+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: FBI refuses to indict Hillary

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,094

    Default FBI refuses to indict Hillary

    FBI Director Comey’s full remarks on Clinton email probe


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.251e404f901e
    http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...760#post432760
    http://christian-identity.net/forum/...4828#post14828
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...4828#post14828



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXs-2RNgBDA

    .


    FBI Director James B. Comey said Tuesday that while Hillary Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” in how they handled emails while she was secretary of state, the bureau would not recommend criminal charges. Here is a transcript of Comey’s prepared remarks released by the FBI:

    Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

    After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

    This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

    I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

    So, first, what we have done:

    The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

    Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

    Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

    I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. 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. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together — to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work — has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

    For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused — or “slack”— space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

    FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

    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.

    This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

    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.”

    I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, 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, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

    It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

    The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

    It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they 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.

    We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

    And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

    Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

    That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we 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.

    For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. 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).

    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.

    Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. 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.

    While not the focus of our investigation, 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.

    With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. 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.

    So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

    In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

    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.

    To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

    As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

    I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

    I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation— including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

    Thank you very much.


    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  2. #2
    Donald Trump's Avatar
    Donald Trump is offline Mean 2 Establishment Republicunts Member Donald Trump is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    28

    Default The System is Rigged for Crooked Hillary

    jew're Fired !!! Republicucks




  3. #3
    Jewdass Knapp's Avatar
    Jewdass Knapp is offline Typpycull LibberToon with a bottomless capacity for self-service Member Jewdass Knapp has a little shameless behaviour in the past
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Living off Tamster the Ailing Hamster
    Posts
    10

    Default Hillary Clinton and Criminal Intent

    Hillary Clinton and Criminal Intent


    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2016/0...al-intent.html
    http://christian-identity.net/forum/...4836#post14836
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...4836#post14836


    A couple of weeks ago, Republican ... er, Libertarian, sort of ... vice-presidential candidate William Weld, a former prosecutor who presumably knows better, tried to give Hillary Clinton a free pass on Servergate:
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by William Weld

    [Y]ou can't indict somebody if there is no evidence of intent, and I don't see it, I don't see any evidence of criminal intent . . .
    .

    This morning, FBI Director James Comey pulled the same shit:
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by James Comey
    [W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information ...
    .

    Clinton is benefiting here from a creative re-definition of "intent" as that word is applied to pretty much everyone else on the planet.

    If I shoot you in the head, the prosecutor isn't going to ask whether or not I read Revised Statute BR-549, Criminal Homicide, and said to myself "hey, I really like violating laws, I think I'll violate that one today!" He's going to ask whether or not I intended to shoot you in the head. If I did, that was criminal intent because it was an intentional action that happened to violate Revised Statute BR-549.

    Secretary Clinton and her colleagues didn't accidentally do the things they did. It's not like she and her staff tripped over the dog, got up off the floor and suddenly realized they had inadvertently set up a private email server and illegally conducted sensitive State Department business on and illegally passed classified information through that server. They did those things on purpose and since those things are against the law they clearly had criminal intent in doing them.

    Just so we're clear about what's going on here:





    UncleTom Jewdass Knapp

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,094

    Default Special Report Former U.S. Attorney: Agents See FBI Chief Comey as a ‘Dirty Cop’

    Special Report -- Former U.S. Attorney: Agents See FBI Chief Comey as a ‘Dirty Cop’

    The FBI in open revolt against a deceitful director.



    http://spectator.org/former-u-s-atto...s-a-dirty-cop/
    http://christian-identity.net/forum/...5358#post15358
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...5358#post15358


    James Comey presides over an FBI in revolt over his leadership, a former U.S. attorney tells The American Spectator, and pursues “paranoid, delusional, and vindictive” measures to prevent negative information leaking out to the public.

    “I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt,” Joseph diGenova tells The American Spectator. “There is a revolt against the director. The people inside the bureau believe the director is a dirty cop. They believe that he threw the [Hillary Clinton email] case. They do not know what he was promised in return. But the people inside the bureau who were involved in the case and who knew about the case are talking to former FBI people expressing their disgust at the conduct of the director.”

    The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton as unanimous rather than unilateral and in part from the bureau’s decision to destroy evidence in the case and grant blanket immunity to Clinton underlings for no possible prosecutorial purpose.

    “There is a consensus among the employees that the director has lost all credibility and that he cannot lead the bureau,” diGenova explains. “They are comparing him to L. Patrick Gray, the disgraced former FBI director who threw Watergate papers into the Potomac River. The resistance to the director has made the agency incapable of action. It has been described to me as a depression within the agency unlike anything that anyone has ever seen within the bureau. The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing.”

    Comey maintained in July that he came to the decision to recommend not indicting Clinton for the inclusion of classified material in 110 emails stored on a private server based on an “entirely apolitical and professional” investigation despite conceding that others in a similar spot would face “consequences” and that “evidence of potential violations” existed. He insisted then, “No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”


    But agents trained to sniff out malfeasance smell something rotten here.

    “When the director said that it was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution, that was a lie,” diGenova points out. “In fact, the people involved in the case were outraged at his decision, which he made by himself. When people realized that he was lying publicly about their role and when they knew he had approved of the destruction of laptops that were subject to congressional subpoena, that flipped the switch.”

    Critics of the FBI and the broader handling of the case by the Justice Department remain skeptical over investigators’ ostensible belief in Clinton’s claim that she “lost” 13 Blackberry devices and did not understand that documents marked “C” meant confidential. Decisions to grant Clinton aide Cheryl Mills attorney-client privilege in a case involving her, to destroy her laptop and with it any evidence desired by Congress, and to limit the investigation’s search to documents from before January 31, 2015 to obstruct any possible obstruction of justice case against Mills also similarly baffled. Direct evidence of Clinton hiding public business on a private server (and thereby making it easier for enemy governments to see what the American government could not) and “bleaching” her hard drive after the story became public presented the FBI clear evidence of wrongdoing. But authorities sought to protect rather than prosecute the malefactors.

    “The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing,” diGenova notes. “The people in the bureau anticipate that there will be subpoenas for their testimony. Comey in a telephone conference with special agents in charge around the country, within the last few days, warned that if they received a phone inquiry about the investigation, or any inquiry about the investigation, they were ordered to report the call and the caller to the director’s office.”

    DiGenova describes such control tactics as something out of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Yet, it’s Hoover’s successor, L. Patrick Gray, who offers the clearest parallel to Comey. As diGenova puts it, “There is a Deep Throat.”

    Agents involved in the case now fear congressional subpoenas thanks to Comey’s head-scratching handling of the case. DiGenova met this week with figures requesting attorneys for FBI officials. The former independent counsel and U.S. attorney affirms his willingness to serve in that capacity and to represent potential whistleblowers.

    “These people are trained to be loyal, honest, and forthright,” diGenova points out. “What [Comey] did was force them to corrupt their oath of office. They have had enough.”



    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    266

    Default How a Gangster Government Functions: The Clinton-Obama-Lynch-Comey Corruptocracy Timeline.

    How a Gangster Government Functions: The Clinton-Obama-Lynch-Comey Corruptocracy Timeline.

    by Matt Bracken



    http://spectator.org/former-u-s-atto...ent-2950625905
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../3478325/posts
    http://christian-identity.net/forum/...5361#post15361
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...5361#post15361



    1999: Loretta Lynch is nominated by President Bill Clinton to be the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

    2001-2010: Lynch is a partner at Hogan and Hartson, the Clinton’s private law firm.

    2002-2003: James Comey is US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

    2003-2005: James Comey is Deputy US Attorney General. 2003-2005: Lynch is also a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    2005-2010: Comey is General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin, which donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Comey is paid millions in salary and bonuses.

    2010: Lynch is nominated by President Obama to again become the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

    2010-2013: Comey is senior counsel of Bridgewater Associates, “the world’s largest macro hedge fund” with $122 billion in assets under management. Paid millions in salary and bonuses.

    2012: Lynch as US Attorney for Eastern District of New York makes a sweetheart deal with the HSBC Bank in their drug-money laundering scandal. Fines equal five weeks profits.

    2013: In March, Comey becomes a director at HSBC Holdings Bank. Paid millions in salary and bonuses.

    2013: In September, Comey is nominated by President Obama to become the Director of the FBI.

    2014: Lynch is nominated by President Obama to become the US Attorney General, replacing the disgraced Eric Holder.

    2016: Lynch holds a secret meeting aboard a Gulfstream jet on the tarmac in Phoenix with ex-President Bill Clinton. A few days later, FBI Director Comey announces there will be no charges against presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Promises made to Lynch and Comey are unknown at this time.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../3478325/posts

    .

    Second To One!!!


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts