FBI won't apply the law to Hillary

[Wolfstrike]

she broke the law.

she can't make the claim she had no intent because the State Department told her to stop

the FBI refuses to prosecute her.

people have been jailed for far less.

it's up to the public now.

 

[yiostheoy]

FBI Director James Comey seems to disagree with you.

There was no evil intent by Hillary.

There was no self enrichment.

 

[Wolfstrike]

she can't claim "no intent" she was advised to stop

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

FBI Director James Comey seems to disagree with you.

There was no evil intent by Hillary.

There was no self enrichment.

They told her to stop using her private server after several security lapses.......but she didnt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"FBI won't apply the law to Hillary"

Wrong.

In fact, the law was applied justly and appropriately to Clinton.

In our justice system citizens are presumed to be innocent, the burden rests with the state to find evidence of guilt – and absent such evidence, no indictment is warranted, where in fact the citizen remains innocent.

What you and others on the right advocate is repugnant to our system of justice and the rule of law, what you advocate is exactly what the Framers sought to guard against.

That this must be explained to conservatives comes as no surprise.

 

[Moonglow]

she broke the law.

she can't make the claim she had no intent because the State Department told her to stop

the FBI refuses to prosecute her.

people have been jailed for far less.

it's up to the public now.

The FBI is not in the business of prosecuting anyone..

 

[skye]

Why did the Law was applied to Petraeus and not to the Witch Clinton?

WHY ???????????


Are there two laws in America?????


Are there????

 

[Clementine]

FBI Director James Comey seems to disagree with you.

There was no evil intent by Hillary.

There was no self enrichment.

Intent isn't a requirement to indict. The only thing that matters is that she knowingly put the nation's security at risk by sending and receiving classified emails and she destroyed government emails. The checklist was complete for pressing charges.

Last year, Comey prosecuted a man for the same exact thing.

"FBI Director James Comey stunned millions when he announced that he would not make a criminal referral to the DOJ over Hillary Clinton’s illegal activities with classified emails.

This despite Comey clearly detailing how Hillary broke Federal laws, and lied about it.

Then after whitewashing Clinton completely, Comey went further, actually saying "we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

There’s only one problem: he was lying through his teeth.

Look what was just dug up. Comey convicted a man of doing precisely the same thing as Hillary, just one year ago.

From Zero Hedge:

What is shocking is that the FBI director was clearly ignoring the US code itself, where in Section 793, subsection (f),"Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", it makes it quite clear that intent is not a key consideration in a case like this when deciding to press charges, to wit:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

What is even more shocking is that according to Comey, "we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

Well, we did. Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t @DavidSirota):

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance."




http://toprightnews.com/man-commits-exact-same-crime-as-hillary-clinton-but-look-what-the-fbi-did-to-him/




"There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence."

http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/heres-why-im-delighted-about-the-fbis-verdict-on-hillary

 

[S.J.]

In our justice system citizens are presumed to be innocent, the burden rests with the state to find evidence of guilt – and absent such evidence, no indictment is warranted, where in fact the citizen remains innocent.

That's just it, stupid. There WAS evidence, Comey admitted it, just before he recommended no indictment.

 

[Katzndogz]

Intent is only required when the law requires specific intent. These laws did not. Clinton acted with gross negligence and reckless disregard. Comey gave an excellent analysis of hill's wrongdoing. Then said that no prosecutor would ask for an indictment. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of her innocence. It was enough for the NY Post to claim that the fix is in. Which is something we knew all along.

Those who thought that Comey really said there was no wrongdoing are wrong. They can read the transcript. This is the kind of thing that will percolate for a couple of months before the full effect will be felt.

 

[Clementine]

In our justice system citizens are presumed to be innocent, the burden rests with the state to find evidence of guilt – and absent such evidence, no indictment is warranted, where in fact the citizen remains innocent.

That's just it, stupid. There WAS evidence, Comey admitted it, just before he recommended no indictment.

There is a checklist of things needed to indict. All boxes were checked. They cited no criminal intent as the reason not to charge her, but that has never made a difference in the past. There is no question that Hillary risked national security, possibly was responsible for ruining many efforts to catch terrorists because they were somehow tipped off, she destroyed emails, she lied about sending classified emails, destroying them and failing to follow the law when it came to turning over all communications to the State Dept. when she left. She broke a lot of laws and simply claimed it was a mistake and thought that should end it.

