When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Wow. Do you live in an alternate reality? The server will no more be charged with a crime than Hillary will be. Crimes require that a law be broken. Someone breaking into Hillary's server would have committed a crime.

No one has been able to point to a single law that Hillary might have broken. They make claims that have no basis in existing law. Simply having classified information on her server that is not classified as such is not a crime. If you think it is then point to the specific place in the law. (Willfully passing it to someone else is not the same thing as keeping it on a computer that someone else may have broken into.)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88405.pdf
The criminal code starts on page 15.

What crime do you think was committed that could be prosecuted?
Please provide us with the exact law you think was broken.

I'll make it easy for you and provide the law - starting on page 15.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88405.pdf

If there is a crime, yes, I expect this justice department to prosecute.

Here'a a bit from today's news as reported by ABC. It concerns the FBI investigation into Hillary's handling of her official e mail - something which Parados says does not exist.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is reaffirming that the FBI's probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state is free of outside political influence.

She told The Associated Press on Monday that the FBI investigation is independent and is being conducted by career lawyers looking at the facts and evidence.

Republicans have been critical of the Democratic presidential candidate's use of personal email when she led State.

In a letter filed in federal court Monday as part of a Freedom of Information lawsuit, FBI general counsel James Baker said the probe is "ongoing." He said the FBI has not publicly commented on the focus, scope or potential targets of the investigation. Baker wrote the letter Feb. 2 to the State Department's acting legal adviser.


He now asserts there is no law that she could conceivably have violated. It now appears that some lawyers in the Justice Department and the FBI do not agree.

If there is a law violated, it was related to Hillary's server, but they are not saying Hillary is the target of that investigation. Law enforcement officials and diplomats earlier stated Hillary is not the target of the investigation. It could very well be Hillary was hacked into her server by foreign officials. Before going up in arms about that, remember the state department and pentagon both have been hacked in recent years, so even if Hillary used state server, she still could have been hacked.

I notice that the standard Liberal reaction to facts is to vote down posts.

Would you downvoters like to also scream loudly and fling your baby rattles in my direction?

That is a fairly tortured and somewhat generous assesment of the facts available, as they relate to the legal questions involved, but it is conceivable that you are correct. If I am not mistaken, non compliance with the laws governing the handling of classified material is a crime with or without proof of criminal intent, and that makes your theory particularly tenuous..

I should also note that government controlled networks, not connected to the internet, can be penetrated, but not simply "hacked: in the ususl meaning of the word.

There is no doubt that Hillary was aware of the Government and State Department policy that all department employees were required, by policy she articulated herself, to use only government networks in their official e-mail. The stated purpose of this policy was to protect the security of the information involved.

She not only violated this policy, she flouted it in a systematic way by setting up a private server in her home for the storage and transmission of all her e mail, official and private. She then denied any wrongdoing. When that became untenable, she conceded to "a mistake" but affirmed that no classified material was ever involved. Later, when it was clear that messages would be released as a result of investigations initiated by the Congress & the tntelligence community, and as well by numerous FOIA requests, she changed that to "no information marked classified at the time" . Finally she has asserted it all was of no real consequence, and blamed it all on the vast right wing conspiracy that has been chasing her for two decades. In the weakest and most feeble excuse yet, she has claimed that other Secretary's have on occasion used their private e mail accounts for official correspondence, apparently forgetting the enormous gap between that and setting up a privsate server for ALL her official correspondence.

As Secretary of State she was the Responsible official for the protection of all classified information in the department. She was also the chief classifier of that information. It was her duty to protect the information and comply with estasblished security processes whether the information was marked as classified or not.

None of this suggests a person of real integrity, who will herself live up to the standards she requires of her deputies, and honestly and truthfully accept responsibility for her actions. I wouldn't accept such a person in a position of real responsibility and accountability in any organization, and that, I believe, is the issue before us all now.

Gosh.. The lawyers in the justice department are looking at the same laws I am. Those laws would be facts. The evidence would be whether someone broke them.

What facts about the laws do you think the Justice Department and FBI disagree with me about? What law could she have violated? It's a simple question. I can answer it. The lawyers at the Justice Department can answer it. How about you answer it.

