Strzok Authored Draft of Comey Letter to Congress about Clinton Emails on Weiner Laptop!

[Oldstyle]

It's a "conspiracy theory" when I point out that writing the conclusion to an investigation before you DO the investigation is laughable? Tell me something, Skylar...when you have to do contortions of logic like this...does it hurt your back?

Its not uncommon at all to write drafts as the evidence in the investigation clearly points in a particular direction. And as the FBI reviewed the evidence against Hillary, nothing pointed to criminal charges. If the evidence changes, the drafts would change.

The evidence didn't change. With the IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, in line with both law and precedent.

Ignore as you will.

It's common to write a draft exonerating a suspect before you investigate the suspect? Now THAT is some funny shit, Skylar! Come on...is that the best you've got? Try to provide something with at least a SHRED of common sense in it this time!

They'd been conducting the investigation for a year. All of the evidence pointed in the same direction: No criminal charges. The review of the emails, the inspection of the server, the eye witness testimony, it all pointed to that conclusion: No criminal charges.

Hillary's interview was one of the last things done in the investigation, coming a mere 3 days before the FBI announced its findings. If Hillary had said something incriminating or revealed some new evidence, the draft would have changed. That's why its called a draft. Hillary's interview matches all the other evidence pointed toward: No criminal charges.

And again, the IG found the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on law and precedent. With no evidence that political bias affected any investigative decision.

You're literally ranting that the FBI came to reasonable law and precedent based conclusions. Which is silly.

I'm pointing out that the FBI investigation was a joke!

I'm pointing out that your assessment is explicitly contradicted by Trump's IG.....that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on law and precedent.

With the IG being an infinitely better source on the FBI's investigation than you. As demonstrated elegantly by your wild misinterpretations of the time line:

They started with a conclusion and then held an "investigation" trying to come TO that conclusion! What's laughable is that the only way they could find Hillary Clinton "innocent" was to declare her TOO STUPID to realize that she was breaking the law!

Obviously they didn't. They investigation started in July of 2015. The draft wasn't written until May of 2016.....10 months later, after the bulk of the investigation was complete.

After most of the interviews had been completed, after most of the emails had been reviewed, after the server had been turned over to the FBI and inspected. And all the evidence pointed toward the same conclusion: no criminal charges.

With Hillary's 3 hour interview adding nothing new, nor pointing to any other conclusion than no criminal charges.

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL...now that little rant was amusing! Let me remind you exactly how that "investigation" was conducted by the Obama Justice Department! For starters...The Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed James Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI...not as an investigation but as a "matter"! President Obama then came out in April of that year to declare that Clinton had shown "carelessness" in her handling of her emails but that she had not intended to endanger national security and was therefore not guilty of any crime. Keep in mind that "intent" has nothing to do with guilt when it comes to that crime. Mishandling of classified materials is a crime PERIOD! Your intent is a moot point! Remember that statement by Obama because it will be EXACTLY what Comey subsequently parrots when he testifies to Congress about Clinton's guilt. Comey...supposedly someone with knowledge of the law...suddenly fails to understand what the law IS when it comes to the handling of classified materials! But then again...how can Comey POSSIBLY charge Clinton with a crime for mishandling classified materials when Barack Obama himself was in communication with Clinton (using an alias of course because that's what the Obama Administration DID when they were trying to hide their actions from Congress!) on that same unsecured email server sending classified materials to her! Comey can't find Clinton guilty of endangering national security without finding his boss Barack Obama guilty of the same thing and you KNOW that isn't happening!

So let's review how the "matter" was handled by the Obama Justice Department! It's a textbook example of a white wash. Immunity given to key Clinton aides in return for nothing? Not using Grand Juries to compel evidence? Agreeing to limit searches on computers? Agreeing to the destruction of lap top computers? Failing to charge witnesses that made patently false statements? Allowing subjects of the investigation to act as lawyers for other subjects of investigation so attorney client privilege could be invoked? Not having Clinton testify under oath?

Anyone who has watched the Justice Department and the FBI conduct a REAL investigation into something knows that this was a sham of an investigation! There is a way – a notoriously aggressive way – that the Justice Department and FBI go about their business when they are trying to make a case. Here, they were trying to unmake a case.

 

[Skylar]

Its not uncommon at all to write drafts as the evidence in the investigation clearly points in a particular direction. And as the FBI reviewed the evidence against Hillary, nothing pointed to criminal charges. If the evidence changes, the drafts would change.

The evidence didn't change. With the IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, in line with both law and precedent.

Ignore as you will.

It's common to write a draft exonerating a suspect before you investigate the suspect? Now THAT is some funny shit, Skylar! Come on...is that the best you've got? Try to provide something with at least a SHRED of common sense in it this time!

They'd been conducting the investigation for a year. All of the evidence pointed in the same direction: No criminal charges. The review of the emails, the inspection of the server, the eye witness testimony, it all pointed to that conclusion: No criminal charges.

Hillary's interview was one of the last things done in the investigation, coming a mere 3 days before the FBI announced its findings. If Hillary had said something incriminating or revealed some new evidence, the draft would have changed. That's why its called a draft. Hillary's interview matches all the other evidence pointed toward: No criminal charges.

And again, the IG found the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on law and precedent. With no evidence that political bias affected any investigative decision.

You're literally ranting that the FBI came to reasonable law and precedent based conclusions. Which is silly.

I'm pointing out that the FBI investigation was a joke!

I'm pointing out that your assessment is explicitly contradicted by Trump's IG.....that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on law and precedent.

With the IG being an infinitely better source on the FBI's investigation than you. As demonstrated elegantly by your wild misinterpretations of the time line:

They started with a conclusion and then held an "investigation" trying to come TO that conclusion! What's laughable is that the only way they could find Hillary Clinton "innocent" was to declare her TOO STUPID to realize that she was breaking the law!

Obviously they didn't. They investigation started in July of 2015. The draft wasn't written until May of 2016.....10 months later, after the bulk of the investigation was complete.

After most of the interviews had been completed, after most of the emails had been reviewed, after the server had been turned over to the FBI and inspected. And all the evidence pointed toward the same conclusion: no criminal charges.

With Hillary's 3 hour interview adding nothing new, nor pointing to any other conclusion than no criminal charges.

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL...now that little rant was amusing! Let me remind you exactly how that "investigation" was conducted by the Obama Justice Department! For starters...The Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed James Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI...not as an investigation but as a "matter"!

So your claim that the outcome was decided first at the start of the investigation was proven demonstrably false, with the first 'draft' that you complain about coming near the investigations end, about 6 weeks before the investigation wrapped and 10 months after.

Just obliterating your entire argument. So you completely abandoned the claim and shift your accusations. We'll toss your last nonsense claim on the midden heap and move to the next.

President Obama then came out in April of that year to declare that Clinton had shown "carelessness" in her handling of her emails but that she had not intended to endanger national security and was therefore not guilty of any crime. Keep in mind that "intent" has nothing to do with guilt when it comes to that crime. Mishandling of classified materials is a crime PERIOD!

Keep in mind that you're offering your personal legal assessments of what constitutes a crime is legally meaningless. If you insisting that your legal assessments are evidence is literally your entire argument, you're done. As the FBI's findings trump yours every time:

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With the IG's findings backing Comey's conclusions as reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Smiling.....but you know better, huh?

Your intent is a moot point! Remember that statement by Obama because it will be EXACTLY what Comey subsequently parrots when he testifies to Congress about Clinton's guilt.

Save that he didn't. Obama said she was careless, but that she never endangered national security. Obama never makes any mention about what Clinton 'intended', despite your flagrantly misleading paraphrases to the contrary.

Comey's findings are very different. He makes no differential between various kinds classified information in his legal analysis. Instead, he focuses on if the information was improperly stored in an an intentional or grossly negligent way.

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.

Comey's entire rationale is dissimilar from Obama's, he makes different conclusions, makes none of the distinctions that Obama did on the degree of classification as the basis of his findings, Comey focuses on intent and focuses on precedent in previous cases. Finding no case in which prosecutors brought charges under similar circumstances.

In fact, the only similarity in their statements is the word 'careless'.

And this is why we don't use you for legal analysis.

Comey...supposedly someone with knowledge of the law...suddenly fails to understand what the law IS when it comes to the handling of classified materials! But then again...how can Comey POSSIBLY charge Clinton with a crime for mishandling classified materials when Barack Obama himself was in communication with Clinton (using an alias of course because that's what the Obama Administration DID when they were trying to hide their actions from Congress!) on that same unsecured email server sending classified materials to her!

Simple: Because Obama didn't relay any classified information to Clinton via her email server. Why then would Obama be culpable for anything?

By the absurd standards of your pseudo-legal analysis, anyone who emailed Hillary's server in ANY capacity was 'mishandling classfied materials' ...even if they never sent or received any classified materials to her email. Per your absurd reasoning if Hillary received a coupon from Dominos, Dominos was culpable.

Um, no. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's common to write a draft exonerating a suspect before you investigate the suspect? Now THAT is some funny shit, Skylar! Come on...is that the best you've got? Try to provide something with at least a SHRED of common sense in it this time!

They'd been conducting the investigation for a year. All of the evidence pointed in the same direction: No criminal charges. The review of the emails, the inspection of the server, the eye witness testimony, it all pointed to that conclusion: No criminal charges.

Hillary's interview was one of the last things done in the investigation, coming a mere 3 days before the FBI announced its findings. If Hillary had said something incriminating or revealed some new evidence, the draft would have changed. That's why its called a draft. Hillary's interview matches all the other evidence pointed toward: No criminal charges.

And again, the IG found the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on law and precedent. With no evidence that political bias affected any investigative decision.

You're literally ranting that the FBI came to reasonable law and precedent based conclusions. Which is silly.

I'm pointing out that the FBI investigation was a joke!

I'm pointing out that your assessment is explicitly contradicted by Trump's IG.....that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on law and precedent.

With the IG being an infinitely better source on the FBI's investigation than you. As demonstrated elegantly by your wild misinterpretations of the time line:

They started with a conclusion and then held an "investigation" trying to come TO that conclusion! What's laughable is that the only way they could find Hillary Clinton "innocent" was to declare her TOO STUPID to realize that she was breaking the law!

Obviously they didn't. They investigation started in July of 2015. The draft wasn't written until May of 2016.....10 months later, after the bulk of the investigation was complete.

After most of the interviews had been completed, after most of the emails had been reviewed, after the server had been turned over to the FBI and inspected. And all the evidence pointed toward the same conclusion: no criminal charges.

