So about that email investigation...

'part of the case' and 'evidence of what pertains to the case' are not the same thing

the CONTENTS of the email be it about selling weapons to Iran, daughter using blue lipstick or the color of a dress, is NOT EVIDENCE pertaining to the question of the emails being deleted.

'where the emails deleted'?

'your honor the contents of the email is this'

'ok that was not the question, the content of the email is not in question here'

HUGE difference

look just try to calm down..please

we don't determine innocence in america, we presume it.

We don't lose the ability to use common sense either.

yes....one might want to delete the messages about teh weekend orgy if they felt like they got hacked.

a lot of different reasons to delete emails if you think you got hacked.

10,000 emails about an orgy?

10,000 emails about what then in your mind?

again..keep in mind, this is like complaining that someone deleted information from Chelsea Manning CD before she gave it to Wikileaks.

the emails where hacked and given to Wikileaks werent they?

the emails of the office for the Secretary of State was hacked and about to be given to Wikileaks and you question them deleting emails?

so what was on the emails?

@n64dd

answer us this,

If you are Secretary of State and you learned that your emails have been hacked if you are not supposed to then delete any emails, ......why?

and what are you supposed to do and why?

Well you don't have your private email server in your closet for starters. You turn everything over right away to cyber defense experts at NSA and NGA. Anything you delete could get rid of traces to sources. It's the equivalent of spraying down a crime scene with a hose before you investigate.

well aside from the 'email server in the closet' which is not what we are talking about aside for the moment.

how is one supposed to know that if you get hacked, DONT whatever you do, delete any files off the computer you just got hacked on?

and how does deleting then turn into somehow evidence that the emails are concealing something radically criminal?

I assume they deleted emails because they didnt want more to be stolen and dont really have any idea on how to do that while keeping content of the emails in tack which they (like me) would not be able to easyly understand why the contents of the email would pertain to theft of the emails.

If she has clearance she knows protocol.

that is a LOOOOONG stretch to 'the emails contained information which likely prooves criminal activities'

how you know she had clearance?

how do you know what the protocol is?

how do you know the intent of deletion isnt to just get rid of embarrassing stuff?

how do you know the intent of deletion was not to get rid of information that could be damaging to the U.S. if it made it to Wikileaks?

these were emails stolen with the intent of getting them on wikileaks.

she is not the criminal in this story

Wrong. You cannot say someone destroyed evidence when there is NO evidence they did.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308

*yawn*

n total, more than 30,000 emails were deleted "because they were personal and private about matters that I believed were within the scope of my personal privacy," Clinton told reporters in March of 2015, as the controversy around her private emails was growing.

"They had nothing to do with work," Clinton added. "I didn't see any reason to keep them ... no one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy."

Clinton said her team "went through a thorough process" to identify work-related emails, and she said he had "absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department."

However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said.

@n64dd

I think if she was well advised on the protocal that your not supposed to delete emails if you get a hacked she would not have had a personal email server to begin with.

it sounds more like a case of a technology screw up then it does an intention of high crime in the emails because they got stolen.

it really just smells like making the victim the criminal which isnt going to gain anyone popularity points for sure...lol

@n64dd:

*yawn* Thanks for proving my point. Now go read it over again and think about it.

Thanks for adding nothing of value, like usual. Just proved she deleted emails prior.

Enjoy.

@tryit She knew she wasn't supposed to have a private server. She's involved with high security material, she's been briefed.

ok if she knew she wasnt supposed to have a private server, doesnt that kind of support the fact that she deleted the emails mostly because she is a moron, not because she was hiding something?

again, a person get their house broken into, because the owner of the home deleted a drive before the theif can get to it and put it on wikileaks is MILES away from being evidence that the content of the drive contained information regarding a criminal activity.

that sounds extremely desperate to try and pin something on someone just out of spite

You have a very valid point if there is no such thing as rules, training, or common sense. Do you even know who the NGA is?

look its very clear you want to find SOMETHING you can pin her on. So I can help, make her out to be a moron and not competent in her position, lets try that.

but 'the emails likely contained conversations about criminal activities because she tried to delete them' is just being really really mean frankly.

or the third option is to be more objective about the landscape we are in these days, that is another option

You're jumping through hoops and doing mental gymnastics to avoid a simple explanation.

She lied about deleting shit. FBI stated that. You don't set up your own email server in your house if you're inept in tech. She knew protocols, it's part of getting that clearance.

Until you have a background and understand even what the NGA is, you're just talking out your ass.

While people on both sides of the aisle can argue whether or not Hillary Clinton committed a crime (people not familiar with how government requirements to handle classified information work are probably less likely to assume she did anything wrong regardless of their party), if you were a lawyer and tried to use the same logic you are using here to defend her if it went to trial, you would probably be laughed out of the courtroom.

So you're basically telling me I should be making baseless assumptions, got it. Clinton specifically sent the emails in question in for review, they told her she didn't need to keep, and she tagged them to be deleted. This was three months before they ever served her a subpoena. If the people reviewing her emails didn't think they warranted saving, then why should anyone else think they had anything to do with anything? That she destroyed emails is completely irrelevant, whether or not those emails were evidence is, and the people who OK'd her deleting them clearly thought they were not evidence of anything.

But go ahead, keep talking about Hillary in a thread about Jeff Sessions. Again, Clinton is still innocent, Libby is not. You only keep talking about Clinton because you don't want to talk about Republican hypocrisy.

"They had nothing to do with work," Clinton added. "I didn't see any reason to keep them ... no one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy."

Clinton said her team "went through a thorough process" to identify work-related emails, and she said he had "absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department."

However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said

You took only part of the story and used that as your angle.

Nice bias.