If that is the case then you should be able to quickly point to the law that doesn't include the words "intent" or "willfully."

Repeating your same unfounded nonsense doesn't make it true this time anymore than it was true last time you spouted it.

You mean as you chronically do????

You are, at very best, a pedantic and devious bore.

When it comes to charging someone with a crime, it isn't pedantic to ask that the law be specified. It is required under our system. If there is no law prohibiting something then it isn't a crime.

All the hot air about how Hillary is guilty of a crime ignores the facts in evidence and ignores the law as written. I guess your borish behavior is you think anyone that relies on facts is a pedant.

True. I haven't seen any law produced against Hillary. Also, if there have been any law broken, someone would have produced it by now.

I have charged Hillary Clinton with irresponsibility with respect to her duties as Secretary of State; hypocrisy and deception with the public (and possibly inverstigating agencies) regarding her use of a private e mail server, and based on these behaviors as lacking the truthfulness, accountability and integrity for a position of leadership and high responsibility. I don't believe I am alone in thesse personal judgments of her behavior and character.

I am not a law enforcement officer and I don't have or claim to have the authority to charge anyone with a crime - any more than you have the authority to assert that a matter now being investigated will not result in criminal charges. That, as you have repeatedly and monotonously noted, is for the Justice Department to do. I doubt seriously that they will do it, as the President has already made his position publicly clear - even without knowing the result of the investigation or inquiry or proceeding now ongoing in the FBI. However, unfolding events may force their hands and change their political calculations as I have separately noted.

You persistently use these straw man arguments to divert the dialogue to safer ground and, in effect, change the subject. That is deceitful. The pedantry is simply your own.

Laws? Possibly. Her excuse of "It was not "secret" when I got it" is irrelevant. She should have NEVER EVER used her personal e-mail for Govt business.

However, she certainly violated State Department protocol regarding the handling of sensitive e-mails. She should have NEVER EVER used her personal e-mail for State Department activity. NEVER !!! It can not be defended nor tolerated by anyone.

If you only response is that "everyone else did it", then you are just a parrot for the Clinton machine.

She has proven to be irresponsible regarding this matter and ineffective as a Sec of State. Her handling of Benghazi and this e-mail issue reflect a pattern that certainly disqualifies her as a legitimate candidate for any office.

Here's a good article on Slate.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/03/hillary_clinton_s_private_email_account_did_she_break_the_law_as_secretary.html

Why do you conservative ignore the one line from law enforcement officials in which it says Hillary is not the target of the FBI investigation? If she is not the target, and the letter yesterday confirmed there is an investigation and it relates to her email, it only makes logical sense (something I beginning some of you use)her emails must have been hacked or something of that sort.

It was not illegal for her to use a private server at the time she was SOS. Those guidelines and laws you are all talking about only come about after she left her office as SOS. (correct initial?)

Courtesy of CI's link:

Quote Woiyo:


Oh, you mean the part where her predecessor at the State Department under Bush said he used his private Email account for government business all the time and all these outraged Republicans didn't say anything? We're not allowed to bring that up?

Nah, we'll bring it up.

Or the millions of missing emails that Dick Cheney can only shrug his shoulders about?


Cheney's subpoenaed e-mails missing
Vice President's e-mail lost for key week in CIA leak probe
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23367672/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/cheneys-subpoenaed-e-mails-missing/

Or

The Emails that Dick Cheney Deleted
http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/the-emails-that-dick-cheney-deleted/
By Scott Horton

Late last week, right after official White House spokesmen made a series of either evasive or completely false statements about the mysterious case of the vanishing, then reappearing, then perhaps no really vanished White House emails, Henry Waxman and his Oversight Committee announced some of the conclusions they had reached. Dan Eggen and Elizabeth Williamson published an account of it on Friday in the Washington Post:

The White House possesses no archived e-mail messages for many of its component offices, including the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President, for hundreds of days between 2003 and 2005, according to the summary of an internal White House study that was disclosed yesterday by a congressional Democrat.
The 2005 study — whose credibility the White House attacked this week — identified 473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices, said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

Waxman said he decided to release the summary after White House spokesman Tony Fratto said yesterday that there is “no evidence” that any White House e-mails from those years are missing. Fratto’s assertion “seems to be an unsubstantiated statement that has no relation to the facts they have shared with us,” Waxman said. The competing claims were the latest salvos in an escalating dispute over whether the Bush administration has complied with long-standing statutory requirements to preserve official White House records — including those reflecting potentially sensitive policy discussions — for history and in case of any future legal demands.

