I wish we could make a plea agreement with her. Exile in exchange for never being charged as long as she never sets foot on US soil and promises to never speak again.

Now all I need is a birthday cake, shooting star, and a genie to wish upon. Maybe a unicorn and some fairy dust for good measure.

A man can dream, no matter how remote the possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
If I were an FBI agent tasked with this investigation, Hillary and the left's tactics (including this latest one) would only give me more resolve to get it RIGHT!

I think that I why it is going slow. I think they need to prove that she masterminded the emails being sent, not her aides who 'just wanted it to be easy' for Hilz. And until they start getting aides and career who decide avoiding jail cells next to Hilz is worse than ratting her out, it will be a hard one for the FBI.

The reason to "go slow" is to make sure if you are going to do something, you can make it stick.

Remember the "Dream Team" which took full advantage of every prosecutorial miscue, every nuance of evidence, to spring OJ? There were plenty to chose from, plenty of stupidity in that very public trial, poorly prepared. If you think that defense team was tough, wait until you see the team that will defend Hillary.

Moreover, if you lose, you are probably done as a prosecutor, and the FBI agents who worked the case and will testify will probably spend the rest of their careers as security guards at super market openings.

That game will truly be for "all the marbles." As former Congressman David Crockett said, "be sure you're right, then go ahead."

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
If I were an FBI agent tasked with this investigation, Hillary and the left's tactics (including this latest one) would only give me more resolve to get it RIGHT!

I think that I why it is going slow. I think they need to prove that she masterminded the emails being sent, not her aides who 'just wanted it to be easy' for Hilz. And until they start getting aides and career who decide avoiding jail cells next to Hilz is worse than ratting her out, it will be a hard one for the FBI.

The reason to "go slow" is to make sure if you are going to do something, you can make it stick.

Remember the "Dream Team" which took full advantage of every prosecutorial miscue, every nuance of evidence, to spring OJ? There were plenty to chose from, plenty of stupidity in that very public trial, poorly prepared. If you think that defense team was tough, wait until you see the team that will defend Hillary.

Moreover, if you lose, you are probably done as a prosecutor, and the FBI agents who worked the case and will testify will probably spend the rest of their careers as security guards at super market openings.

That game will truly be for "all the marbles." As former Congressman David Crockett said, "be sure you're right, then go ahead."

But if you win..... You'll be in history books your great grandchildren will read and you may...just may...help turn this Country around a bit.

Hillary’s E-mail Recklessness Compromised Our National Security
By Andrew C. McCarthy — February 6, 2016

‘Secrecy” sounds so sinister. And when we’re talking about government, that is as it should be. In a self-governing society, transparency is our default setting. Secrecy is the government’s way of concealing corruption, incompetence, and profligacy. There must be a presumption against it.

A presumption, however, is not a prohibition. Presumptions are rebutted by necessity. Speaking about the necessity of good intelligence to military operations and homeland defense, General George Washington observed that “upon secrecy, success depends in most enterprises . . . and for want of it, they are generally defeated.” The necessity of secrecy and the catastrophe that can follow when secrecy is breached — these are core concerns of national security.

They are also what the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga is all about.

We could go on at length about Clinton’s arrogance in setting up a homebrew communications network, an outrageous violation of the transparency standards that were her responsibility as secretary of state to enforce. It was a familiar exercise in Clintonian self-dealing: Anticipating running for president in 2016, she realized she was enmeshed in the Clinton Foundation’s global scheme to sell influence for money, so she devised a way to avoid a paper trail. Accountability, after all, is for peons: the yoke of recordkeeping requirements, Freedom of Information Act productions, congressional inquiries, and the government’s disclosure duties in judicial proceedings was not for her Highness. Instead, it would be: No Records, No Problems — a convenient arrangement for a lifetime “public servant” of no discernible accomplishment whom disaster has a habit of stalking. The homebrew server was for Hillary’s State Department what an on-site drycleaner might have been for Bill’s White House.

RELATED: Ex-Spies Say That Clinton’s Illegal Server Triggered Widespread Devastation

If our only concern were Mrs. Clinton’s lack of fitness, just the setting up of a parallel communication system would be the end of the matter. No one who goes to such lengths to circumvent our laws is fit to be trusted with their faithful execution. Here, however, there is a graver issue: the damage Clinton has done to our national defense, the havoc she has wrought in our intelligence community — the 17 agencies that spend tens of billions of our dollars annually to collect and, crucially, to protect the secrets on which our security depends.

In The Snowden Operation: Inside the West’s Greatest Intelligence Disaster, Edward Lucas, a longtime Economist senior editor and student of intelligence operations, explains in vivid detail how “the mere whiff of a breach acts like nerve poison on intelligence agencies.”

Take just a single document that contains a defense secret, or conveys the method or source by which secrets are acquired. If the agency discovers the document has been lost, or comes to “believe an unauthorised person has had access to it, assumptions must be of worst-case scenarios.” What could a hostile government or terror network do with that information? Will they kill an intelligence agent who has been outed? What about operatives the agent has been running — who must then be pulled out to avoid arrest, or worse? Even if our spies are safe, their operation must be considered blown, along with arrangements on which the operation relied — cooperating businesses, bank accounts, safe houses, drop boxes, etc.

