Offline
Read the full article at the link.
Criminal behavior, poor judgement, disregard for the law.
FBI found extensive evidence Hillary emails violated federal records laws
Federal laws make it a felony to intentionally conceal, remove or destroy federal records as defined under the Act, punishable with a fine and imprisonment of up to three years. A single conviction also carries a devastating impact for anyone looking to work again in government because the law declares that any violator "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
Accounts from witnesses suggested the efforts to keep Mrs. Clinton's government email communications on a device and server outside the reach of public records laws or congressional oversight were "systemic and intentional" and began as soon as Mrs. Clinton took office in 2009, one source told Circa.
The FBI "indirectly documented hundreds, and likely thousands, of violations of the Records Act," one source with direct knowledge of the FBI's investigation told Circa. Using forensics, the FBI recovered from computer drives and other witnesses about 15,000 emails from Mrs. Clinton's private account that dealt with government business, most that had not been turned over by her or her aides, the sources said.
Offline
The FBI "indirectly documented hundreds, and likely thousands, of violations of the Records Act," one source with direct knowledge of the FBI's investigation told Circa.
indirectly documented hundreds, and likely thousands of violations
one (anonymous) source with direct knowledge of the FBI's investigation told Circa
Well, there's some definitive, verifiable, innuendo that we can all believe.
Last edited by Rongone (9/02/2016 9:17 am)
Offline
How does one indirectly document something?
I guess that is the process that results in you not knowing whether you have found hundreds, thousands, or possibly none of something.
Last edited by Goose (9/02/2016 9:39 am)
Offline
Geez, Common, you gotta admit when a story is published with words and terms like 'witnesses suggested', 'indirectly documented', 'likely thousands', 'a source with knowledge', 'the sources said', etc. one might want a bit more solid evidence and verification.
I'm not saying Clinton is off the hook, but can you imagine a prosecutor trying a case in court using information like that?