• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

FBI director recommends Hillary Clinton not be indicted in email investigation

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,097
8,347
✟400,796.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
DOUBLE STANDARD! Five Americans Obama Jailed For Mishandling Classified Information

http://lidblog.com/double-standard-...ailed-for-mishandling-classified-information/

note especially number 5
Stephen Kim, gave information to a journalist.
Jeffrey Sterling, gave information to a journalist.
Shamai Leibowitz, gave information to a journalist.
John Kiriakou, gave information to a journalist.
Hillary Clinton, used a non-State Department email server.

Maybe it's just me, but in order to claim a double standard shouldn't the fact pattern be similar?
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟66,806.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Stephen Kim, gave information to a journalist.
Jeffrey Sterling, gave information to a journalist.
Shamai Leibowitz, gave information to a journalist.
John Kiriakou, gave information to a journalist.
Hillary Clinton, used a non-State Department email server.

Maybe it's just me, but in order to claim a double standard shouldn't the fact pattern be similar?
you missed one
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy
Upvote 0

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
77
Colville, WA 99114
✟75,813.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
The FBI announcement leaves but one question: Can you say "Hillary landslide" and "Democrat takeover of the House and Senate?" I'm a Republican, but I actually prefer Hillary to Trump. Trump's laughably frequent flipflops and unending mindless snarkiness make him the worst Republican winner in my lifetime.

But I think evangelical Christians have missed the real story: There will never be another Republican president in my lifetime. Trump only won the nomination because of the widespread disillusionment with Republican obstructionism and lack of creative new policies. And America is far more liberal now than it was in the late 20th century. A sufficient number of former swing states are now so solidly in the Democrat fold that there will be an automatic majority of electoral college votes for the Dem presidential candidate for decades to come--and I find that realization depressing!
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,832
7,587
✟747,665.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Stephen Kim, gave information to a journalist.
Jeffrey Sterling, gave information to a journalist.
Shamai Leibowitz, gave information to a journalist.
John Kiriakou, gave information to a journalist.
Hillary Clinton, used a non-State Department email server.

Maybe it's just me, but in order to claim a double standard shouldn't the fact pattern be similar?
No, it means you punish the little people but let the big people go scot free......
 
  • Like
Reactions: PapaZoom
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟66,806.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
You mean the one that didn't result in a conviction? I don't see that one is relevant because if anything it shows a reason why not to prosecute this case.
Thomas Drake was prosecuted. So it's relevant. That he wasn't convicted is what's irrelevant. Drake was former U.S. Govt. officials who was prosecuted and had his life ruined for supposedly mishandling sensitive records during the Obama administration. Drake is a former NSA official and was prosecuted for mishandling classified information.

So, using your own words, the Thomas Drake situation, where he WAS prosecuted "shows a reason why not to prosecute" Hillary. That of course makes no sense. You must have missed that fact.

Also there is this:
The AP reported last July that Naval reservist and engineer Bryan Nishimura, who had been deployed to Afghanistan 2007 and 2008, had pleaded guilty to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices and bringing them back with him to the United States.

The FBI found the classified materials in a search of Nishimura’s home, but found no evidence to suggest he had any intention of distributing them. Nevertheless, his mishandling of classified information cost him $7,500 in fines along with his security clearance, which cannot be reinstated.

I posted this earlier
http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016...-info-cracked-down-on-naval-reservist-anyway/

Hillary should be prosecuted and at least give a grand jury or an able prosecutor a chance to take it to court. As it is, the FBI decided the case itself. And btw, they do so by rewriting the law. The FBI said Hillary did in fact break the law but not intentionally. The statutes say nothing about intent. You break the law, you're guilty. Period. But not if you're one of the protected ones.
 
Upvote 0

HannahT

Newbie
Site Supporter
Apr 9, 2013
6,028
2,423
✟481,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(Shrugs) It seems to me it comes out to legal wording. Being extremely careless, and not intending harm? In this case doesn't qualify as neglect. Neglect is a crime.

In other words, exposing top secret material on her server/email/system that wasn't approved is careless - not neglect. Comey said she did send and receive classified emails, but that is extremely careless. No doubt she didn't intend any harm. They showed she did not hand over all her emails, but intended too...so she did a extremely careless job of combing through them properly. It was neglectful on the part of the government when they didn't inform her that classified and top secret material doesn't need to be marked....in order for it to be classified and top secret. lol possible harm there? Not intentional.

What it really comes down to is if you are a big wig and powerful - either party? You can be extremely careless and say you intended no harm now and in the future.

Just think! If she loses the election? Trump can use the same defense! Awesome sauce! right?!

Just to be clear - I expected this. It doesn't mean I wasn't disappointed. I also don't care for either one of them. Bleck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PapaZoom
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟66,806.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Does it fit the pattern?

No. But then you could have found that out by reading the article yourself. The last one was skipped. Why? I don't know. But it doesn't fit the excuses offered. In fact, it strongly supports my position. Maybe that's why it was ignored.
 
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟66,806.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
(Shrugs) It seems to me it comes out to legal wording. Being extremely careless, and not intending harm? In this case doesn't qualify as neglect. Neglect is a crime.

In other words, exposing top secret material on her server/email/system that wasn't approved is careless - not neglect. Comey said she did send and receive classified emails, but that is extremely careless. No doubt she didn't intend any harm. They showed she did not hand over all her emails, but intended too...so she did a extremely careless job of combing through them properly. It was neglectful on the part of the government when they didn't inform her that classified and top secret material doesn't need to be marked....in order for it to be classified and top secret. lol possible harm there? Not intentional.

What it really comes down to is if you are a big wig and powerful - either party? You can be extremely careless and say you intended no harm now and in the future.

Just think! If she loses the election? Trump can use the same defense! Awesome sauce! right?!

Just to be clear - I expected this. It doesn't mean I wasn't disappointed. I also don't care for either one of them. Bleck!

I'm with you. I don't really care for Trump and I totally can't support Hillary. Trump is preferred but it's like a choice very bad (Hillary) and bad.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess it's one of those "It's a crime because I think it's a crime!!" Not one of those crimes where people actually break any laws sort of crimes? :scratch:
tulc(suspects no one is ever arrested for those sort of crimes) :)

You obviously need to read the statutes governing Clintons gross negligence.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,832
7,587
✟747,665.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

PapaZoom

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2013
4,377
4,392
car
✟66,806.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
" Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. "

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

"The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond."

"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”"

What They Found

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

[So this is the person the Democrats want as the next President. Extremely careless in handling sensitive US classified information.]

[Intent doesn't matter. The law isn't about intent. It's about actions. And she did what she did so that she could avoid the FOIA. So she put the country at risk to avoid FOIA.]

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."

[And of course she knew better. And she lied about all of it]

"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."

"But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

" we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

[The woman is an incompetent idiot]

The entire script here: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
" Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. "

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

"The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond."

"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”"

What They Found

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

[So this is the person the Democrats want as the next President. Extremely careless in handling sensitive US classified information.]

[Intent doesn't matter. The law isn't about intent. It's about actions. And she did what she did so that she could avoid the FOIA. So she put the country at risk to avoid FOIA.]

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."

[And of course she knew better. And she lied about all of it]

"None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."

"But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

" we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

[The woman is an incompetent idiot]

The entire script here: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Clinton is not an idiot.

She is what I always thought she was; someone who doesn't think the rules apply to her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0