all kinds of new discovery." .

Or not!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I more interested in the the emails leaked by Wikileaks. The little information I've read about was not good. But to be fair, it wasn't anything I wouldn't expect from any politician with ties to big money.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The majority of Americans definitely believe that the FBI findings show that she committed a crime.

News break, Lizz: Despite what Trump thinks, legal matters in America are decided by legal authorities, not by public clamor. I agree that polls have found that some 56% those asked feel she must have broken some sort of law by using a private server. Ask the same question in a year, and undoubtedly that ratio will change - must likely drop to well below half. That is public opinion. It is not law.

An interesting point is that these emails are being released due to right-wing groups suing based on the FOA (freedom of information) Act. One wonders why Mark Pence's emails are not under similar scrutiny.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Hillary Clinton: I did not send or receive anything that was classidfied at the time

James Comey FBI Director: From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received

Clinton: I have provided all work related emails

Comey: The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014

Clinton: No evidence that the server was ever hacked

Comey: Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account. The FBI thinks it may have happened because they found that “hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.”

HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016!!!

There it is you libratards! You are supporting a criminal!

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Funny how people are already saying "nothing to see here" when no one has seen it yet. You could at least pretend to be impartial and wait until they are released and then tell me they mean nothing once we have all read them.

As Hillary says there is a lot of smoke but no FIRE? so ummm where is the smoke coming from?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It`s very clear that she has been and continues to be protected by Obama and his cronies for her corruption. Left wingers really love being lead by corrupt politicians. Complain about it all the time yet do nothing. Disgusting corruption in the US govt.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Oh, stop worrying about Clinton. I am certain the Obama administration will manage to delay a real investigation of her transgressions until after the election. Corruption rules in the wonderful world of left-wing politicians and they have to protect Clinton because if they don't, who knows what might happen? They might start investigating some of her cronies.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Hillary haters: No cuffs = no crime. You just simply hate her.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@Nishikat. No, we don't hate Hilary; we hate what she is going to do to the country. 1.) Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants and their relatives which will shove the balance of power to the Democrats for the next 50 years.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Hillary Clinton is not perfect, no one is. What she is, and what we need to remember, is a dedicated public servant who believes in the good work government can and should do. She has a long resume of success, and a longer record of defiance in the face of republican attacks. Personal, filthy, gutter level attacks. She is fearless, and it drives republicans insane. Please keep that in mind when comparing Hillary Clinton's scandal of the moment and the candidates she must challenge to become our next president. She's got this.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

exactly what @samwatters said, if you cant get enough votes to win just give amnesty to all the illegals and import some immigrants and you win forever.

Plus the fact that she will be able to stock the Supreme Court with people who think and act like her. That will do 30 years more damage all by itself. One of the Obamas on the Supreme Court could actually happen and that is scary enough for me to not vote for her. Hate Hillary? No. Worried about the nonrepairable damage she will do? YES

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Cool. Hold your breath, guys. As the WaPo (banned by Trump from his rallies, along with several other news organizations) pointed out, we're talking about a maximum of 30 emails dealing with Benghazi. Some of them may have been duplicates of others already examined. Everyone seems to want to expedite the process of review and release. Perhaps there is something new - some little egg that somehow had never leaked into the other 32,000 emails Clinton has had inspected. We'll see, but the hyperventilation by the right is, as usual, premature.

HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016!!!

How mature. What law has she broken? Clinton might be unique in that she hosted her own server, but many other politicians have conducted official business over private email - which means their servers were likely Google or Yahoo. It is true that conducting official business over a private server went against department protocol, but violating protocol is different from violating law. There is zero evidence that any information was deliberately leaked or deleted. The fact that she conducted all business over one account is reassuring; this is in contrast to the Bush Administration, which conducted communication regarding more nefarious affairs over private addresses, of which some 22 million emails have apparently been lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy Note that no prosecution for this was ever sought.

Hillary has admitted publicly and repeatedly that the action was misguided. The FBI has found no grounds for legal charges. Continued calls to jail Clinton make the US look either like a banana republic or Stalinist - neither of which is good. And those who repeatedly call for this are a shame to the United States.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Lock her up!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The bigger reveal will come from Wikileaks. But if evidence of Hillary participating actively in cannibalism were to surface, her loyal minions would continue to support her regardless and never question Dear Leader.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Liz: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-soon-release-documents-related-clinton-email-probe-154047921--election.html

Lol, the State Dept. was like, 'we can't redact these 30 classified emails til the end of September, way too hard for us', and the federal judge Amit P. Mehta was like, 'don't think so, tell me why so slow.'

Can't redact 30 emails within a month!

Does the State Dept. work for us or for Hillary?

(yahoo.com) ... Mehta questioned why it would take so long to release so few documents, and urged that the process be sped up. He ordered the department to report to him in a week with more details about why the review process would take a full month.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

How mature. What law has she broken?

They just need to hate. The hate for Obama because they think he was born in Kenya has gone stale so their hate needs to move on to something else. And conveniently this is Hillary....

Lock her up!

See?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Nishikat. No, we don't hate Hilary; we hate what she is going to do to the country. 1.) Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants and their relatives which will shove the balance of power to the Democrats for the next 50 years.

Considering neither Hillary, nor anyone else whatsoever, has proposed this, your rhetoric is more right-wing lies spread by people trying to smear Hillary.

exactly what @samwatters said, if you cant get enough votes to win just give amnesty to all the illegals and import some immigrants and you win forever.

Um, do you really fail to see the logic failure in that sentence? How could she given amnesty if she didn't first get enough votes to win?

Plus the fact that she will be able to stock the Supreme Court with people who think and act like her.

And now you're bringing up reasons why people should vote for her.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

30,000,000 illegal immigrants

10% of people living in the USA are illegal?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Strangerland. Amnesty is the one of the cornerstones of the Democratic platform. @Nishikat. Illegal immigrants are not counted in the national census.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

samwatters: @Nishikat. Illegal immigrants are not counted in the national census.

I thought that illegal immigrants are counted in the national census and are also used in computing per-state allotments of electoral votes and representatives.

And so says wikipedia ... also says non-Fed-employed citizens abroad are NOT counted ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census

The United States Census is a decennial census mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers ..." ... Decennial U.S. Census figures are based on actual counts of persons dwelling in U.S. residential structures. They include citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal immigrants. ... Certain American citizens living overseas are specifically excluded from being counted in the census even though they may vote. Only Americans living abroad who are "Federal employees (military and civilian) and their dependents living overseas with them" are counted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

... A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives and senators the state has in the United States Congress.[27][28] In the case of representatives, this is based on the respective populations. Each state's number of representatives is determined every 10 years by the United States Census. ...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Nishikat. Illegal immigrants are not counted in the national census.

The U.S. entered 2016 with an estimated population of 322,762,018

Let me correct my math, sorry. 30,000,000 (and Hillary haters know this to be the exact number of illegals in the USA just like they know that Obama was really born in Kenya) divided by 352,762,018 comes to 9 percent instead of 10 percent. So out of every 100 people I see in the US nine of them are illegal stayers. My mistake, sorry. It's 9 percent NOT 10 percent. Thanks samwatters.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Strangerland. Amnesty is the one of the cornerstones of the Democratic platform.

You claimed this:

Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants and their relatives

Please show us where this is written as part of the Democratic platform.

I think we all know it's not.

Nice rhetoric though.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Talking about the Democratic party, that is why I said "win forever". That is their plan to amnesty illegals and bring a bunch of immigrants, then they get 90%+ of those votes in addition to 90%+ of the black vote. Will never lose anything again.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

that is why I said "win forever".

Which you started with "if you cant get enough votes to win..."

Do you really not see the the failure in logic there? Again, how would they give amnesty if they don't win in the first place?

And if the Republican party is only getting 10% of the black vote, you don't suppose there is a reason behind that, do you?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

90%+ of the black vote

Why is the black vote for Trump almost zero?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"you"= the Democratic party in my example. "They" want to win everything forever so if Hillary is elected that will happen. That is why Hillary cant be allowed to win. I cant get over the idea that everything is for sale (or already sold) through Clinton Foundation donations. Cabinet positions, access, Supreme court etc will be given based on financial not on what is best for America. This is how Hillary decided what was best use of her State Department time, not who needed it but who paid for it. I dont expect that to change.