RELATED: Hillary’s Latest E-mail Gambit: Tragedy, Comedy, or Low Farce?

Then there is the matter of when the compromise occurred. Can we be sure of the time? Remember: It is worst-case analysis. If the agency can’t be sure, it must assume the earliest point. Does that mean the agency has been victimized by counterintelligence? Did the hostile government or terror network feed the agency misleading information and then monitor the results? Is the precious intelligence the agency thought it was collecting actually corrupted? Have security policies based on the intelligence actually endangered us? Have they been expensive wastes of money and effort?

As Lucas notes, “The answers to these questions may be ‘no.’ But an experienced team of counter-intelligence officers must ask them, find the answers, check and double-check. The taint of even a minor breach must be analysed, contained, and cleaned.”

Bear in mind, we’re still talking about a single breach. How about two? The corrective measures quickly become nightmarish. The danger metastasizes if the breaches come from different components of the intelligence community. And the challenge cannot be wished away by telling oneself that the compromised information is not all that significant. A document that seems harmless enough can be devastating when combined with another — read together they may reveal a collection technique that is of far greater consequence than the information on the page.

As Lucas elaborates,

Multiple breaches increase the problem exponentially. Each bit of compromised information must be assessed not only on its own, but in relation to every other piece of data. As the numbers mount, the math becomes formidable. Four bits of information have 24 possible combinations. Seven have 5,040. Ten have more than three million.

In Hillary Clinton’s case, more than 1,600 e-mails containing classified information have been discovered. You do the breach math . . . because I can’t count that high.

RELATED: Why the Justice Department Won’t Work with the FBI on Clinton’s E-mail Case

And we’re not done, not even close. The State Department continues to slow-walk production of Clinton e-mails despite court orders for more rapid disclosure. Only some of the delay owes to the functioning of Clinton’s former department as an arm of her current campaign. The rest is attributable to the staggering breadth of classified information — some of it, the most tightly guarded national secrets — strewn through Clinton’s e-mails. Not just her e-mails but e-mail “trains,” communications involving several exchanges and multiple participants — as to which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to calculate how often and how widely recipients forwarded the information.

Moreover, we’re still talking only about the 30,000 or so e-mails, constituting 55,000 pages, that Mrs. Clinton deigned to surrender to the State Department nearly two years after she resigned. There are another 30,000 “personal” e-mails she attempted to destroy. Has the FBI been able to recover them so the intelligence community has some hope of assessing the damage? Virtually nothing Clinton has said about her non-secure e-mail system since its public revelation has been true. In assessing the potential peril that breaches pose for its agents and operations, could our intelligence agencies possibly accept at face value Clinton’s claim that these 30,000 e-mails — correspondence of one of the busiest, highest-ranking officers of the United States government — involved yoga routines and Chelsea’s bridesmaids’ dresses?

Probably about as much as the FBI can trust that they had nothing to do with the intersection of State Department business and Clinton Foundation donors.

In light of the herculean efforts made by China, Russia, and other cyber-aggressors to hack into the government’s hyper-secure server systems with occasional success, it is inconceivable that they refrained from hacking into Clinton’s non-secure system with a high degree of success. Robert Gates, the former CIA director and secretary of defense, has conceded as much.

Of course, intelligence-community officials cannot afford to guess or hope. Their national-security duties require them to assume Hillary Clinton’s incalculable recklessness has corrupted our intelligence base and endangered our agents.

That makes her a better fit for the big house than the White House.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...lligence-compromised

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is an excellent summary of many important points contained in the 114 pages of this posting.

I would have liked a bit more emphasis on the corruption aspect of the crime: "Anticipating running for president in 2016, she realized she was enmeshed in the Clinton Foundation’s global scheme to sell influence for money" but McCarthy's field of expertise is national security.

Remember that pic of Bill and Zero talking on the golf course?

Maybe we have a better idea of the conversation now.

quote:

17 agencies that spend tens of billions of our dollars annually to collect and, crucially, to protect the secrets on which our security depends.

Add to this the cost of this investigation and possible prosecution. I wonder what the price tag is to the tax payers to have 150 FBI agents do an investigation?

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

17 agencies that spend tens of billions of our dollars annually to collect and, crucially, to protect the secrets on which our security depends.

Add to this the cost of this investigation and possible prosecution. I wonder what the price tag is to the tax payers to have 150 FBI agents do an investigation?

It will be worth every penny spent if Clinton is sent to prison.

odd remark from Gloria Steinem (hard core feminist)

Author and activist Gloria Steinem argued that younger women are supporting Democratic presidential candidate Senator Sanders over Hillary Clinton because they’re going where the boys are and “The boys are with Bernie”

She added, “And when you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video...oys-are-with-bernie/

Can you imagine if Trump said that ?

Odd? Holy cats, ol' Gloria's just rendered herself irrelevant to any woman under the age of 55.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092
It will be worth every penny spent if Clinton is sent to prison.

Prison? Its worth ten times the cost if it keeps her from the White House.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Odd? Holy cats, ol' Gloria's just rendered herself irrelevant to any woman under the age of 55.

Forgive me, but Gloria's been completely irrelevant for a very long time. Her 15 minutes were up decades ago.

I've read about all the opinion pieces by all the experts I'm going to on this subject.
She should be in jail. We know it, she knows it the FBI, knows it, Obama knows it and all the experts writing about it know it.

Reading more about it only furthers to serve the frustration that she already isn't.
Now I'm just going to sit and wait for it to happen. If it don't it will further my resolve to live long enough to see her buried.

Would the FBI be able to determine a breach if someone had the password to her server?

Hillary "Why thank you for my speaking fees, just remember (wink,wink) INTERNS SUCK"

If someone uses the right password how can you tell right?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Odd? Holy cats, ol' Gloria's just rendered herself irrelevant to any woman under the age of 55.

Forgive me, but Gloria's been completely irrelevant for a very long time. Her 15 minutes were up decades ago.

I had similar thoughts but you said it better than I would have.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

17 agencies that spend tens of billions of our dollars annually to collect and, crucially, to protect the secrets on which our security depends.

Add to this the cost of this investigation and possible prosecution. I wonder what the price tag is to the tax payers to have 150 FBI agents do an investigation?

It will be worth every penny spent if Clinton is sent to prison.

Agreed! I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't money well spent or a bargain if she goes down, I simply meant that it was a damn shame and waste to have to spend more money investigating this corrupt scum and undoing the damage that she caused. She's been a gross net cost to this country.

Uh-Oh! Because of heat from Bernie, Hillary "has postponed (but not canceled) two fundraisers with Big Finance, one with the huge investing firm BlackRock and the other with an affiliate of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s old outfit."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...money-141913634.html

She’s not in the bankers’ back pockets. No, siree. Hillary Clinton may have received millions of dollars from Wall Street—in both personal income and campaign contributions—but she can ditch those well-heeled friends at a moment’s notice.

To prove it, she has postponed (but not canceled) two fundraisers with Big Finance, one with the huge investing firm BlackRock and the other with an affiliate of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney’s old outfit. This comes amid Clinton’s unconvincing answers when pressed on her apparent coziness with banks and financial firms. When CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked Clinton recently why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for giving a grand total of three speeches, she stammered and finally said, “That’s what they offered,” as if she would have taken 25 bucks and a free sandwich, if that’s all Goldman were able to afford.

Clinton is obviously flummoxed by her relationship with Wall Street, which she needs but can’t fully acknowledge. Her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders keeps hitting pay dirt by trashing the big banks and the outsized amount of wealth they control, which resonates well with a dyspeptic electorate. “The business model of Wall Street is fraud,” he declared during the latest Democratic debate. The whole subject puts Clinton on the defensive, since she’s taken millions in Wall Street donations in her career as Wall Street’s home-state senator and now presidential candidate.

This has become a thornier problem for Clinton than she probably ever anticipated. For one thing, she hasn’t raised all that much money from Wall Street, compared with other candidates. Of $112 million Clinton’s campaign raised in 2015, only about $4 million, or 3.6%, came from donors at financial firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

At the main super PAC backing Clinton, Priorities USA, 35% of the $41 million in donations—about $14 million—has come from the sector known as finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE). But that hardly makes Clinton the baron of Big Money. Jeb Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise, has hauled in $118 million, with $60 million coming from the FIRE sector. So Clinton is getting dinged for her association with an industry that isn’t helping her all that much.

The dilemma for Clinton is that she actually needs more help from the Wall Street donors she’s now keeping her distance from. That’s because Sanders is raking in cash. He outraised Clinton in January, with $20 million in donations to her $15 million. That is astounding, given the vast reach of a Clinton machine that has been decades in the making. The Clinton campaign even highlighted the funding shortfall in a pitch to supporters: A mass email with the subject line “we fell short by $5 million” warned that, “For the first time this campaign, we're being outraised by our opponent.”

Clinton isn’t running out of cash. Her campaign has raised about $125 million so far, compared with about $95 million for Sanders. She had about $10 million more in the bank at the end of 2015 than Sanders did. And Sanders doesn't have any super PAC money. But he does have the ear of voters, and his momentum is clearly worrisome for the Clinton camp, especially since he holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire, where the primary is to be held February 9.

Clinton will supposedly hold those Wall Street fundraisers she postponed after the New Hampshire primary, as if putting them off by a couple weeks will deflect Sanders’s criticism. Unlikely. He has found a winning line of attack and seems certain to keep it up. Clinton should either take the money and own up to it, or find some other donors.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Odd? Holy cats, ol' Gloria's just rendered herself irrelevant to any woman under the age of 55.

Forgive me, but Gloria's been completely irrelevant for a very long time. Her 15 minutes were up decades ago.

Yeah, but she ain't done and gone until she runs out of wronged women who can get her on TV.