Of course, this is the same FBI that interviewed Mateen twice and found nothing suspicious about him. A gun store owner in Florida thought Mateen was acting suspiciously and refused to sell him ammo or guns, which makes that guy smarter than Obama's FBI.

Last year, Comey pressed charges against a man for doing the exact same thing Hillary did. There was no criminal intent there, either, but the guy was irresponsible with classified information. You just aren't supposed to break any of the rules and it doesn't matter what the reason is for doing it. He was charged, lost his security clearance permanently and paid a fine.

 

[Clementine]

Intent is only required when the law requires specific intent. These laws did not. Clinton acted with gross negligence and reckless disregard. Comey gave an excellent analysis of hill's wrongdoing. Then said that no prosecutor would ask for an indictment. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of her innocence. It was enough for the NY Post to claim that the fix is in. Which is something we knew all along.

Those who thought that Comey really said there was no wrongdoing are wrong. They can read the transcript. This is the kind of thing that will percolate for a couple of months before the full effect will be felt.

He couldn't say the truth, which was even if they had recommended indictment, Lynch would never have approved it and she would have made the FBI look like fools for trying it. They would likely have had their careers ruined for crossing Hillary.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

"FBI won't apply the law to Hillary"

Wrong.

In fact, the law was applied justly and appropriately to Clinton.

In our justice system citizens are presumed to be innocent, the burden rests with the state to find evidence of guilt – and absent such evidence, no indictment is warranted, where in fact the citizen remains innocent.

What you and others on the right advocate is repugnant to our system of justice and the rule of law, what you advocate is exactly what the Framers sought to guard against.

That this must be explained to conservatives comes as no surprise.

You continue to fail.
She is guilty of negligence, and "intent" is not necessary to prosecute.
The powers that be simply have decided to not pursue that avenue.

You have repeatedly posted your mistake, please stop.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The Five Lies Comey Reveals

1. Hillary Never Sent Or Received Classified Emails
On March 10, 2016 Hillary Clinton stated categorically, "I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material. I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

Comey said:

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.

2. Hillary Never Sent Or Received Emails MARKED Classified
At a Las Vegas press conference on August 18th 2015, Clinton said "Whether it was a personal account or a government account, I did not send classified material and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know whether something is."

Comey:

[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.

3. Hillary’s Lawyers Read Every Email While Sorting Personal Correspondence vs Government
Hillary Clinton and her lawyers have long claimed that every email was read to determine whether or not it was work-related or personal.

Clinton press secretary Nick Merrill had told Time Magazine that her attorneys had individually read every email to determine if it was a government document or personal correspondence. "Every one of the more than 60,000 emails were read. Period."

Not so according to Comey.

Comey:

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.

4. Hillary Turned Over All Work-Related Emails To Investigators
Hillary claimed that all of her work-related emails had been turned over to the State Department. "I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department," Clinton claimed in March of 2015.

Comey:

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.

Director Comey also stated that there were some work-related emails that were permanently deleted, and will likely never to be found:

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.

5. Hillary’s Emails Couldn’t Have Been Compromised
Comey:

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.

 

[HUGGY]

Why did the Law was applied to Petraeus and not to the Witch Clinton?

WHY ???????????


Are there two laws in America?????


Are there????

Patreaus admitted he knew he was breaking the law. The 411 he gave his mistress was for a book she was writing.

Clinton didn't gain anything from her careless use of her e-mails.

There were not two different "laws". There were two different situations.

I really dislike the Clintons but just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you have to convict them unless they actually commit a crime. You WANTING her to be convicted is hardly proof she broke the law.

I think it would have been a hoot if the FBI had found something they felt they could prosecute her on. Wouldn't THAT have been an astonishing development?

Here is a plan you can exercise to get back at Hillary: Work your ass off to see trump gets elected. It's really that simple. Stop whining and frigging get busy. She can be beaten. But it won't be with sour grapes. It will be by convincing the majority of American voters that Trump can be trusted. He has said and still says some pretty crazy shit. That works for some people but not the majority. Trump needs to get off his wack job soap box and start acting presidential. He still has time IMHO but he had better do it quick. He needs to be told to think first and speak afterwards. Apparently nobody in his camp has the guts to tell him the truth about winning people over that don't want to hear his bluster.

 

[Searcher44]

I don't like Hillary much. She's proven herself to be a pro-Wall St. oligarch right along with Obama. However you can't indict someone because you find them to be hateful. The right wing have been fomenting this anti-Clinton hatred for decades and are always outraged when these campaigns of hatred don't result in a jailed or impeached Clinton. Fortunately these usually Fox News created campaigns designed to enrage the intellectually challenged sheep-like haters don't carry enough political power to pervert justice and bend it to their will. Now the shepherds of hate should be challenged to explain why Comey, a life long Republican is either complicit in a cover-up or why they have been over-hyping to the point of serial lying about the criminality of Hillary's actions. It's up to the rabid haters to explain their claims of Comey's pro-Clinton conspiracy. Here's a little bio on Comey that has to be explained away before they can attack him like Trump ignominiously attacked that Indiana-born "Mexican" judge.

From Forbes.com:

"FBI Director James B. Comey announced Tuesday morning that the FBI will recommend that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton as a result of the FBI inquiry into her handling of her email while Secretary of State. No doubt Republicans will launch nasty attacks on Comey and Hillary alike. But, for several reasons, the FBI’s decision on Clinton will prove even more powerful on close study.
First, the No. 1 attack will be that Democratic influence, not the merits of Hillary’s position, got the FBI to clear her. But before buying into the notion of Democratic influence on Comey, look at his own record, which is as solidly Republican as they come. He identifies himself as Republican. He served as counsel on the 1996 Republican Senate Whitewater Committee, run by Sen. Al D’Amato, which relentlessly and fiercely excoriated the Clintons.
President George W. Bush appointed him U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, then Bush promoted him to Deputy Attorney General, the second post in Justice. He ran the Department for Bush under John Ashcroft and Alberto Morales. He gave campaign contributions to McCain and Romney. Come on. Does Comey’s Republican background have to be tattooed on him to be accepted?
Second, Comey said “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict her. So, the second attack will be that, somehow, Comey’s judgment is not to be accepted. But, he has one of the finest sets of prosecutorial credentials in the country. In the NY federal prosecution office, he served for many years as a line prosecutor and then supervisor. He took on the tough and high profile cases, from the Gambino crime family to Martha Stewart. As Deputy Attorney General he supervised all — yes all — the nation’s federal prosecutions. To put it differently, his prosecutorial judgment has been refined in scores, if not hundreds, of major decisions. Let a critic with better credentials step forward."

 

[The Professor]

Intent is only required when the law requires specific intent. These laws did not. Clinton acted with gross negligence and reckless disregard. Comey gave an excellent analysis of hill's wrongdoing. Then said that no prosecutor would ask for an indictment. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of her innocence. It was enough for the NY Post to claim that the fix is in. Which is something we knew all along.

Those who thought that Comey really said there was no wrongdoing are wrong. They can read the transcript. This is the kind of thing that will percolate for a couple of months before the full effect will be felt.

I agree.

I think Comey was extremely disingenuous when he said no prosecutor would take the case. There is at least one prosecutor who did bring such charges against a Naval Reservist about a year ago (please see Link #8 above) and what the man was accused of doing pales in comparison to what Hillary did. The evidence against Hillarious Clinton was overwhelming and prosecution would have been a slam-dunk. This is the kind of case that would have an honest prosecutor salivating to get hold of.

I question how Hillary is able to keep her security clearance in the face of her total disregard for the security of highly classified materials and the laws designed to protect them.

 

[Clementine]

I agree.

I think Comey was extremely disingenuous when he said no prosecutor would take the case. There is at least one prosecutor who did bring such charges against a Naval Reservist about a year ago (please see Link #8 above) and what the man was accused of doing pales in comparison to what Hillary did. The evidence against Hillarious Clinton was overwhelming and prosecution would have been a slam-dunk. This is the kind of case that would have an honest prosecutor salivating to get hold of.

I question how Hillary is able to keep her security clearance in the face of her total disregard for the security of highly classified materials and the laws designed to protect them.

Hillary is saying she was too stupid to know she was risking security, too stupid to know that destroying emails was wrong, too stupid to know that hostile countries were likely hacking her emails and too stupid to stop doing it after she was warned. And she was too stupid to figure out how to use the secure State Dept. server.

She's just too stupid to be president.

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[A Perez]

she can't claim "no intent" she was advised to stop

She was advised to stop what exactly?