Blacks blindly vote Democrat, that has been going on for 50 years. This is why Trump is asking them to look at what they actually have gotten for their support and reconsider if this is what is best for them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Blacks blindly vote Democrat, that has been going on for 50 years.

Why? Is it Hillary's fault? If Trump loses it's Hilary's fault?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"you"= the Democratic party in my example. "They" want to win everything forever so if Hillary is elected that will happen.

But you said 'if you can't win'. You still haven't explained how amnesty could be granted without winning.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@samwatters

Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants and their relatives

You know they're already there, right? I'm not saying that Clinton will grant them all amnesty, but let's say she does... If they become legal, what's the worst that can happen? They have to pay taxes?

which will shove the balance of power to the Democrats for the next 50 years.

I'm guessing this is what you're most afraid of.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Strangerland. https://www.numbersusa.com/news/democrat-immigration-platform-focuses-amnesty-calls-limits-legal-immigration

@Nishikat. There are currently 11 million--that we know of---illegal immigrants in the US. The average immigrant who gains citizenship "sponsors" on average of 2 relatives. 2 relatives multiplied by 11 million equals 22 million plus the original 11 million comes out to 33 million people. The vast majority vote democrat.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Strangerland: You claimed this: "Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants and their relatives" Please show us where this is written as part of the Democratic platform.

How is "create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here" not amnesty?

Because "law-abiding" doesn't exclude 'illegal' immigrants, am I right? Because if the immigrants weren't illegal, why even mention them in the platform? The path to citizenship for non-illegal immigrants already exists and doesn't need creating.

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform:

https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf

Democrats believe we need to urgently fix our broken immigration system ... and create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here ... We should repeal the 3-year, 10-year and permanent bars ... We will work with Congress to end the forced and prolonged expulsion from the country that these immigrants endure when trying to adjust their status.

We must fix family backlogs and defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants. Those immigrants already living in the United States, who are assets to their communities and contribute so much to our country, should be incorporated completely into our society through legal processes ...

... We will ... promote naturalization to help the millions of people who are eligible for citizenship take that last step.

... We will end raids and roundups of children and families ...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hilary; we hate what she is going to do to the country. 1.) Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants

"....going to do..."

No, you said 30M that she will give amnesty to when she becomes president. That means that Hillary haters think that almost 10 percent of people in the USA are illegal immigrants. It's in your quote. It means that walk into any populated area and you will see many many illegal freeloaders but you just don't know who they are exactly.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Strangerland. https://www.numbersusa.com/news/democrat-immigration-platform-focuses-amnesty-calls-limits-legal-immigration

You realize that link does not support your claim that the democratic platform is for amnesty for 30 million illegals and their families, right?

As I said, we all know your rhetoric isn't actually part of the Democratic platform. Your link just proves that. Thanks!

There are currently 11 million--that we know of---illegal immigrants in the US.

Shifting the goalposts now are you? Your original claim:

Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants and their relatives

You said there are 29 million more illegal immigrants than you are now claiming exist, and added their relatives on top of that. Now before you try to backtrack and you meant the entire number was 30 million, look at your new goalposts:

The average immigrant who gains citizenship "sponsors" on average of 2 relatives. 2 relatives multiplied by 11 million equals 22 million plus the original 11 million comes out to 33 million people.

If the first 11 million are citizens, then the 2 people they sponsor would not be illegal.

So your number of 30 million was wrong right from the start, disproven by your own numbers.

And besides, giving all 11 million illegals is not part of the democratic platform.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Democrats and Amnesty

The news emerged two days after top Republican leaders overcame GOP opposition to a 2015 budget bill that allows Obama to fund his unpopular amnesty for roughly 5 million illegals.

or from a differnt publication ...

President Barack Obama said he’ll defer deportations and open the chance of better jobs for about 5 million undocumented immigrants, ending months of build-up and initiating a showdown with congressional Republicans.

Obama, in a speech from the White House tonight, defended himself against Republican criticism that his use of executive authority to halt deportations for some immigrants based on their family ties to the U.S. amounts to an unfair amnesty for people who broke the law to come to the country.