Waxman said he is seeking testimony on the issue at a hearing next month from White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, National Archivist Allen Weinstein and Alan R. Swendiman, the politically appointed director of the Office of Administration, which produced the 2005 study at issue.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has now posted a series of studies to help us zero in on just what’s missing. It will come as no surprise to most that the big offender is the man at the center of the most virulent scandals, and the missing email traffic relates just to those dates in which a federal prosecutor would have the most interest. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office destroyed its emails, in violation of the requirements of the federal records act and potentially criminal law, for the following days:

September 12, 2003: The day on which the headlines in the New York Times read “federal appeals court in Washington yesterday rejected the Bush administration’s effort to avoid releasing documents about Vice President Cheney Energy Task Force.”

October 1, 2003: The day on which the Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court that Vice President Cheney was entitled to keep all the details concerning his meetings with oil executives and their influence in his formulation of national energy policy confidential, including the names of the participants.

October 2, 2003: The day on which senior Congressional Republicans began a rewrite of key energy legislation behind closed doors and without involvement of Democrats—but potentially with the involvement of Vice President Cheney and oil executives involved in his secret energy task force.

October 3, 2003: The Senate approved a requirement that all future contracts to rebuild Iraq be granted on an open and competitive basis after airing open criticism on the closed and controversial process that resulted in multi-billion dollar noncompetitive contract awards to subsidiaries of Halliburton, the company which Vice President Cheney headed before he assumed office, and from which, under a deferred compensation agreement, he continues to receive more compensation than he receives from the Treasury for his services as vice president.

October 5, 2003: Publication of the findings of a task force studying the development of the Iraqi oil industry and its potential for funding the costs of the occupation of Iraq.

January 29, 2004: David A. Kay, the former chief American weapons inspector in Iraq, called for an independent inquiry into pre-war intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs as skepticism about the administration’s claims about Iraqi WMD grows.

January 30, 2004: President Bush opposes an independent investigation of intelligence failures surrounding Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction stockpiles despite increasing demands for one by some U.S. lawmakers.

January 31, 2004: Press reports focus on building speculation that an independent commission will be created to look into the White House’s basis for claims that Iraq had WMDs, accusations which were consistently led by Vice President Cheney.

February 15, 2005: Citing the threat exemplified by 9/11, President Bush urges Congress to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

February 16, 2005: An appeals court orders that two reporters who have refused to testify about their conversations with confidential sources regarding the leak that exposed the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame should be held in contempt. It would later be revealed that both had conversations with members of Vice President Cheney’s staff.

May 23, 2005: Calls mount for the resignation of Tom Delay pending the outcome of an investigation into ethical violations. The Congressional and criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff widens to include long-time associate and fellow architect of the Republican takeover of the capital, Grover Norquist. The White House continues to obstruct efforts to identify who Abramoff saw in his hundreds of visits to the White House.

The missing Cheney emails fit a pattern that suggests intentional rather than accidental destruction. They all occur on days on which, considering contemporaneous press reports, the Vice President or his staff members were in the news and would likely have been communicating on the subjects relating to the press coverage. The most persistent themes are the outing of Valerie Plame and Cheney’s secret dealings with a group of oil and gas executives who were directly influencing national energy policy. The Empty Wheel has some excellent analysis of these points.

No one ignored anything here but you. The letter from the FBI counsel you posted here explicitly affirmed that the FBI would make no comment about the target, scope or content of the investigastion - one way or the other. In common parlance some here insist there is no target until an indictment has been filed. We know no indictment has yet been filed, but that's all we know. There may be one and it may be against Hillary (more likely her than anyone except her unfortunate aides.)

You're providing a lot of smoke, but where's the fire?