While the Press celebrates the Democratic Party victory of the first female billionaire in history, a somber legal battle is going on in the shadows.

The State Department report on Hillary Clinton's emails, and the different legal proceedings which followed, establish that she is guilty of :

Obstruction of Justice by Mrs. Clinton and her advisors (Section 1410) ;
Obstruction of Criminal Enquiries (Section 1511) ;
Obstruction of the application of local and Federal laws (Section 1411) ;
Federal crime of negligence with classified information and documents (Section 1924) ;
Detention in her computer, at home and on a non-secure server, of 1,200 secret documents (Section 1924)
Felony - Mrs. Clinton declared under oath to a Federal judge that she had given all her emails to the State Department. However, the Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
Moreover, she declared under oath that the State Department had authorised her to use her personal computer to work at home. The Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
Mrs. Clinton did not alert the authorities, nor even her own Department, that her personal computer had been hacked several times. Yet she had asked her system administrator to try to protect her computer.
Misappropriation and Concealment. The Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton were corrupted so that the State Department would close their eyes to various practices (Rico Law and Section 1503).

In principle, and since the facts and their gravity have been established by the FBI, the State Department, and a Federal judge, Hillary Clinton should have been arrested this week.

Bernie Sanders, the other candidate for the Democratic nomination, was counting on Mrs. Clinton's arrest before their party's convention. He therefore decided to stay in the running, although he does not have enough delegates. But he was summoned to the White House, and informed that President Barack Obama would prevent his administration from applying the law. Obama then followed through by publicly announcing his support for the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192318.html

seems the WH has issued another Stand Down Order!
FBI,Homeland-Security,Military and others must be getting them by the Dozen lately!

WikiLeaks to publish more Hillary Clinton emails - Julian Assange

She could kill a kid on live TV and her supporters wouldn't care....

a Female Charles Foster Kane.

Well, I think factual accuracy is VERY important, especially when it comes to this sort of thing.

That means that whoever wrote the quoted article, doesn't know what he's talking about. Too bad.

Nothing proves someone "is guilty" of anything, especially of that list of "crimes."

They might or might not have evidence which might or might not come to be used in a trial, and might or might not contribute to a jury and or judge finding that she IS actually guilty.

But saying she is guilty NOW, is a flat out lie.

are you saying she did use the right server?
are you saying she didn't send emails through her blackberry?
are you saying she didn't send classified/secret documents through either of them?

if you are saying those things, you would be wrong, they've already proved she did all those things and more...

He was a least.. likeable

Citizen Kane- 1941
Xanadu

superb Actor he was!

No. I am saying that "is guilty" is a formal legal term, and using it sloppily like this, makes it clear that the author both doesn't know the meaning of the words he used (doesn't know what he's talking about), and doesn't support the American rule of law and legal process.

In the United States, no one is GUILTY until they have been tried and found guilty, or until they formally declare that they are.

so what would be the term for it when she hasn't been to court? we all did she did these things, it's not like there needs to be a trial for it...

When someone is ACCUSED of things, AND have been formally charged with crimes (Clinton HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED), then we call them The Accused.

That doesn't apply to Clinton either, since she has NOT been charged with anything (yet).


We do have a term to use when you decide someone is guilty just based on accusations. That term is "PREJUDICED." But that term would apply to you, and the author of the article, not to Clinton.

The most you can say about Clinton right now, is that she is UNDER INVESTIGATION. But even the investigation, so far as I have read, hasn't been given a formal list of charges like that. Maybe it has been, and between the self-blinded supporters and the self-blinded attackers, it has been ignored in the news.

Anyway. Right now, you can't ACCURATELY apply any single positive or negative label to Clinton's situation.

I suppose you could say accurately that she is INNOCENT of those charges at the moment, under the very American principle that we are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

But I suspect you wont want to choose that term.

She's protecting herself with her decades of political experience, millions of dollars, ties to a lot of organizations and powerful people, some public sentiment, not to mention tons of practice slipping away from allegations and manipulating narratives.


Public opinion.

Who's protecting Hillary?

Dead People!

Her dad's condom didn't work.

well, you're not keeping up here... she knows she did it, we know she did it, all of the government knows she did it, she's admitted to doing it, but you say shes not "guilty"...

Did you understand anything I said at all? Apparently not.

Saying that she is not GUILTY, doesn't mean that she didn't do anything, nor does it mean that nothing happened.

You say "she knows she did it," but what "it" is exactly, matters tremendously, if you want (as you apparently do) to attach official criminal labels to her.

What I'm arguing for, is FACTUALITY. That's it. It is at this time a LIE to say that Hillary is GUILTY of the stuff on your list. It is ALSO false, to claim that she says that she is guilty of those things. She most certainly has not done so.

When you say that you are sure that she DID do all those things, that is every bit as meaningless as that a given anti-theist is absolutely CERTAIN that God doesn't exist. It is nothing more than your entirely unsubstantiated OPINION.

It's my own OPINION, that OJ is a murderer. But I have to admit that he was found NOT GUILTY. So I can't say that he IS guilty of murder, only that I THINK he is. The same applies to your claims.

In my OPINION, Clinton behaved in a less than ideal fashion as regards her email system. But she is NOT GUILTY AT THIS TIME of even a single one pf those charges listed.

don't imply that i'm stupid, i know what you're saying, you've said it three or four times now... just because a court hasn't said she's guilty doesn't change the fact we all know she is... this isn't like a murder trial, where there could be a doubt, because there isn't any doubt... all the FBI is doing right now is looking to see how deep it really goes, or if they already know, the DOJ is blocking it...

yes, you are right, innocent until proven guilty... but we all know what she did, even if it never makes it to a court... all your twisting and turning is not going to change that fact...

I'm not twisting. You said so yourself, I repeated the same thing several times, because it appeared that you weren't understanding.

I did not at all even IMPLY you were "stupid."

One irony: your final word on this, shows you think exactly the same way Clinton has: she ignored the officially correct procedures, just as you do, because she JUST KNEW she was doing things her way for the "right" reasons.

I prefer the rule of law, and adherence to legal principles.

the way you were wording this seemed to be in hillary's favor... are the liberals that corrupt to even let her run for presidency? none of this would have flown 20-30 years ago..