I think it is clearly a part of the Democrat platform.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Strangerland. I stand corrected. I should have written "Hilary's amnesty plans would provide 30,000,000 voters for the Democratic party" instead of writing "30,000,000 and their relatives". You are correct. The salient points however still stand; 1.) It's millions and millions of votes for the Democratic party and 2.) It's still amnesty, which you insinuated is not part of the Democratic party platform.

You also wrote: "You said there are 29 million more illegal immigrants than you are now claiming exist, and added their relatives on top of that. Now before you try to backtrack and you meant the entire number was 30 million, look at your new goalposts:

[The average immigrant who gains citizenship "sponsors" on average of 2 relatives. 2 relatives multiplied by 11 million equals 22 million plus the original 11 million comes out to 33 million people.]

If the first 11 million are citizens, then the 2 people they sponsor would not be illegal." Semantically true but intellectually dishonest as you and I both know if the original 11 million don't get amnesty then the following 20 million won't come.

@Mr.Butts. You are 100% correct; I am terrified to the point of electing Trump if it means preventing one party from getting a monopoly on power that the Democrats are positioning towards...and I would say the reverse if it were the Republicans doing the same thing. Such a monopoly on power---especially one derived from the shenanigans we've seen during this election---is not what the US stand for.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I think it is clearly a part of the Democrat platform.

Your own words show that amnesty for 30 million (or even 11 million) illegals isn't part of the platform:

The news emerged two days after top Republican leaders overcame GOP opposition to a 2015 budget bill that allows Obama to fund his unpopular amnesty for roughly 5 million illegals.

As I keep saying, it's rhetoric.

For anyone who cares to know the truth, the platform is specific about which illegals they want to create a path to amnesty for. And it's not all of them, no matter how much some people want to get hysterical and scream about.

It's still amnesty, which you insinuated is not part of the Democratic party platform.

No no, I said that your claims were not part of the platform. I'm not going to give credence to your rhetoric. If you want to be accurate as to your claims and debate them on a non-rhetorical level, I'm happy to do that. But when you start saying things like:

Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants and their relatives

I'm simply going to point out your rhetoric.

If the first 11 million are citizens, then the 2 people they sponsor would not be illegal." Semantically true

Yes, entirely true. No semantics about it. If you are going to claim rhetoric as truth, I'm going to point out your rhetoric as lies.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Strangerland. The Democratic party, led by Hillary Clinton wants to give amnesty to millions of illegal people in the US and, by extension, to millions more in order to gain an unbeatable majority. To deny that is to escape from reality.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Strangerland. The Democratic party, led by Hillary Clinton wants to give amnesty to millions of illegal people in the US and, by extension, to millions more in order to gain an unbeatable majority. To deny that is to escape from reality.

1) I haven't denied that the democratic party wants to give a path to amnesty for many illegals. What I've denied is your rhetoric as to the number you've been saying. You have claimed 30 million and 11 million, both of which are incorrect, and both of which ignore the fact that the path being proposed is not for all illegals, but only for certain illegals in certain circumstances.

2) You claim the amnesty is to gain votes. This is exactly why the Republican party cannot gain any headway with Hispanics, because the amnesty isn't about votes, it's about human compassion. If you look at the people the proposed amnesty would be available for, they are people who are already benefiting American society, but are being forced to remain in poverty even so.

The Republican party once had compassion for these people, back in the Regan era. And it wasn't about votes then either. It was about treating people who benefit the country in a humane manner. Remember, other than the natives, all Americans are immigrants or the children of immigrants. The current Republican attitude seems to be 'quick, we're in, shut the gate!'

No compassion. No humanity.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Perhaps there is something new - some little egg that somehow had never leaked into the other 32,000 emails Clinton has had inspected. We'll see, but the hyperventilation by the right is, as usual, premature.

So just for the record, is this the third or fourth time she has found to be out of compliance with an order to turn over Benghazi emails unquestionably relevant to the Congressional Committee’s investigation ? Never mind the thousands of new work related emails the FBI found deleted which brings into question public records that still have not been returned to the State Department as required by law. Any lower level civil servant would be harassed by the U.S. government and thrown in jail without much thought.

In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13/

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Liz thank you for always following up your assertions with evidence. Like I mentioned before, massive cognitive dissonance is the primary cause of folks turning a blind eye to hillarys crimes. If it was any other person on this planet not affiliated to government, they'd be sitting in a cold dark room right now. The wool can no longer be pulled over the eyes like the good ol days. Eventually truth surfaces and in her case, it's slowly enveloping. Only a matter of time now!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Perhaps there is something new - some little egg that somehow had never leaked into the other 32,000 emails Clinton has had inspected. We'll see, but the hyperventilation by the right is, as usual, premature.

Sorry, Liz - that was my error. She's actually submitted more than 55,000 emails. So these 30 emails constitute 0.0005 of the mails she has already turned over. Being called "out of compliance" for such an error rate would pretty much disqualify everything in existence. Also, nothing is known about their content yet. If something big comes up, well, good for you. However, considering the previously released emails, now constituting 99.995% pending the release of the remainder, have shown no smoking gun, what do you think the chances are that these will?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Of course newly found mails should be inspected, and if there is a smoking gun for something illegal, then appropriate action should be taken.

But if anything has been shown by millions and millions of dollars of wasted money on multiple Benghazi investigations that came up with nothing, and an FBI investigation into the emails that came up with nothing illegal, it's that the right-wingers are not very good at determining where wrong-doing may lie. With a track record like that, they should be waiting to see what the results of the investigations of these new emails are before going on about smoking guns and/or any wrong-doing having been proving.

The right is just further destroying their own credibility, which is already pretty incredible.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Love this Michele Bachmann quote covering her previous support of Cruz:

I actually supported Ted Cruz. I thought he was fabulous but I also see that at the end of the day God raised up, I believe, Donald Trump who was going to be the nominee in this election. I don’t think God sits things out. He’s a sovereign God. Donald Trump became our nominee. Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know. But I do know that the Bible is true and that Daniel teaches the most high God, which is one of God’s names, is the one who lifts up who He will and takes down who He will.

We'll see if she sings the same hymn once Clinton is elected.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Of course newly found mails should be inspected, and if there is a smoking gun for something illegal, then appropriate action should be taken.

Not deleting any government records which the IG found to be a violation of State Dept policy, and probably Federal Records Law, would be a start. Or these could be like the Blumenthal correspondence on Libya that she didn't turn over when requested because she wasn't supposed to be soliciting advice from him in the first place.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hillary handling of her emails shows she is first class liar not fit to be a president but she could apply for a maid job..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And the problem didn't stop when she left government....when she truly had no authority. Even if not charged this should knock her out of the election. Trump should have this on a commercial by tonight. May God have mercy on the people of the US if she is elected president.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/31/clinton-emailed-classified-information-after-leaving-state-dept/

Clinton emailed classified information after leaving State Dept.

Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned.

On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Good luck USA with your next election!

How can you have selected the worst 2 citizens for the presidential run?

Maybe money and network did the job. Is that democracy?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hilary; we hate what she is going to do to the country. 1.) Amnesty for 30,000,000 illegal immigrants

This means that around 1 in 10 people in the US are illegal stayers. Hillary haters also claim that Hillary will just give out greencards like candy to all 30M of them. Does anyone remember when Reagan gave out millions of greencards?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland: You realize that link does not support your claim that the democratic platform is for amnesty for 30 million illegals and their families, right?

It clearly does support it. There is no reason to create a new path to citizenship for 'law-abiding families' where one already exists, unless "law-abiding" is code for 'law-abiding except that they are residing here illegally' ('Illegal immigrants' being a term the left no longer allows itself to use). The word that describes this new path is 'amnesty', even though the term is not used in the document itself.

That document is the Democratic Party's official platform. It doesn't use the word "illegal" except where it talks about for-profit schools, North Korea, Wall Street (hah!), and trade agreements, and it doesn't use the word 'amnesty' at all. But not using the words doesn't mean it isn't calling for amnesty.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

trade agreements What's wrong with this?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ms. Clinton is an unconvicted criminal, but has enough political clout to avoid doing the time that any other person who did the same things would have to serve. Will she pardon herself? I don't know what she knew when, just that what she's said has proven to be false on examination.

I've run corporate email servers (and small business email servers) for a few decades, there isn't any way for a user to know whether it was breached or not, unless the attacker was grossly negligent. Ms. Clinton certainly wouldn't be involved at that level and her paid IT guys wouldn't tell her about any breech either. I suspect she told them "not to bother me with details" - as any lawyer would.

I also doubt that Ms. Clinton looked at all the emails and provided them to the FBI. She asked people inside her inner circle to do that task. These are true-believers and since they are human, probably decided to include a few while not including others. Don't know. I have been tasked with providing emails related to lawsuits multiple times within a corporation ... we used search tools to find what we could find. Sometimes those tools don't work perfectly and since nobody is checking our work ... well ... we consider "industry practice" sufficient.

She is also a hard worker (anyone running for president is) and qualified to be President according to the Constitution - born in the USA and over 35 yrs old. The bar isn't high. I'm qualified too, but wouldn't want the job or the pay cut.

I'm a NEVER Hillary person, but I'm also a NEVER Trump person. Both will do terrible harm to the USA IMHO.

Looking over the up/down votes in this article has been more entertaining than the actual article. Appears there are 7 user accounts who back Ms. Clinton.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I've run corporate email servers

More tall tales like this one:

Many years ago, my parents drove to Canada in an RV. It had Texas plates. At the border, the Canadians emptied the RV completely searching for firearms. After all, the license plates were from Tx and everyone in Texas has multiple guns. Right? After over 2 hrs of searching, not finding anything, the frustrated border guards pleaded for them to just give up the guns already. It never crossed their minds that anyone from Texas might not have a gun inside their RV. There weren't any firearms, BTW.

Can we have more entertainment? It's really interesting!!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nishikat: More tall tales like this one:

The corporate email server seems legitimate and the RV comment was at the bottom of an article on same topic.

As for Hillary's IT staff, she had variously a mom-and-pop company that at one point was running servers in their closet, and an IT person from her 2008 campaign, IIRC. I'm not so sure they ever would have detected any breach. Especially if they didn't encrypt the traffic. How would you detect if someone was snooping unencrypted traffic in transit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that at one point was running servers in their closet Yes, and many people also have telephones in their homes. The FBI looked into it and found no crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, and many people also have telephones in their homes.

Well not so many people are held to her level of accountability. Nice try though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Nishikat. No, you're wrong. The FBI, through James Comey, said that they can't prove intent to do wrong. Crimes were committed but for some reason they are saying the evidence necessary to prove intent---i.e. I know what I am doing is wrong---is not strong enough to go to court. No one else in the US would be allowed to skate on such an assumption. Judicial experts have been shaking and scratching their heads for a month over this stance by the FBI.It's nice to be Hillary Clinton. Let's look at two of the crimes. 1.) She lied to the FBI. Comey admits that. Crime. 2.) She tampered with evidence by destroying computers and erasing files. Comey admits that. Crime. Furthermore, her husband decides to board the plane of the attorney general to chat about grandkids---wink,wink,nod,nod---during the investigation. Even approaching the plane of a high-ranking government official would get most Americans arrested if not shot. Hey, it's nice to be Hillary Clinton.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

said that they can't prove intent to do wrong. Crimes were committed but for some reason they are saying the evidence necessary to prove intent No arrest = no crime. It's not up to you. Its up to justice. Hillary haters want her arrested just because they hate her.

She lied to the FBI Yes, and you also think that Obama lied about faking his birth certificate. You just hate Obama and Hillary. Again, Obama was never arrested for your belief that he faked his BC. And Hillary will never be arrested because she never committed a crime.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@nishikat please read

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/?utm_source=yahoo&yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Nishikat. Check the archives and list the number of quotes I make questioning Obama's legal birth status. Too lazy to do that? I have never questioned Obama's birth status and never will. Furthermore, I think the whole non-issue is just that---a non-issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, yes, yes, and 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. And so many embassy attacks happened under his watch as well. Nothing worth reading there.

No Hillary crimes to report. But there is lots of hate. The Republicans need Hillary because they need to hate somone. With Obama out soon if there is no Hillary then who can you hate?

Is the FBI still investigating Obama for faking his birth certificate? Please do tell!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@nishikat - I am not a Republican but I do not like Ms. Clinton. Does this also mean I need someone to hate? There seems to be a ton of hate directed toward Trump as well, who is obviously not fit to be the Commander in Chief either.

There are a lot of suspicious activities surrounding Ms. Clinton which I believe are worthy of investigation. There are many within her own political party who are questioning some of her activities as well.

