Darrell Issa: There Is Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton

[jimnyc]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Republican California Rep. Darrell Issa said that there is enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling national security information on her private email server.

“There is more than enough for an indictment,” Issa, the former House Oversight Committee chairman, told Breitbart News Saturday on Sirius/XM Patriot Channel 125. Issa explained:

The statute about classified material holds you responsible not to transmit in an unsecured environment or to a person not cleared. It holds you accountable not to do that. Not based on whether there’s the word ‘Secret’ all over it, but based on the presumption that you would recognize that classified material. She transmitted things like — I don’t want to disclose anything — like a mayor in Afghanistan who was working with us, and if that material becomes available to the wrong people, she gets killed. You don’t have to ask whether that’s classified. As an army lieutenant years ago, I knew that would be classified because it goes to sources and methods.

Breitbart News exclusively reported that Clinton posted and shared the names of CIA-protected American intelligence sources in foreign countries on her non-secure server, which was repeatedly breached by Russia-linked hack attempts and suffered a security vulnerability in East Asia. Sources report that the Russian government intercepted and plans to release some of Clinton’s private emails, which convicted hacker Guccifer also claims to have obtained. Issa said:

We know that Hillary Clinton broke the law with malice and forethought, for her own nefarious reasons including Clinton Cash, and the deals she and her husband were pocketing in hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign money. She wanted that to be kept behind closed doors. And she also wanted everything she did in an official capacity to be behind closed doors that were never available to this president even. She did that because she doesn’t know where the line is and she didn’t want to take the chance that her official side would expose her corrupt behavior in her personal life.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/25/exclusive-darrell-issa-there-is-enough-evidence-to-indict-hillary-clinton/

[gabosaurus]

So says a Republican member of a Republican headed committee, as reported by a right-wing website. :rolleyes:

I am all for indicting Hillary after the election, if there is indeed enough evidence. But any movement before that is electoral subterfuge.

[jimnyc]

So says a Republican member of a Republican headed committee, as reported by a right-wing website. :rolleyes:

I am all for indicting Hillary after the election, if there is indeed enough evidence. But any movement before that is electoral subterfuge.

Rather than your lame BS of ignoring the FACTS...

How about telling us what is wrong with what ISSA stated, or the website reported? Specifically, what is wrong? What is lied about? What is misreported? Don't just do your drive by blame the article and ignore the facts. Tell us specifics - because Issa sure gave specifics.

Or is your opening line a bunch of bullshit, as usual, and has nothing to do with the topic, and the story is factual and legit?

[gabosaurus]

I don't know if the story is legit or not. It has not been independently confirmed.
All these websites you enjoy citing (breitbart, newsmax, townhall, etc) all present slanted views of events. It's like if I decided to take things from MSNBC or the Rude Pundit and present them as valid opinions.

If you want to believe these things, fine. But I have the right to dispute them as unconfirmed.

[jimnyc]

I don't know if the story is legit or not. It has not been independently confirmed.
All these websites you enjoy citing (breitbart, newsmax, townhall, etc) all present slanted views of events. It's like if I decided to take things from MSNBC or the Rude Pundit and present them as valid opinions.

If you want to believe these things, fine. But I have the right to dispute them as unconfirmed.

The statute - that's simply a fact.

And unless you've been living under a rock, Judicial Watch has been getting information non-stop and releasing it. But regardless, there are a bare minimum of 22 top secret emails that she is flat out guilty about. So don't even add in her deleting the server, and the tons and tons and tons of other things that are being found. Then emails she deleted, and then somehow Huma had them - busted. But forget all of that. It's been a FACT for a LONG time now that they found the 22 emails I speak of. Then read the statute. That alone = guilty. So the story IS legit and you are just too ignorant to realize that she broke the law and was revealed a long, long while back. Whether or not they hold her to this law as they have others, for lesser offenses...

You can take out any opinions from this article, and leave in her offense which is a fact, and the statute which describes what she broke. The only opinion is whether or not there is enough to convict as the title says. The only people in the world that are unsure are the dems trying to figure a way to cover for her in the face of so much evidence, and blind followers who aren't even brought enough to understand the law to begin with, hence some of them thinking it's somehow unconfirmed in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[Elessar]

I'd like to see Mr Issa and Mr Gowdy team up on this.

Issa is straightforward and honest, knows the military, and security communities.
Gowdy takes crap from nobody.

And Bullshit, Gabby....Issa is fair and direct. He does not sneak behind a party curtain
like Pelosi and Reed have done.

[gabosaurus]

What is the difference between Gowdy and Rick Tyler? They both believe in basically the same things and endorse the same issues. One just happens to be more flamboyant than the other. Which Trump supporters should embrace.

[Elessar]

What is the difference between Gowdy and Rick Tyler? They both believe in basically the same things and endorse the same issues. One just happens to be more flamboyant than the other. Which Trump supporters should embrace.

You just cannot stand to see your liberal pipe-dreams blown away.

I don't give a shit about your Rick Tyler! He's an unknown. Gowdy has proven himself to be direct,
honest, and in support of the Law of the Land. Issa is very close to that, and he scares liberals almost
as much as Gowdy.

[Gunny]

So says a Republican member of a Republican headed committee, as reported by a right-wing website. :rolleyes:

I am all for indicting Hillary after the election, if there is indeed enough evidence. But any movement before that is electoral subterfuge.

No genius. Time to play Gunny again. She violated United States Codes 17, 19 & 21. She put classified material on an unsecure server. Then tried to blow it off with some "it was later classified" bullshit. Use some common sense. Why would you later classify information already made public? That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

And get it straight: I'm not a Republican. I'm speaking from being drilled for about 16 years on handling classified material, and who and when and where I could disclose it.

The server alone is enough to indict her in a military court. She'd be fried. She deserves to be treated like the rest of us. There's stuff I STILL can't talk about. But she's free to just wander off on her easily hackable server and get people killed. Justice is apparently only blind based on convenience in this country.

You're trying to sell to the wrong crowd. I know for a fact all the Comm guys on here have clearances. The Sergeant Major had to have one. I had to have one. Now sure how the Coasties do it. We all know the rules. They aren't to be adhered to at your convenience. Just because they aren't telling you you're full of it doesn't mean you aren't. I've kind of come to the conclusion they just won't address you.

[jimnyc]

The entire world has read about all kinds of emails that have been recovered. The entire world knows what the statute is right in front of them. All that's left is whether or not she can somehow lie her way out of this, or have her buddies not prosecute. But at the very bare minimum she has already broken the law and should be indicted. I'm sure there is much, much more underneath that simply wasn't exposed as of yet, or won't be.

[Elessar]

No genius. Time to play Gunny again. She violated United States Codes 17, 19 & 21. She put classified material on an unsecure server. Then tried to blow it off with some "it was later classified" bullshit. Use some common sense. Why would you later classify information already made public? That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

And get it straight: I'm not a Republican. I'm speaking from being drilled for about 16 years on handling classified material, and who and when and where I could disclose it.

The server alone is enough to indict her in a military court. She'd be fried. She deserves to be treated like the rest of us. There's stuff I STILL can't talk about. But she's free to just wander off on her easily hackable server and get people killed. Justice is apparently only blind based on convenience in this country.

You're trying to sell to the wrong crowd. I know for a fact all the Comm guys on here have clearances. The Sergeant Major had to have one. I had to have one. Now sure how the Coasties do it. We all know the rules. They aren't to be adhered to at your convenience. Just because they aren't telling you you're full of it doesn't mean you aren't. I've kind of come to the conclusion they just won't address you.

Well...I have addressed her - often. Gabby refuses to listen. Let's make it clear, as well.
It would not matter to Issa or Gowdy WHAT political tag a person wears. National Security
violations are dealt with without regard to party, gender, race, religion, age, 'gender identity'.

I know the rules full well and had to live by them daily when in the CG. We had to be at least
Secret to even sit in a chair there, and if you were not Command Center Staff or Command Cadre,
access limited. It's called "Need to Know". I am certain that
the simplified regulations have been posted by ME at least a half-dozen times.

There are certain systems and tools that were at our fingertips in Command Centers that I cannot
talk about, let alone documents and manuals.

[jimnyc]

Well...I have addressed her - often. Gabby refuses to listen.

Refuses to listen?
Can't comprehend?
Just ignorant of FACTS?
Trolling?

There are often things that are simply factual, cannot be argued. She'll then go to the author, or site. You continue with the facts, and she'll veer off into American history. You continue with the facts & you can hear "la la la la la" coming through the speakers and you can actually see her fingers in her ears if you look hard enough.

I vote E, and I think you know what E is. :)

[Elessar]

Refuses to listen?
Can't comprehend?
Just ignorant of FACTS?
Trolling?

There are often things that are simply factual, cannot be argued. She'll then go to the author, or site. You continue with the facts, and she'll veer off into American history. You continue with the facts & you can hear "la la la la la" coming through the speakers and you can actually see her fingers in her ears if you look hard enough.

I vote E, and I think you know what E is. :)

Well....I will reword an old adage: "You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink", into
"You can lead a liberal to FACT, but can't make him THINK".

[Russ]

I am all for indicting Hillary after the election, if there is indeed enough evidence. But any movement before that is electoral subterfuge.

The idea of waiting until after the election it proceed with an indictment is, shall we say, "logically counter-intuitive", not to mention legally wrong.

Legally - Anyone running for office should face the same legal proceeding that any one of us would face. No legal teflon just because you're running for office.

Logically - If (God forbid) Hillary is elected President, her first act, seconds after being sworn in, would be to stop all investigations regarding herself, Bill or her "Foundation". If necessary, she would also pardon herself and Bill for any crimes they've ever committed. Her second act would probably be to launch witch-hunt investigations into Trump, George W. Bush, and FoxNews.

[Black Diamond]

The idea of waiting until after the election it proceed with an indictment is, shall we say, "logically counter-intuitive", not to mention legally wrong.

Legally - Anyone running for office should face the same legal proceeding that any one of us would face. No legal teflon just because you're running for office.

Logically - If (God forbid) Hillary is elected President, her first act, seconds after being sworn in, would be to stop all investigations regarding herself, Bill or her "Foundation". If necessary, she would also pardon herself and Bill for any crimes they've ever committed. Her second act would probably be to launch witch-hunt investigations into Trump, George W. Bush, and FoxNews.

For the left, it's all about a woman's right to brutally murder their babies any extreme way they like. With the Court in the balance, Hillary gives them the best chance to make partial birth abortion legal again.

[jimnyc]

The idea of waiting until after the election it proceed with an indictment is, shall we say, "logically counter-intuitive", not to mention legally wrong.

Legally - Anyone running for office should face the same legal proceeding that any one of us would face. No legal teflon just because you're running for office.

Logically - If (God forbid) Hillary is elected President, her first act, seconds after being sworn in, would be to stop all investigations regarding herself, Bill or her "Foundation". If necessary, she would also pardon herself and Bill for any crimes they've ever committed. Her second act would probably be to launch witch-hunt investigations into Trump, George W. Bush, and FoxNews.

"Please don't indict and point out that I am a proven criminal until after the election, until it's too late".

Sorry, whether or not she violated these laws, WHILE IN OFFICE of course, is EXTREMELY PERTINENT to this election and her trustworthiness to the American people. To try and hide it, put it on the back burner, as if it's just another annoyance to be avoided - that's what Hillary and the left have been doing for years and years. It's time someone forces her to answer for herself, to be held accountable just like everyone else.

[Gunny]

"Please don't indict and point out that I am a proven criminal until after the election, until it's too late".

Sorry, whether or not she violated these laws, WHILE IN OFFICE of course, is EXTREMELY PERTINENT to this election and her trustworthiness to the American people. To try and hide it, put it on the back burner, as if it's just another annoyance to be avoided - that's what Hillary and the left have been doing for years and years. It's time someone forces her to answer for herself, to be held accountable just like everyone else.

Actually, I'd rather them NOT indict her until after the election. I don't want Crazy Joe getting a foot in the door. If she's indicted before then, they hold an open convention and it's fair game. Easier to beat the enemy you know than the one you don't.

By all rights, she should already be in jail. Then we'd know who we were facing. Last thing we need is a last minute walk on kook to deal with. Getting Trump elected is going to be hard enough without helping the other side out. Half the lefties can't stand Hillary. I don't want to give them something to vote for.

[Russ]

Actually, I'd rather them NOT indict her until after the election. I don't want Crazy Joe getting a foot in the door. If she's indicted before then, they hold an open convention and it's fair game. Easier to beat the enemy you know than the one you don't.

By all rights, she should already be in jail. Then we'd know who we were facing. Last thing we need is a last minute walk on kook to deal with. Getting Trump elected is going to be hard enough without helping the other side out. Half the lefties can't stand Hillary. I don't want to give them something to vote for.

Gunny - do you mean that you'd rather them not indict her until after the convention? I really think that if you wait until after the election, then she will get away with it if she's the one who got elected. Of course, if you wait until after the election and she happens to lose the election, then she might get some jail time.

[Elessar]

Russ...this whole thing stands on a knife edge as I see it.

Knowing what I do about classifications and security from my career working
in Secret or Top Secret locations, as well as disclosure of material, documents
and the like, she needs to be held accountable.

This is no political ploy prior to the General Election. Indict her now, and Biden might
swoop in as Gunny says. But Biden suffers from shoe-in-mouth disease.

Wait until after the Election, and watch Obama try to overturn it with a pardon. I think
the Supreme Court would be correct in over-ruling that pardon due to violation of
established Federal Law.

I would opt for prior to the Election...let the blind excuse-makers squirm.

[Gunny]

Gunny - do you mean that you'd rather them not indict her until after the convention? I really think that if you wait until after the election, then she will get away with it if she's the one who got elected. Of course, if you wait until after the election and she happens to lose the election, then she might get some jail time.

I'm playing chess, Russ. I don't want the Dems having an open convention. That lets Biden get his foot in the door. He's a bigger threat than Hillary.

[gabosaurus]

What happens if Trump is convicted for his role in the "Trump University" scam? Does he still get to run?

Like Gunny mentioned, there is a danger if Hillary is removed from the race. The Dems will replace her with a stronger and scandal-free candidate. It won't be Biden.

[Gunny]

What happens if Trump is convicted for his role in the "Trump University" scam? Does he still get to run?

Like Gunny mentioned, there is a danger if Hillary is removed from the race. The Dems will replace her with a stronger and scandal-free candidate. It won't be Biden.

The Dems have no scandal free candidates. That's a joke in and of itself. If they burn Hillary, Biden's the only one tht would have a possibility of winning.

Trump's too far removed from Trump University to get anything on him.

[Elessar]

A bit more on Hillary's stone-walling the investigation, from Newsmax:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-fbi-interview-stalling/2016/06/28/id/736028/?ns_mail_uid=28698617&ns_mail_job=1675735_06282016&s=al&dkt_nbr=hjexyslw

[Kathianne]

The Dems have no scandal free candidates. That's a joke in and of itself. If they burn Hillary, Biden's the only one tht would have a possibility of winning.

Trump's too far removed from Trump University to get anything on him.
If memory serves it's a civil lawsuit, not too far removed.

[Gunny]

If memory serves it's a civil lawsuit, not too far removed.

That IS one thing that really bothers me a bout Trump. He's always threatening lawsuits. That crap needs to stop.

[revelarts]

Seems she should at the least be disqualified from running.
and if she were any other person she'd be getting a lawyer and getting her bags packed for jail.

Some people want Snowden Executed for his docs releases, and want Julian Assange in jail or assassinated. And Bradley Manning former soldier has been in solitary confinement for information that has not exposed anyone to danger.

One FBI guy ,John O'Neill, was worried PRE-911 because he lost an FBI briefcase with NOTHING IN IT that it would cost him promotion. If something is in it he could lose your job.

And General and former CIA Chief Petraeus lost his position and was sentenced to 2 years probation and a $100K fine. But it seems like none of the information was ever made public or went past one person. But others who've done similar have gone to jail.


Hot Air and others have created list of others who've been jailed for mishandling classified info.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/27/mishandling-classified-information-leads-to-jail-time-if-your-name-is-not-clinton/

If Hillary had any honor she'd bow out of the race.
But the Clintons have zero shame.
But then again, she's dodged sniper fire and was named after Sir Edmond Hillary and did not mishandled any files right?

[jimnyc]

What happens if Trump is convicted for his role in the "Trump University" scam? Does he still get to run?

Like Gunny mentioned, there is a danger if Hillary is removed from the race. The Dems will replace her with a stronger and scandal-free candidate. It won't be Biden.

*Last one...

Yes, he still gets to run, but if the evidence is there, he should also face a judge. And just because you don't like it, or some of the students out of thousands didn't like it, it was hardly a scam.

Hillary on the other hand, her crimes are from IN OFFICE, while performing her job, while responding to congress, while responding to the American people, while collecting funds from others AND from foreign entities.

2 completely different things here, apples and oranges - although both deserve to judged properly by a court of law - and neither should be shielded by anyone within the political system (executive branch), the FBI or the DOJ. The only way remotely in hell she walks on this is if someone covers for her. She's 100% guilty as sin.

If Trump is guilty, the courts will get to the bottom of it, and he will be out $$$$$$ in the long run should he lose. It will also play towards his character should he lose.

But what a WORLD of difference. One is responsible for the MINIMUM of the deaths of 2 navy seals & a US ambassador & an information officer. She lied directly to the families. She then lied to the American people about what happened. She and her cronies conspired to control what came out in the media in order to not harm the upcoming election. And yes, before you deny it, it's all in the report. This alone, this one thing should bar her from office AND sit her ass in jail. But then add in her email server and the secret emails that we KNOW OF that has violated the law. And now more and more lies are being revealed - of when she spoke to congress (she lies a lot) and others investigating her server. She lied about what she turned over. This easily should bar her from office as well, and also sit her ass in jail. I can do this for a LONG time about her political career. Trump is a complete angel next to her.

[Kathianne]

That IS one thing that really bothers me a bout Trump. He's always threatening lawsuits. That crap needs to stop.

One thing? :cool: