I believe it is a crime for her to have the emails at this time. All material was to be turned over to STATE upon her exit. Just the fact she still has same is a crime. Secondly, she has the information available to her while she is an employee of the Clinton Foundation. Another crime.
Clinton Foundation is the crime of the century. Clintons write off donations to themselves and then pocket the money. Nothing goes to charity. Fraud was committed when the Clinton Foundation purchased this home server for Hillary. It was written off as an expense yet retained exclusively for the Clintons.
THIS JUST IN U.S. intelligence officials are scrambling to contain damage from potentially hundreds of spy agency secrets in Hillary’s private emails...as questions mount over why DOJ has not yet opened a criminal investigation WRT mishandling mountains of classified information....actions far more egregious than ex-CIA Director David Petraeus.....who was prosecuted, and sentenced to two years probation, and a $100,000 fine.
================================================
Let's ask the NY TIMES about criminal implications of Hillary's emails.
Did the NYT report to its readers that a high government official (particularly the Secy of State) to utilize day to day a non-government computer for communications in the performance of their job is in violation of security laws in dozens of ways?
Did the NYT factor in that emails emanating from Hillary's private server contained classified ntl security data?
Did the NYT bother to determine that the US govt tech system is really fussy----particularly about emails from the US State Dept?
Did the NYT determine that a govt official (particularly the Secy of State) cannot simply buy a brand new computer with licenses and programs and expect to have it certified?
Did the NYT report that US govt officials are required to have a government-purchased computer, set up by the govt, utilizing a CACC card cleared technician?
Did the NYT advise readers that even the calendar of the Secy of State is considered classified information?
Last but not least---would the NYT have been this accommodating if the subject of a story was a Republican?
=============================================
Contact The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 556-7777
Fax: (212) 556-7088 or (212) 556-5830
EMAIL FORM PAGE
https://myaccount.nytimes.com/membercenter/help.html
===============================================
NY TIMES PUBLISHED CLARIFICATION (REPRINT): The Times reported online Thursday night (and in some print editions Friday) that the State Department IG ---and US intelligence agencies had sent a referral to the Justice Department requesting a “criminal investigation” into whether Mrs. Clinton “mishandled sensitive government information” on the email account. That article was based on multiple high-level government sources.
Shortly after the article was published online, however, aides to Mrs. Clinton contacted one reporter to dispute the account. After consultation between editors and reporters, the first paragraph was edited to say the investigation was requested “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled,” rather than into whether Mrs. Clinton herself mishandled information. That type of substantive change should have been noted immediately for readers; instead, a correction was not appended to the article until hours later.
On Friday, another question arose — whether the investigation being sought was a “criminal” inquiry. As other news organizations followed up on The Times’s report, the Justice Department confirmed to them that a “criminal” investigation had been requested. Officials also gave that description again to Times reporters who were rechecking their initial story. But later in the day, the Justice Department and the inspectors general said that the request was not a “criminal referral” but rather a “security referral,” meant to alert the F.B.I. about a potential mishandling of classified information. It was not clear how the discrepancy arose.