The polls are amazingly close considering what a buffoon Trump has been on the campaign train in some instances...and I think a better Democratic candidate (such as Jim Webb) would be ahead right now by 30-40 points.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There are a lot of suspicious activities surrounding Ms. Clinton which I believe are worthy of investigation.

And whatever happened to the investigations for Obama faking his birth certificate? And the FBI looked into all these charges. Nothing to report.

As for Trump. I would not let my money come near him as it would be scammed away with his losing investments and his Trump U. scam university. Would you? Also, he wants to nuke the country that is hosting ISIS. He's crazy. As for his tax returns? Nothing illegal but probably lots of embarrassments. Clinton showed hers.

Jim Webb? Why didn't Republicans choose Christie?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There are a lot of suspicious activities surrounding Ms. Clinton which I believe are worthy of investigation.

Give it time. New information is coming out every day. Today we learned that was sending classified emails after leaving office. Of course, Isn't it illegal for a private citizen to have possession of classified information ? No different than Snowden really except that he could be arrested.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Isn't it illegal for a private citizen to have possession of classified information? She was finishing up her job. So what? This happens all the time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Nishikat. Isn't it illegal for a private citizen to have possession of classified information? She was finishing up her job. So what? This happens all the time.

Any proof of that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Lizz

Speaking as one who in the past had such clearances - Actually there are many private citizens handling and working with classified information. It is not illegal for a private citizen to have such information. It is illegal to posses such information once a security clearance has been revoked. Revocation can be simply be due to the fact it is no longer deemed necessary for one to have access to specific information. It is very possible/likely Ms. Clinton still had a security clearance after leaving office. If this is the case then it is not illegal. If her security clearance was revoked, then it is illegal. Sending classified information over non-approved/non-secure means of transmission is illegal however. I am sure Ms. Clinton is not the only one to have violated this law. If a low level plebe like I did this I would have been crucified. However those higher up in the food chain tend to get away with this (not limited to Ms. Clinton or any political party)

That is what I know having been through the process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have NEVER questioned his citizenship or eligibility to be President. OK, so you like Obama. But you prefer Trump over Hillary.

Any proof of that? Yes, like a detective who retires and people taking over his cases have questions on them. So the next Secretary has questions so they are still exchanging info about that. Anyway, what does the FBI say? It's up to the FBI and not the Clinton haters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is illegal to posses such information once a security clearance has been revoked.

Maybe it should have been revoked, or invalidated to begin with, if she bypassed all the required training.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/exclusive-hillary-completed-no-security-briefings-or-courses-at-state-dept.

A federal judge ordered the Department of State Wednesday to produce for The Daily Caller News Foundation the security training records of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin within two weeks, or face direct deposition of multiple government officials.

“I’m sure you can appreciate Mr. Lee, there is a certain time sensitivity on this issue,” U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon told Department of Justice Attorney Jason Lee, representing the State Department. “We’re looking down the barrel of a presidential election from now in two months.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@nishikat - I do not prefer Trump over Hillary - I prefer neither.

You can attack me personally, that is fine. However the facts are it is illegal to transmit classified information using unsecured means. How this is will be handled? I have no idea. What information was transmitted and what was its relevance? No idea either

And no I was never in the CIA - there are many agencies requiring a security clearance to do one's job.

It has been interesting exchanging ideas with you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

However the facts are it is illegal to transmit classified information using unsecured means. How come she is not busted? Again it just shows people enjoy hating Hillary.

No idea either The FBI sure have an idea. No crime. But the haters keep obsessing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Lizz: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/exclusive-hillary-completed-no-security-briefings-or-courses-at-state-dept

No training?

Sounds like Hillary's boss wasn't on the job.

I wonder how many commanders in the military chain of command would have been fired if one their subordinates had been found to have skipped training and to have their own private email server that had been hacked and that was running classified traffic. And no complete backups other than those possessed by Guccifer 2.0.

Did the President really not receive ANY emails from HRC22@clintonemail.com or hrod17@clintonemail.com? How'd they communicate, then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder how many commanders in the military chain of command would have been fired if one their subordinates had been found to have skipped training and to have their own private email server that had been hacked and that was running classified traffic. And no complete backups other than those possessed by Guccifer 2.0.

OK, Mr. Certified Engineer! I'm sure the FBI has well qualified people (some which are as smart as Bill Gates) on the payroll to look into the technicalities to determine that Hillary committed no crime. Have you thought about applying for the FBI with your superior qualifications? It seems you think they don't have enough qualified people and you seem to imply you can fill this void.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nishikat: OK, Mr. Certified Engineer! ... Have you thought about applying for the FBI with your superior qualifications? ...

What good would that do? Didn't you read the news about what FBI agents think about Hillary?

Or about the Tarmac Summit where FBI chief Comey's boss Loretta Lynch met privately with Hillary's husband?

googling "fbi agent hillary" will get you headlines like:

FBI Agents Believe An 'Inside Deal' Protected Hillary Clinton

Major FBI Secret Deal With Hillary Clinton - EXPOSED! ... FBI agents are privately sounding the alarm about the law enforcement agency's shocking decision to close Hillary Clinton's criminal email investigation. ...

Inside the FBI: agents' outrage at Hillary email decision

FBI Agents Silenced on Hillary Probe

FBI agents signed NDA for matters involving Hillary’s emails ... “FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one source. ...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What good would that do? It would seem you have technical knowledge the FBI doesn't. They could use you. Maybe if you had worked for the FBI Clinton would be in prison now. Don't you think so? You have decades and decades of running email servers. Don't you think you would have been useful to the FBI?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nishikat: What good would that do? It would seem you have technical knowledge the FBI doesn't. They could use you.

Did you just skip past all the headlines about FBI agents angry that Hillary dodged the charges with help from the DOJ head, the FBI head, and Hillary's husband?

Or are you wearing those special glasses that conveniently show only blue-party rhetoric, filtering out all neutral and red colors?

It doesn't matter how technically proficient the FBI is. They don't need my services. The fix is in, and it's in above their pay grade. You could throw Moses, Einstein, Gandhi, and George Washington in there, and it still wouldn't matter. The Republic has devolved that much.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Did you just skip past all the headlines about FBI agents angry Were they cussing at her?

They don't need my services. But you are a fully qualified and certified network engineer with a security clearance. Are you saying that you are not good enough for the FBI with the extensive knowledge from the decades you have worked in IT. You sound like you have serviced networks since the early IBM days and card readers.

You could throw Moses, Einstein, Gandhi, and George Washington in there, and it still wouldn't matter. Well, then it sounds like no crime. I mean these people can't make the cops arrest me because I never committed any crime either. You make a good point. Hillary is 100% innocent.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yes, you are an elite network engineer who is in the top 1% in terms of skills. But you don't think you would make a difference in convicting Hillary if you were part of the FBI team on the Hillary investigation?You have been around since before the computer, right?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Between somebody using "illegally" (or not) a mail server and somebody who wants to deport million people including children by task force opening and forcing your doors like German Nazi in Poland, I have no problem to know which one is the most dangerous for mankind.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's funny how many people still defend Hillary. Trump is NOT the answer either, but how can people not see how Hillary is corrupt and has engaged in criminal activity. The world would not be better off with either of them. There are other options, but people are stuck in this mindset that Hillary = Democrat = Good. Just do your research on a vast amount of information regarding Hillary, The Clintons, their past, and just look at her PUBLIC RECORD. The best thing that could have happened to this election is WikiLeaks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hillary's Rube Goldberg process for archiving her emails away from government control, including server(s) in her house, server(s) in someone else's closet, and an 'archive laptop' that went missing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/02/hillary-clinton-s-team-lost-a-laptop-full-of-her-emails-in-the-actual-mail.html

Hillary Clinton’s Team Lost a Laptop Full of Her Emails in the Actual Mail

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was at the point where I disliked Trump more than I disliked Clinton but still would vote for neither.

However, when Ms. Clinton indicated that she thought the "C" on classified documents was a means to reference paragraphs rather than identify information as classified that went out the window. Kind of took me to the point where I dislike them both equally. I think they are both full of it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/

"Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. The emails that were sent and received from her server containing these markings became the subject of intense debate on the Hill, as her critics seized on them as evidence that she mishandled information.

But Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant.

"Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After the November elections. Whitewashed. Someone's going to make good money here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites