- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
1. 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.
2. Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails.
3. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they (Clinton's lawyers) did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
4. There is evidence that they (Clinton and email associates) were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information...seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received... 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case...All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?
The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Law Involved w/links:
1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101
3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22
NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.
Chew on these facts:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.
We do not see those things here.
Only an intentionally blind person could "not see these things here." (Still typing DONT QUOTE)
Think I'll take the republican head of the FBI's word over an keyboard warrior who fancies himself part of the Internet Bar Association.
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?
The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Law Involved w/links:
1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101
3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22
NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.
For me the FBI proved she lied to the American people. The FBI demonstrated her action and her staff actions was very careless with sensitive documents. Not very deserving of a candidate running for President. Yet, our current President states she is more than qualified. Not telling the truth must be a qualification one must have to be President.
What a mess. Think the American people deserve s do over and throw both Trump and Hilary out for the bid for President.
At the minimum, the case should be presented to a grand jury. Let them decide the level of the crime or its not worth pursuing.
No way can I vote for Hilary. Don't like Trump. Will have to look hard at Johnson.
Of course she should be indicted if only to make her innocence transparent. As it is, we stand to have a President that most people think a criminal.
right. If she had the balls she claims to have, she would insist on a trial to prove her innocence.
The question is simple. Is there enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for violation of various information security laws and/or lying to federal investigators about it?
The following is a list of facts determined by the FBI investigation of her use of a personal email server system to conduct government business:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Law Involved w/links:
1. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
2. 44 U.S. Code § 3101: Records management by agency heads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3101
3. 36 CFR 1236.22: Additional requirements for managing electronic mail records. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1236.22
NOTE: Gross Negligence does not require intent to cause harm. Only what the person was thinking at the time of the activity and/or what a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have done.
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
Right. If she had the balls she claims to have, she would insist on a trial to prove her innocence.
:lamo
You left one off. Remember that she testified before Congress that she did not delete pertinent e-mails, and that she did not have classified content on her e-mail server.
18 U.S.C. § 1001 : US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally - See more at: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 : US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally
"knowingly and willfully."
And...
Some of her e-mails directed that the classification be removed. "knowingly and willfully." is established.
Think I'll take the republican head of the FBI's word over an keyboard warrior who fancies himself part of the Internet Bar Association.
I predicted that a no-bill would drive the right nuts.
Not sure it was a drive...(more of a short chip)...but the essentials came to be.
You guys ought to have the self-respect not to show just how much you are hurting because your hate campaign against Hillary Clinton has fizzled.
You ought really to go back to Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.
I think we should stick with the extremely careless with national security top secrets and other classified documents. Why would we want someone that stupid after years of government service to be our president? That will be pounded home by the VP Trump chooses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?