FBI is wrapping up e-mail investigation with no evidence Clinton willfully violated the law

[leftwinger]

So she gatekeeper what business vs. Personal? WTH? Just trust her. If she used the work tools for work....we would not have to trust her to hand over ALL. try tell your boss, I use my own. When I leave I give back what u need? Sorbanes-Oxley anyone?

 

[TemplarKormac]

30,000 personal emails

Let me stop you right there.

"Personal"

This was a server she used when she was working as Secretary of State. They were not all personal. About 2,079 of them were classified. There was some information that was classified at the time it was originated. In a sample of 40 emails, four were found to have been classified upon generation, according to Intelligence Community Inspector General:

"The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/...ng_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

 

[easyt65]

I trust news reports more than your opinion, Hutch...

 

[easyt65]

Quit doing personal work on work time. Do not ues work tools to do personal. Always a rule. To the guy who said no snooping? Huh? She work for us. We own all info. FOIA.

nope, you don't own all info....personal emails are NOT to be sent to be archived and the rules and regs tell govt workers NOT to send personal work and emails involving personal work to the Govt Archives to be saved.

The problem is that much of what Hillary called 'personal e-mails' turned out to be State Department-related that she never turned in as required by the law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I trust news reports more than your opinion, Hutch...

The news is reporting that a hacker made a statement not that the statement has been verified as true. Learn the difference.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Post up the link that verifies the claim EASILYFOOLED65.

 

[TemplarKormac]

YOU DO KNOW that not one of those deleted 30,000 personal emails that she was legally NOT SUPPOSE to send to the govt archives to be saved per the Rules and Regs, were ALL RECOVERED and are ALL on her server that the FBI got back in August of last year don't you?

I'll give three answers to this response, since I can't quite make out what you were trying to say.

Either you were saying the FBI did not recover any of the 30,000 emails she deleted, or that they had recovered all 30,000 emails from the server. Or that all of the emails existed on the server at the time it was seized.

To the first, I would find that hard to believe. The FBI would be incredibly incompetent if they couldn't recover files from a hard drive.

To the second and third, I know for a fact yes, the FBI did recover 30,000 emails. And? You think this somehow exonerates her? She willfully made an attempt to destroy government property. She deliberately tried to hide the fact she held classified information on an unsecured server.

Now, I can wipe my entire hard drive right now and still be able to recover deleted files from it. These people use military grade file recovery programs to recover deleted files from servers and hard drives, so it would be rather easy for them to. Yes, they were already on the server, but in an unreadable, scrambled form. Recovery programs attempt to reassemble the information contained in a file so it can be read again by the system.

In a nutshell, while files may look "deleted" to you, the information those files contain still exists on the server until they are overwritten by other files/data, and it can be easily recovered. If her IT man knew anything about how file creation/deletion worked, he would have known simply to overwrite the information with superfluous data. That would have made the files irretrievable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.

You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.

Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:

"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”

Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:

"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."

These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.

Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?

Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?

 

[Redfish]

PLEASE show us how laws permitted the Clinton Cabal to set up a hidden server for their private use lacking government oversight and security.

There were no laws in place during Hillarys time at the state dept.making the use of private email servers, and their contents unlawful, in any way, shape or form.

And to this very day, colin powells emails during his time at the state dept during the Bush years, have yet to be produced, nor is there one single repub party member inquiring as to why!

One can only concude, that Hillary is the victim of a witch hunt perpetrated by the Republican party.

the issue is not the server per se. the issue is the failure to properly protect classified data. BTW, the FBI is not the republican party. The FBI works for Obama.

Wrong again! The FBI works for the people, NOT Lame Duck President Obama.

true, but the FBI reports to the AG who is an Obama appointee, so in reality the FBI works for Obama. But if the evidence against Hillary is so strong that the FBI calls for an indictment and Obama stops the DOJ from issuing one, the FBI director and others may go public and stir up a real shit storm.

I believe the Director of the FBI would go public, and possibly resign, if that were too happen.

I agree

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's a question that I believe is critical to any investigation or possible prosecution.
Who at the State Dept is the authority on what is classified material? Who decides?
Everything I have seen on the subject says the SoS or their appointee has that authority.

Who can classify information?
"In the State Department, original classification authority for top secret info goes to the secretary of state or anyone the secretary has said -- in writing -- can do the job. Past examples include: "Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, the Counselor, Assistant Secretaries and equivalents; Chiefs of Mission and U.S. representatives to international organizations."
Secret or classified information is decided on by the secretary and/or a senior agency official, who can give classification power to others in writing as well."

Obama on Hillary Clinton’s emails: ‘There’s classified and then there’s classified.’ How does that work?

Under Executive Order 13256

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

(1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.

Hillary was charged with recognizing and deeming whether or not emails or information was classified when she got them. She had Secret, Top Secret, and SAP information on her server. Including 22 e-mails deemed too damaging to national security by the Department of State to be released. From what I read of the EO, Hillary is only allowed to classify information a lower level, which I assume excludes "Top Secret" and "SAP/SCI" classifications.

One other thing, these emails most likely already held classification labels used by other agencies when she got them. She knew better.

 

[Care4all]

Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.

You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.

Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:

"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”

Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:

"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."

These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.

Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?

Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?

just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...

NOTHING, EVER that is Secret or Top Secret, would be sent via FAX....

IN ADDITION

She, as SOS had the authority to declassify.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.

You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.

Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:

"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”

Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:

"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."

These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.

Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?

Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?

just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...

NOTHING, EVER that is Secret or Top Secret, would be sent via FAX....

IN ADDITION

She, as SOS had the authority to declassify.

Do you even understand what we're talking about here?

 

[easyt65]

Since the FBI has not released its findings or official report the OP's thread title to date is a lie, speculative opinion at best.

Meanwhile the evidence of continued Obama administration / State Dept / DOJ conflict of interest and cover-up is widespread...

 

[Flopper]

CNN Reports FBI Has Found ‘No Criminal Wrongdoing’ in Hillary Clinton Email ‘Investigation’

Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

One the e-mail investigation is over, is will be over for Donald. She will CRUSH HIM IN NOVEMBER! And you Donald supporter will deny you ever supported him. FUNNY!

What is interesting in what this libidiot just said, let me try to give a reason why the vagina candidate will be put in Fort Leavenworth.
While in the military I had to process Top Secret documentation. There were others who worked with me on the process of handling the classified information, marking it, and then giving it to those who would use that information to protect the US. One individual did not willfully violate the law by not marking one Top Secret message, gave it to upper command and that individual ended up in Leavenworth for 5 years. He didn't willfully, but that didn't matter, he BROKE the law. The only crushing the loud mouth enabler will do, is crushing big rocks into little rocks. And you welfare pukes will have to go back to work. ROTFLMAO.....

View attachment 73963

There are two statues involved. One is where you willfully disclose classified information. This is a felony. The other is mishandling classified information which is usually consider a misdemeanor. To prove the accused mishandled the information, the prosecution must show that the accused knowing mishandled the information or was negligent. Both can be difficult to prove, particularly in cases involving electronic transfer. High ranking officials are granted a great deal of latitude in their handling of classified information. For example other secretaries of state have used private email servers and worst which makes prosecution even more difficult.

In most instances, mishandling of classified information would simply result in a loss of security clearance. Not charges. The likelhood are charges are slim to none.

Hillary will be treated the same was Powell and Rice were. Which will infuriate many republicans.

Well, Republicans have been attacking Hillary for 25 years and I doubt this will be the end of it. If she get's elected, there will always be an upcoming Senate or House investigating committee to carry on the fight. From the first day that Hillary stepped into the White House as the first lady, Republicans knew they had a problem. She couldn't just be a good little first lady who tended the rose garden and presided over the ladies tea parties.

 

[deltex1]

The op needs to listen carefully to the remarks of Judge Napolitano on Hillary's willfulness or lack thereof. Willfulness doesn't matter when it comes to handling classified material. Especially when you happen to be the Secretary of State.

 

[easyt65]

Being the Secretary of State does NOT give someone the authority to declassify classified material. Declaring this to be so is dumb as hell and proves you have no clue what you are talking about.

Information is classified based on numerous reasons, to include the information itself and source. The source can either be from technology which can be compromised if released or 'Humint' - human intelligence, as in someone in the field. If information is released while the source is still in the field they could be killed.

Some of the information on her server contained the names and locations of people in the field. This is the info the WH called 'so classified it could not be released in any form or it could cause grave danger to our Natl Security'. Hillary sure as hell didn't have the authority to declassify THAT!

Hillary aides have already told, also, how she ordered them to strip the classification markings off documents and send them via unclass methods, that 'this was not un-common'. Libs keep spewing their talking points while hoping people forget how this was revealed.

People making such dumbass comments, though, about how Hillary can declassify documents have no freaking idea what they are talking about. No one who has had to work around classified info would be dumb enough to make such a comment.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong Flopper....within the Espionage Act is a crime of 'negligence' which does not require an intentional act. Barry has already publicly declared Hillary was negligent...

So Obama actually said the word negligent? Link that chief....

No, Obama's comment in reference to email handling in the state department was “There’s carelessness in terms of managing emails, that she has owned up to it, and she recognizes it” The opposition changed the statement to an accusation by Obama that Hillary was negligent.

 

[Care4all]

Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.

You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.

Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:

"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”

Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:

"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."

These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.

Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?

Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?

just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...

NOTHING, EVER that is Secret or Top Secret, would be sent via FAX....

IN ADDITION

She, as SOS had the authority to declassify.

Do you even understand what we're talking about here?

Sorry, I meant to continue...

The entire State department's email system, State dot gov/state.gov was an UNCLASSIFIED SYSTEM....

The State Dept long before Hillary's appointment to SOS and for ALL previous Secretary of States before her since the gvt began using email, used the UNCLASSIFIED State.gov email for classified messages.... and if there was an FOIA request, they then had a team of people, going through any emails for release on the FOIA request and CLASSIFYING THEM after the fact.

This WAS their procedure. And even if Hillary had used the State.gov email address instead of the clinton email address, BOTH systems were UNCLASSIFIED until FOIA Requests make them release the material.

The secret or top secret info on the State.gov system and her email because someone on the State.gov system forwarded it to her should not have been there because both of these systems are UNCLASSIFIED servers....

Those emails were then investigated and it showed that ALL of them were NOT on the TOP SECRET govt system when her aids were emailing them to each other, then eventually forwarded to her....one of the email chains forwarded to her had been circulated on the State.gov UNCLASSIFIED system for a year, before it was sent to her. Everyone who emailed these top secret/secret emails HAD Top Secret clearance.

So NO ONE took this now classified Top secret/secret information off of the govt's Top Secret system (which btw does NOT connect to the internet or email or the State.gov's system) and illegally put them on to the State.gov unclassified system...that was already determined...the TOP SECRET system dates when info is classified Secret/Top Secret.

 

[easyt65]

Wrong again. In defense of Hillary Clinton, talking about her - calling her by name, Obama declared she had been negligent but did not intentionally do anything illegal...being too stupid to realize there was the section on the Espionage Act regarding 'negligence'. Barry basically declared Hillary to be 'guilty'.

 

[Care4all]

Which is why most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely.

You honestly don't know one way or the other. This bandwagon claim that "most legal experts who've been asked indicate that charges are highly unlikely" is dishonest. It would be more logical to say that legal experts are conflicted on the issue.

Former US Attorney General Micheal Mukasey believes there's warrant for a charge:

"…from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.”

Former Assistant US District Attorney Andrew McCarthy also believes same:

"These attempts to suggest she was unaware of any wrongdoing are likely unavailing. .. The laws against mishandling classified information are prosecution-friendly. For example, it is a felony for one entrusted with classified information not only to communicate it to a person unauthorized to have it, but also to enable its removal from its secure storage facility through gross negligence. It is also a crime to fail to report that information’s improper removal or communication. So is retaining materials containing classified information at an unauthorized location… Secretary Clinton systematically conducted official business on a private unsecure system, and had subordinates do likewise, knowing the nature of their duties made classified communications inevitable."

These are people who have dealt directly with the machinations of US Federal law. They were charged with enforcing it. Not interpreting it via the filter of their political biases.

Then there's Hillary. She claims that she won't be prosecuted for her alleged crimes and misdemeanors. On what legal expertise did she derive such a conclusion?

Then there are "prosecutors" and "law professors" who say likewise. Some of them working under the false notion that none of the emails were classified at the time. As I pointed out to Care4All, that wasn't the case either. The IC IG said definitively that out of a sample of 40 emails his officials received four of them were classified at the time they were originated. Given that, how many more were "classified at the time originated"?

just partisan garbage, telling her top aid, to send her the talking points memo if the secure fax could not be fixed via email was not a violation of her job or anything.... no one sent it because the fax was fixed....email is also a secure connection, and there was nothing top secret in the TALKING POINTS memo...after all, they WERE the Talking Points that she was to use, when TALKING with the media...

NOTHING, EVER that is Secret or Top Secret, would be sent via FAX....

IN ADDITION

She, as SOS had the authority to declassify.

Do you even understand what we're talking about here?

Sorry, I meant to continue...

The entire State department's email system, State dot gov/state.gov was an UNCLASSIFIED SYSTEM....

The State Dept long before Hillary's appointment to SOS and for ALL previous Secretary of States before her since the gvt began using email, used the UNCLASSIFIED State.gov email for classified messages.... and if there was an FOIA request, they then had a team of people, going through any emails for release on the FOIA request and CLASSIFYING THEM after the fact.

This WAS their procedure. And even if Hillary had used the State.gov email address instead of the clinton email address, BOTH systems were UNCLASSIFIED until FOIA Requests make them release the material.

The secret or top secret info on the State.gov system and her email because someone on the State.gov system forwarded it to her should not have been there because both of these systems are UNCLASSIFIED servers....

Those emails were then investigated and it showed that ALL of them were NOT on the TOP SECRET govt system when her aids were emailing them to each other, then eventually forwarded to her....one of the email chains forwarded to her had been circulated on the State.gov UNCLASSIFIED system for a year, before it was sent to her. Everyone who emailed these top secret/secret emails HAD Top Secret clearance.

So NO ONE took this now classified Top secret/secret information off of the govt's Top Secret system (which btw does NOT connect to the internet or email or the State.gov's system) and illegally put them on to the State.gov unclassified system...that was already determined...the TOP SECRET system dates when info is classified Secret/Top Secret.

yes it does.... the SOS and other dept heads have the authority to classify and declassify....

on Top Secret stuff it would take a meeting of the minds...especially from the dept head that did the initial classifying....but up to the 'secret' level, they have this authority....I read this just a few days ago....might have even come from one of your many links, when I followed links from your link.