I have handled classified documents. And as of yet there is still no proof she destroyed evidence. Handling sensitive material doesn't mean one automatically convicts on assumption.

FBI stated in the article I linked you she deleted emails prior to turning them in.

So what? Do you honestly think that's a bombshell? She deleted emails that she thought she did not need to keep per her instructions and some of them she might have needed to keep. You're still just making inferences about what could have been on the emails that weren't recovered, and ignoring the fact that the FBI repeatedly found no intent to destroy evidence on her part. I'll repeat myself again, Clinton is innocent, Libby is guilty. You just don't want to talk about Republican hypocrisy, which is why you keep ignoring Libby and talking only about Clinton. By all means, keep it up. It just puts your intellectual dishonesty on full display.

They requested all the emails, she deleted 17,000 before they gave her permission to destroy what they didn't deem relevant. Stop twisting the story. It's straight forward.

Here is the specific assertion I am addressing I am not addressing ANY other assertion ONLY the following:

'the content of the emails contained in of themselves discussions of criminal behavior'

THAT is the assertion I want to put to death.

SPEEDING IS A CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the weight of the crime when talking about how bad Hillary is compared to Trump ACTUALLY MATTERS

(or for that matter Bush who took us to a 1 TRILLION dollar war over a lie)

the question is not deleting emails

the question is the CONTENT of the emails in question.

people keep asserting that the CONTENT of the emails themselves contained information that was criminal. like 'hey I am going to go kill someone at 3pm want to join?'

the bias against Hillary is unfriggin believable, its past being religious and dont tell me this same level of hatred for her didnt exist at the same level BEFORE this entire email thing happened.

When you delete things when you're told to turn them in, you don't have a good intent at heart.

I know you don't understand basic concepts, or full sentences, but let that one sink in for awhile.

good intent is not the question

the actual content of the emails is in question.

she might have deleted them because she is stupid. NOT because the emails themselves contained actual information that is criminal.

your bias is thru the roof on this!

if this question was over a GOP member I am positive this level of bias would not be going on

Yeah she was stupid to delete them when she was told to turn them in. That's bad intent.

How old are you?

but for the second time,

'intent' is not the question

'breaking the law' is not the question

what was in the content of the emails is the question. the actual words in the actual emails

last time I am saying that, I have been repeating that now about a dozen times and I dont want to get spam flagged

Intent and breaking law is the question. What the hell are you even talking about?

Actually, it's more like 30,000, they only recovered 17,000. And like I said before, she submitted all of them for review before flagging them to be deleted. They were all supposed to be deleted three months before she ever received a subpoena, the only reason they were deleted after was because of a mix-up at the firm that deleted them. Again, none of this proves that she destroyed evidence. Again, the FBI has repeatedly found there was no intent on her part. And again, you keep talking about Clinton to detract from Republican crimes. Clinton is innocent, Libby is patently guilty. Keep displaying your intellectual dishonesty.

No. She turned in emails and then they told then she was given permission to delete them. The found another 17,000 that were deleted before she turned everything in. Read the article.

here

the bias is clear, the assumption is that the emails themselves contain words describing criminal actions

THAT is what I have been ranting about for 2 days now, nearly every single post I have made in this string.

I can not have a conversation if people are not paying attention to what I am saying, I am out

That's not what the article says. The article says that she was given permission to delete emails she did not find relevant, she did so, and the the FBI recovered 17,000 emails that she deleted SOME of which were relevant. Reading comprehension is important. And again, the FBI found no intent on her part to destroy evidence, as stated in the article. And again, you keep talking about Clinton to detract from Republican crimes. Clinton is innocent, Libby is patently guilty. Keep displaying your intellectual dishonesty.

I can't help that you don't understand simple concepts. Try coloring.

It states in the bold that more were found. I can only lead a horse to water so many times.

He did not leak a CIA'S identity it was Richard Armitage in the State Department who leaked the name. I think you better recheck your facts.

ironically as a side note Trump is not a 'target in the collusion investigation'

because what Muller team is working on right now and will likely be done with next month is not about collusion, but about obstruction.

and yes...a crime does not have to exist in order for obstruction of justice to happen.

Which isn't the question now is it.........

You mean the direct quote discussing the topic we're talking about? Going in circles much?

It says that SOME emails were recovered which were work-related, it does not state how many or what subjects they were related to. It also says that the FBI found no intent on her part to delete them as part of a cover-up, indicating that they probably were not relevant to any ongoing investigation and were simply mislabeled.

And again, you keep talking about Clinton to detract from Republican crimes. Clinton is innocent, Libby is patently guilty. Keep displaying your intellectual dishonesty. I can only lead a horse to water so many times.

Okay, he lied under oath to obstruct an investigation into Richard Armitage who leaked the name. Isn't that exactly what Republicans are accusing Hillary of doing? Lying and deleting emails in order to obstruct an investigation into Benghazi?

My post wasn't about her presumed innocence or guilt, although I've read enough NDAs to know not to put classified information on a private server. I've seen a whole company in Afghanistan being forced to bring in their personal laptops for inspection because one moron saw a red Ethernet cable and decided to plug it into their MacBook because they assumed it would get them online. It was more towards someone that is either trolling or is very ignorant of laws dealing with classified information trying to school people that know more about the subject.

In many areas, speeding isn't a crime, it is an infraction.

As for the so-called weight of crimes they were accused of, mishandling classified information is a felony, even if done due to negligence. Many of the things Trump we're accused of don't reach that level in legal terms even if people felt that, from a moral standpoint, his actions were worse.

Plus there were WMD chemical munitions, 500 of them in Iraq. Tryit is a pure troll though. His pattern is he'll ask you questions, than make something completely up out of air barely related to the topic and go all over the place and eventually speak non-nonsensical bullshit and say he's out.