With Hillary's 3 hour interview adding nothing new, nor pointing to any other conclusion than no criminal charges.

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL...now that little rant was amusing! Let me remind you exactly how that "investigation" was conducted by the Obama Justice Department! For starters...The Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed James Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI...not as an investigation but as a "matter"!

So your claim that the outcome was decided first at the start of the investigation was proven demonstrably false, with the first 'draft' that you complain about coming near the investigations end, about 6 weeks before the investigation wrapped and 10 months after.

Just obliterating your entire argument. So you completely abandoned the claim and shift your accusations. We'll toss your last nonsense claim on the midden heap and move to the next.

President Obama then came out in April of that year to declare that Clinton had shown "carelessness" in her handling of her emails but that she had not intended to endanger national security and was therefore not guilty of any crime. Keep in mind that "intent" has nothing to do with guilt when it comes to that crime. Mishandling of classified materials is a crime PERIOD!

Keep in mind that you're offering your personal legal assessments of what constitutes a crime is legally meaningless. If you insisting that your legal assessments are evidence is literally your entire argument, you're done. As the FBI's findings trump yours every time:

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With the IG's findings backing Comey's conclusions as reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Smiling.....but you know better, huh?

Your intent is a moot point! Remember that statement by Obama because it will be EXACTLY what Comey subsequently parrots when he testifies to Congress about Clinton's guilt.

Save that he didn't. Obama said she was careless, but that she never endangered national security. Obama never makes any mention about what Clinton 'intended', despite your flagrantly misleading paraphrases to the contrary.

Comey's findings are very different. He makes no differential between various kinds classified information in his legal analysis. Instead, he focuses on if the information was improperly stored in an an intentional or grossly negligent way.

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.

Comey's entire rationale is dissimilar from Obama's, he makes different conclusions, makes none of the distinctions that Obama did on the degree of classification as the basis of his findings, Comey focuses on intent and focuses on precedent in previous cases. Finding no case in which prosecutors brought charges under similar circumstances.

In fact, the only similarity in their statements is the word 'careless'.

And this is why we don't use you for legal analysis.

Comey...supposedly someone with knowledge of the law...suddenly fails to understand what the law IS when it comes to the handling of classified materials! But then again...how can Comey POSSIBLY charge Clinton with a crime for mishandling classified materials when Barack Obama himself was in communication with Clinton (using an alias of course because that's what the Obama Administration DID when they were trying to hide their actions from Congress!) on that same unsecured email server sending classified materials to her!

Simple: Because Obama didn't relay any classified information to Clinton via her email server. Why then would Obama be culpable for anything?

By the absurd standards of your pseudo-legal analysis, anyone who emailed Hillary's server in ANY capacity was 'mishandling classfied materials' ...even if they never sent or received any classified materials to her email. Per your absurd reasoning if Hillary received a coupon from Dominos, Dominos was culpable.

Um, no. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you not know that Obama relayed information to Clinton via her illegal email servers...did so using an alias...and that the information on those emails was not made public because they were deemed "sensitive"?

What you on the left refuse to admit is that the "Most Transparent Administration In History!" made a regular practice of exchanging emails on non secure devices and did so using aliases so that what they were doing would be harder to trace?

 

[Oldstyle]

As for what laws Clinton and Obama violated...

"§ 503.59 Safeguarding classified information.
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.

(b) Whenever classified material is removed from a storage facility, such material shall not be left unattended and shall be protected by attaching an appropriate classified document cover sheet to each classified document.

(c) Classified information being transmitted from one Commission office to another shall be protected with a classified document cover sheet and hand delivered by an appropriately cleared person to another appropriately cleared person.

(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:

(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and

(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

(e) The requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information, may be waived for persons who:

(1) Are engaged in historical research projects, or

(2) Previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.

(f) Waivers under paragraph (e) of this section may be granted when the Commission Senior Agency Official:

(1) Determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;

(2) Takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is properly safeguarded; and

(3) Limits the access granted to former presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a presidential appointee.

(g) Persons seeking access to classified information in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must agree in writing:

(1) To be subject to a national security check;

(2) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526; and

(3) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.

(h) Except as authorized by the originating agency, or otherwise provided for by directives issued by the President, the Commission shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency.

(i) Only appropriately cleared personnel may receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for classified material.

(j) Each office which has custody of classified material shall maintain:

(1) A classified document register or log containing a listing of all classified holdings, and

(2) A classified document destruction register or log containing the title and date of all classified documents that have been destroyed.

(k) An inventory of all documents classified higher than confidential shall be made at least annually and whenever there is a change in classified document custodians. The Senior Agency Official shall be notified, in writing, of the results of each inventory.

(l) Reproduced copies of classified documents are subject to the same accountability and controls as the original documents.

(m) Combinations to dial-type locks shall be changed only by persons having an appropriate security clearance, and shall be changed whenever such equipment is placed in use; whenever a person knowing the combination no longer requires access to the combination; whenever a combination has been subject to possible compromise; whenever the equipment is taken out of service; and at least once each year. Records of combinations shall be classified no lower than the highest level of classified information to be stored in the security equipment concerned. One copy of the record of each combination shall be provided to the Senior Agency Official.

(n) Individuals charged with the custody of classified information shall conduct the necessary inspections within their areas to insure adherence to procedural safeguards prescribed to protect classified information. The Commission Senior Agency Official shall conduct periodic inspections to determine if the procedural safeguards prescribed in this subpart are in effect at all times.

(o) Whenever classified material is to be transmitted outside the Commission, the custodian of the classified material shall contact the Commission Senior Agency Official for preparation and receipting instructions. If the material is to be hand carried, the Senior Agency Official shall ensure that the person who will carry the material has the appropriate security clearance, is knowledgeable of safeguarding requirements, and is briefed, if appropriate, concerning restrictions with respect to carrying classified material on commercial carriers.

(p) Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.

(q) Employees of the Commission shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation, if they:

(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders;

(2) Knowingly and willfully classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526 or any implementing directive; or

(3) Knowingly and willfully violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526 or implementing directive.

(r) Any person who discovers or believes that a classified document is lost or compromised shall immediately report the circumstances to his or her supervisor and the Commission Senior Agency Official, who shall conduct an immediate inquiry into the matter.

(s) Questions with respect to the Commission Information Security Program, particularly those concerning the classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of classified information, shall be directed to the Commission Senior Agency Official.

[ 49 FR 44401, Nov. 6, 1984; 49 FR 47395, Dec. 4, 1984, as amended at 64 FR 23548, May 3, 1999; 76 FR 10264, Feb. 24, 2011]

 

[Skylar]

They'd been conducting the investigation for a year. All of the evidence pointed in the same direction: No criminal charges. The review of the emails, the inspection of the server, the eye witness testimony, it all pointed to that conclusion: No criminal charges.

Hillary's interview was one of the last things done in the investigation, coming a mere 3 days before the FBI announced its findings. If Hillary had said something incriminating or revealed some new evidence, the draft would have changed. That's why its called a draft. Hillary's interview matches all the other evidence pointed toward: No criminal charges.

And again, the IG found the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on law and precedent. With no evidence that political bias affected any investigative decision.

You're literally ranting that the FBI came to reasonable law and precedent based conclusions. Which is silly.

I'm pointing out that the FBI investigation was a joke!

I'm pointing out that your assessment is explicitly contradicted by Trump's IG.....that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on law and precedent.

With the IG being an infinitely better source on the FBI's investigation than you. As demonstrated elegantly by your wild misinterpretations of the time line:

They started with a conclusion and then held an "investigation" trying to come TO that conclusion! What's laughable is that the only way they could find Hillary Clinton "innocent" was to declare her TOO STUPID to realize that she was breaking the law!

Obviously they didn't. They investigation started in July of 2015. The draft wasn't written until May of 2016.....10 months later, after the bulk of the investigation was complete.

After most of the interviews had been completed, after most of the emails had been reviewed, after the server had been turned over to the FBI and inspected. And all the evidence pointed toward the same conclusion: no criminal charges.

With Hillary's 3 hour interview adding nothing new, nor pointing to any other conclusion than no criminal charges.

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL...now that little rant was amusing! Let me remind you exactly how that "investigation" was conducted by the Obama Justice Department! For starters...The Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed James Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI...not as an investigation but as a "matter"!

So your claim that the outcome was decided first at the start of the investigation was proven demonstrably false, with the first 'draft' that you complain about coming near the investigations end, about 6 weeks before the investigation wrapped and 10 months after.

Just obliterating your entire argument. So you completely abandoned the claim and shift your accusations. We'll toss your last nonsense claim on the midden heap and move to the next.

President Obama then came out in April of that year to declare that Clinton had shown "carelessness" in her handling of her emails but that she had not intended to endanger national security and was therefore not guilty of any crime. Keep in mind that "intent" has nothing to do with guilt when it comes to that crime. Mishandling of classified materials is a crime PERIOD!

Keep in mind that you're offering your personal legal assessments of what constitutes a crime is legally meaningless. If you insisting that your legal assessments are evidence is literally your entire argument, you're done. As the FBI's findings trump yours every time:

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With the IG's findings backing Comey's conclusions as reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Smiling.....but you know better, huh?

Your intent is a moot point! Remember that statement by Obama because it will be EXACTLY what Comey subsequently parrots when he testifies to Congress about Clinton's guilt.

Save that he didn't. Obama said she was careless, but that she never endangered national security. Obama never makes any mention about what Clinton 'intended', despite your flagrantly misleading paraphrases to the contrary.

Comey's findings are very different. He makes no differential between various kinds classified information in his legal analysis. Instead, he focuses on if the information was improperly stored in an an intentional or grossly negligent way.

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.

Comey's entire rationale is dissimilar from Obama's, he makes different conclusions, makes none of the distinctions that Obama did on the degree of classification as the basis of his findings, Comey focuses on intent and focuses on precedent in previous cases. Finding no case in which prosecutors brought charges under similar circumstances.

In fact, the only similarity in their statements is the word 'careless'.

And this is why we don't use you for legal analysis.

Comey...supposedly someone with knowledge of the law...suddenly fails to understand what the law IS when it comes to the handling of classified materials! But then again...how can Comey POSSIBLY charge Clinton with a crime for mishandling classified materials when Barack Obama himself was in communication with Clinton (using an alias of course because that's what the Obama Administration DID when they were trying to hide their actions from Congress!) on that same unsecured email server sending classified materials to her!

Simple: Because Obama didn't relay any classified information to Clinton via her email server. Why then would Obama be culpable for anything?

By the absurd standards of your pseudo-legal analysis, anyone who emailed Hillary's server in ANY capacity was 'mishandling classfied materials' ...even if they never sent or received any classified materials to her email. Per your absurd reasoning if Hillary received a coupon from Dominos, Dominos was culpable.

Um, no. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you not know that Obama relayed information to Clinton via her illegal email servers...did so using an alias...and that the information on those emails was not made public because they were deemed "sensitive"?

Sensitive....and classified, are two different distinctions. The emails released today by Democrats in the Senate were sensitive. Nothing they released was classified.

And the distinction is what makes your pseudo-legal gibberish such a giggle fest. As you're arguing that Obama is culpable for merely communicating with clinton on her own server. Apparently in any capacity

Which, of course, is nonsense.

I'll add yet another failed claim of yours to the rhetorical midden heap.

 

[Skylar]

As for what laws Clinton and Obama violated...

"§ 503.59 Safeguarding classified information.
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.

(b) Whenever classified material is removed from a storage facility, such material shall not be left unattended and shall be protected by attaching an appropriate classified document cover sheet to each classified document.

(c) Classified information being transmitted from one Commission office to another shall be protected with a classified document cover sheet and hand delivered by an appropriately cleared person to another appropriately cleared person.

(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:

(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and

(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

(e) The requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information, may be waived for persons who:

(1) Are engaged in historical research projects, or

(2) Previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.

(f) Waivers under paragraph (e) of this section may be granted when the Commission Senior Agency Official:

(1) Determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;

(2) Takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is properly safeguarded; and

(3) Limits the access granted to former presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a presidential appointee.

(g) Persons seeking access to classified information in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must agree in writing:

(1) To be subject to a national security check;

(2) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526; and

(3) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.

(h) Except as authorized by the originating agency, or otherwise provided for by directives issued by the President, the Commission shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency.

(i) Only appropriately cleared personnel may receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for classified material.

(j) Each office which has custody of classified material shall maintain:

(1) A classified document register or log containing a listing of all classified holdings, and

(2) A classified document destruction register or log containing the title and date of all classified documents that have been destroyed.

(k) An inventory of all documents classified higher than confidential shall be made at least annually and whenever there is a change in classified document custodians. The Senior Agency Official shall be notified, in writing, of the results of each inventory.

(l) Reproduced copies of classified documents are subject to the same accountability and controls as the original documents.

(m) Combinations to dial-type locks shall be changed only by persons having an appropriate security clearance, and shall be changed whenever such equipment is placed in use; whenever a person knowing the combination no longer requires access to the combination; whenever a combination has been subject to possible compromise; whenever the equipment is taken out of service; and at least once each year. Records of combinations shall be classified no lower than the highest level of classified information to be stored in the security equipment concerned. One copy of the record of each combination shall be provided to the Senior Agency Official.

(n) Individuals charged with the custody of classified information shall conduct the necessary inspections within their areas to insure adherence to procedural safeguards prescribed to protect classified information. The Commission Senior Agency Official shall conduct periodic inspections to determine if the procedural safeguards prescribed in this subpart are in effect at all times.

(o) Whenever classified material is to be transmitted outside the Commission, the custodian of the classified material shall contact the Commission Senior Agency Official for preparation and receipting instructions. If the material is to be hand carried, the Senior Agency Official shall ensure that the person who will carry the material has the appropriate security clearance, is knowledgeable of safeguarding requirements, and is briefed, if appropriate, concerning restrictions with respect to carrying classified material on commercial carriers.

(p) Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.

(q) Employees of the Commission shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation, if they:

(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders;

(2) Knowingly and willfully classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526 or any implementing directive; or

(3) Knowingly and willfully violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526 or implementing directive.

(r) Any person who discovers or believes that a classified document is lost or compromised shall immediately report the circumstances to his or her supervisor and the Commission Senior Agency Official, who shall conduct an immediate inquiry into the matter.

(s) Questions with respect to the Commission Information Security Program, particularly those concerning the classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of classified information, shall be directed to the Commission Senior Agency Official.

[ 49 FR 44401, Nov. 6, 1984; 49 FR 47395, Dec. 4, 1984, as amended at 64 FR 23548, May 3, 1999; 76 FR 10264, Feb. 24, 2011]

Says you, laughably citing yourself as a legal authority. The same hapless soul that offered us the 'Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.

Comey and the FBI on the other hand contradict you explicitly.

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With Trump's IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on both law and precedent.

With either source trumping you every time. And both making your pseudo-legal assertions rather adorable.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm pointing out that the FBI investigation was a joke!

I'm pointing out that your assessment is explicitly contradicted by Trump's IG.....that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on law and precedent.

With the IG being an infinitely better source on the FBI's investigation than you. As demonstrated elegantly by your wild misinterpretations of the time line:

They started with a conclusion and then held an "investigation" trying to come TO that conclusion! What's laughable is that the only way they could find Hillary Clinton "innocent" was to declare her TOO STUPID to realize that she was breaking the law!

Obviously they didn't. They investigation started in July of 2015. The draft wasn't written until May of 2016.....10 months later, after the bulk of the investigation was complete.

After most of the interviews had been completed, after most of the emails had been reviewed, after the server had been turned over to the FBI and inspected. And all the evidence pointed toward the same conclusion: no criminal charges.

With Hillary's 3 hour interview adding nothing new, nor pointing to any other conclusion than no criminal charges.

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL...now that little rant was amusing! Let me remind you exactly how that "investigation" was conducted by the Obama Justice Department! For starters...The Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed James Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI...not as an investigation but as a "matter"!

So your claim that the outcome was decided first at the start of the investigation was proven demonstrably false, with the first 'draft' that you complain about coming near the investigations end, about 6 weeks before the investigation wrapped and 10 months after.

Just obliterating your entire argument. So you completely abandoned the claim and shift your accusations. We'll toss your last nonsense claim on the midden heap and move to the next.

President Obama then came out in April of that year to declare that Clinton had shown "carelessness" in her handling of her emails but that she had not intended to endanger national security and was therefore not guilty of any crime. Keep in mind that "intent" has nothing to do with guilt when it comes to that crime. Mishandling of classified materials is a crime PERIOD!

Keep in mind that you're offering your personal legal assessments of what constitutes a crime is legally meaningless. If you insisting that your legal assessments are evidence is literally your entire argument, you're done. As the FBI's findings trump yours every time:

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With the IG's findings backing Comey's conclusions as reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Smiling.....but you know better, huh?

Your intent is a moot point! Remember that statement by Obama because it will be EXACTLY what Comey subsequently parrots when he testifies to Congress about Clinton's guilt.

Save that he didn't. Obama said she was careless, but that she never endangered national security. Obama never makes any mention about what Clinton 'intended', despite your flagrantly misleading paraphrases to the contrary.

Comey's findings are very different. He makes no differential between various kinds classified information in his legal analysis. Instead, he focuses on if the information was improperly stored in an an intentional or grossly negligent way.

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.

Comey's entire rationale is dissimilar from Obama's, he makes different conclusions, makes none of the distinctions that Obama did on the degree of classification as the basis of his findings, Comey focuses on intent and focuses on precedent in previous cases. Finding no case in which prosecutors brought charges under similar circumstances.

In fact, the only similarity in their statements is the word 'careless'.

And this is why we don't use you for legal analysis.

Comey...supposedly someone with knowledge of the law...suddenly fails to understand what the law IS when it comes to the handling of classified materials! But then again...how can Comey POSSIBLY charge Clinton with a crime for mishandling classified materials when Barack Obama himself was in communication with Clinton (using an alias of course because that's what the Obama Administration DID when they were trying to hide their actions from Congress!) on that same unsecured email server sending classified materials to her!

Simple: Because Obama didn't relay any classified information to Clinton via her email server. Why then would Obama be culpable for anything?

By the absurd standards of your pseudo-legal analysis, anyone who emailed Hillary's server in ANY capacity was 'mishandling classfied materials' ...even if they never sent or received any classified materials to her email. Per your absurd reasoning if Hillary received a coupon from Dominos, Dominos was culpable.

Um, no. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you not know that Obama relayed information to Clinton via her illegal email servers...did so using an alias...and that the information on those emails was not made public because they were deemed "sensitive"?

Sensitive....and classified, are two different distinctions. The emails released today by Democrats in the Senate were sensitive. Nothing they released was classified.

And the distinction is what makes your pseudo-legal gibberish such a giggle fest. As you're arguing that Obama is culpable for merely communicating with clinton on her own server. Apparently in any capacity

Which, of course, is nonsense.

I'll add yet another failed claim of yours to the rhetorical midden heap.

We won't ever know what Obama communicated to Clinton on her private servers, Skylar because Obama invoked Executive Privilege to keep that secret. We do however know that Clinton routinely communicated classified information through those two private unsecured servers hidden in her house and hid the existence of those servers from Congressional investigators looking into the Benghazi debacle. We also know that it was routine for many members of the Obama White House to use aliases and private email accounts to conduct government business so that Congress was kept in the dark about what they were doing! Barack Obama used an alias. Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA used an alias. Kathleen Sebelius used an alias. Eric Holder used an alias. Donald Berwick, head of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid used an alias. Garry Cohen, Deputy Administrator for ACA implementation used an alias. Lois Lerner used an alias.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for what laws Clinton and Obama violated...

"§ 503.59 Safeguarding classified information.
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.

(b) Whenever classified material is removed from a storage facility, such material shall not be left unattended and shall be protected by attaching an appropriate classified document cover sheet to each classified document.

(c) Classified information being transmitted from one Commission office to another shall be protected with a classified document cover sheet and hand delivered by an appropriately cleared person to another appropriately cleared person.

(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:

(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and

(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

(e) The requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information, may be waived for persons who:

(1) Are engaged in historical research projects, or

(2) Previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.

(f) Waivers under paragraph (e) of this section may be granted when the Commission Senior Agency Official:

(1) Determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;

(2) Takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is properly safeguarded; and

(3) Limits the access granted to former presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a presidential appointee.

(g) Persons seeking access to classified information in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must agree in writing:

(1) To be subject to a national security check;

(2) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526; and

(3) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.

(h) Except as authorized by the originating agency, or otherwise provided for by directives issued by the President, the Commission shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency.

(i) Only appropriately cleared personnel may receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for classified material.

(j) Each office which has custody of classified material shall maintain:

(1) A classified document register or log containing a listing of all classified holdings, and

(2) A classified document destruction register or log containing the title and date of all classified documents that have been destroyed.

(k) An inventory of all documents classified higher than confidential shall be made at least annually and whenever there is a change in classified document custodians. The Senior Agency Official shall be notified, in writing, of the results of each inventory.

(l) Reproduced copies of classified documents are subject to the same accountability and controls as the original documents.

(m) Combinations to dial-type locks shall be changed only by persons having an appropriate security clearance, and shall be changed whenever such equipment is placed in use; whenever a person knowing the combination no longer requires access to the combination; whenever a combination has been subject to possible compromise; whenever the equipment is taken out of service; and at least once each year. Records of combinations shall be classified no lower than the highest level of classified information to be stored in the security equipment concerned. One copy of the record of each combination shall be provided to the Senior Agency Official.

(n) Individuals charged with the custody of classified information shall conduct the necessary inspections within their areas to insure adherence to procedural safeguards prescribed to protect classified information. The Commission Senior Agency Official shall conduct periodic inspections to determine if the procedural safeguards prescribed in this subpart are in effect at all times.

(o) Whenever classified material is to be transmitted outside the Commission, the custodian of the classified material shall contact the Commission Senior Agency Official for preparation and receipting instructions. If the material is to be hand carried, the Senior Agency Official shall ensure that the person who will carry the material has the appropriate security clearance, is knowledgeable of safeguarding requirements, and is briefed, if appropriate, concerning restrictions with respect to carrying classified material on commercial carriers.

(p) Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.

(q) Employees of the Commission shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation, if they:

(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders;

(2) Knowingly and willfully classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526 or any implementing directive; or

(3) Knowingly and willfully violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526 or implementing directive.

(r) Any person who discovers or believes that a classified document is lost or compromised shall immediately report the circumstances to his or her supervisor and the Commission Senior Agency Official, who shall conduct an immediate inquiry into the matter.

(s) Questions with respect to the Commission Information Security Program, particularly those concerning the classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of classified information, shall be directed to the Commission Senior Agency Official.

[ 49 FR 44401, Nov. 6, 1984; 49 FR 47395, Dec. 4, 1984, as amended at 64 FR 23548, May 3, 1999; 76 FR 10264, Feb. 24, 2011]

Says you, laughably citing yourself as a legal authority. The same hapless soul that offered us the 'Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.

Comey and the FBI on the other hand contradict you explicitly.

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With Trump's IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on both law and precedent.

With either source trumping you every time. And both making your pseudo-legal assertions rather adorable.

I show you the Federal statute that Clinton violated and you claim that's me claiming to be a legal authority? I'm sorry but the law is the law. James Comey's bumbling explanation to Congress why what Clinton did wasn't a violation of those statutes was an embarrassing display that he was rightfully mocked for!

Clinton did indeed willfully and intentionally mishandle classified material and did so on a scale that was massive! She displayed intent when she hid what she was doing from Congressional investigators and then destroyed evidence when she realized that they were onto her!

 

[Skylar]

I'm pointing out that your assessment is explicitly contradicted by Trump's IG.....that found that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on law and precedent.

With the IG being an infinitely better source on the FBI's investigation than you. As demonstrated elegantly by your wild misinterpretations of the time line:

Obviously they didn't. They investigation started in July of 2015. The draft wasn't written until May of 2016.....10 months later, after the bulk of the investigation was complete.

After most of the interviews had been completed, after most of the emails had been reviewed, after the server had been turned over to the FBI and inspected. And all the evidence pointed toward the same conclusion: no criminal charges.

With Hillary's 3 hour interview adding nothing new, nor pointing to any other conclusion than no criminal charges.

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

LOL...now that little rant was amusing! Let me remind you exactly how that "investigation" was conducted by the Obama Justice Department! For starters...The Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed James Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI...not as an investigation but as a "matter"!

So your claim that the outcome was decided first at the start of the investigation was proven demonstrably false, with the first 'draft' that you complain about coming near the investigations end, about 6 weeks before the investigation wrapped and 10 months after.

Just obliterating your entire argument. So you completely abandoned the claim and shift your accusations. We'll toss your last nonsense claim on the midden heap and move to the next.

President Obama then came out in April of that year to declare that Clinton had shown "carelessness" in her handling of her emails but that she had not intended to endanger national security and was therefore not guilty of any crime. Keep in mind that "intent" has nothing to do with guilt when it comes to that crime. Mishandling of classified materials is a crime PERIOD!

Keep in mind that you're offering your personal legal assessments of what constitutes a crime is legally meaningless. If you insisting that your legal assessments are evidence is literally your entire argument, you're done. As the FBI's findings trump yours every time:

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With the IG's findings backing Comey's conclusions as reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Smiling.....but you know better, huh?

Your intent is a moot point! Remember that statement by Obama because it will be EXACTLY what Comey subsequently parrots when he testifies to Congress about Clinton's guilt.

Save that he didn't. Obama said she was careless, but that she never endangered national security. Obama never makes any mention about what Clinton 'intended', despite your flagrantly misleading paraphrases to the contrary.

Comey's findings are very different. He makes no differential between various kinds classified information in his legal analysis. Instead, he focuses on if the information was improperly stored in an an intentional or grossly negligent way.

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.

Comey's entire rationale is dissimilar from Obama's, he makes different conclusions, makes none of the distinctions that Obama did on the degree of classification as the basis of his findings, Comey focuses on intent and focuses on precedent in previous cases. Finding no case in which prosecutors brought charges under similar circumstances.

In fact, the only similarity in their statements is the word 'careless'.

And this is why we don't use you for legal analysis.

Comey...supposedly someone with knowledge of the law...suddenly fails to understand what the law IS when it comes to the handling of classified materials! But then again...how can Comey POSSIBLY charge Clinton with a crime for mishandling classified materials when Barack Obama himself was in communication with Clinton (using an alias of course because that's what the Obama Administration DID when they were trying to hide their actions from Congress!) on that same unsecured email server sending classified materials to her!

Simple: Because Obama didn't relay any classified information to Clinton via her email server. Why then would Obama be culpable for anything?

By the absurd standards of your pseudo-legal analysis, anyone who emailed Hillary's server in ANY capacity was 'mishandling classfied materials' ...even if they never sent or received any classified materials to her email. Per your absurd reasoning if Hillary received a coupon from Dominos, Dominos was culpable.

Um, no. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you not know that Obama relayed information to Clinton via her illegal email servers...did so using an alias...and that the information on those emails was not made public because they were deemed "sensitive"?

Sensitive....and classified, are two different distinctions. The emails released today by Democrats in the Senate were sensitive. Nothing they released was classified.

And the distinction is what makes your pseudo-legal gibberish such a giggle fest. As you're arguing that Obama is culpable for merely communicating with clinton on her own server. Apparently in any capacity

Which, of course, is nonsense.

I'll add yet another failed claim of yours to the rhetorical midden heap.

We won't ever know what Obama communicated to Clinton on her private servers, Skylar because Obama invoked Executive Privilege to keep that secret.

So with zero evidence that anything that Obama sent her was 'classified', you imagine it was and then draw a nested series of pseudo-legal gibberish conclusions?

Um, no.

Obama only would have been culpable if he'd sent or received classified information. And there is no evidence that he did.

This thread is a wasteland of nonsense claims based on your imagination.

We do however know that Clinton routinely communicated classified information through those two private unsecured servers hidden in her house and hid the existence of those servers from Congressional investigators looking into the Benghazi debacle.

No, we don't 'know' that. You keep mistaking your imagination for knowldge.

Out of literally tens of thousands of emails, there were a few dozen that contained classified information. And those were almost entirely forwarded to Hillary without classification markings. You're offering us a conspiracy theory backed by jack shit as your entire basis of reasoning.

Your imagination is not a standard of evidence. Nor is your baseless insinuation.

Is that literally all you've got? Bullshit claims like "they started with their conclusion before the investigation" or the "Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.....and then you just abandon it and come up with brand new conspiracy batshit?

If so, that was easy.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...now that little rant was amusing! Let me remind you exactly how that "investigation" was conducted by the Obama Justice Department! For starters...The Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed James Comey to refer to the investigation into Hillary Clinton by the FBI...not as an investigation but as a "matter"!

So your claim that the outcome was decided first at the start of the investigation was proven demonstrably false, with the first 'draft' that you complain about coming near the investigations end, about 6 weeks before the investigation wrapped and 10 months after.

Just obliterating your entire argument. So you completely abandoned the claim and shift your accusations. We'll toss your last nonsense claim on the midden heap and move to the next.

President Obama then came out in April of that year to declare that Clinton had shown "carelessness" in her handling of her emails but that she had not intended to endanger national security and was therefore not guilty of any crime. Keep in mind that "intent" has nothing to do with guilt when it comes to that crime. Mishandling of classified materials is a crime PERIOD!

Keep in mind that you're offering your personal legal assessments of what constitutes a crime is legally meaningless. If you insisting that your legal assessments are evidence is literally your entire argument, you're done. As the FBI's findings trump yours every time:

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With the IG's findings backing Comey's conclusions as reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Smiling.....but you know better, huh?

Your intent is a moot point! Remember that statement by Obama because it will be EXACTLY what Comey subsequently parrots when he testifies to Congress about Clinton's guilt.

Save that he didn't. Obama said she was careless, but that she never endangered national security. Obama never makes any mention about what Clinton 'intended', despite your flagrantly misleading paraphrases to the contrary.

Comey's findings are very different. He makes no differential between various kinds classified information in his legal analysis. Instead, he focuses on if the information was improperly stored in an an intentional or grossly negligent way.

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.

Comey's entire rationale is dissimilar from Obama's, he makes different conclusions, makes none of the distinctions that Obama did on the degree of classification as the basis of his findings, Comey focuses on intent and focuses on precedent in previous cases. Finding no case in which prosecutors brought charges under similar circumstances.

In fact, the only similarity in their statements is the word 'careless'.

And this is why we don't use you for legal analysis.

Comey...supposedly someone with knowledge of the law...suddenly fails to understand what the law IS when it comes to the handling of classified materials! But then again...how can Comey POSSIBLY charge Clinton with a crime for mishandling classified materials when Barack Obama himself was in communication with Clinton (using an alias of course because that's what the Obama Administration DID when they were trying to hide their actions from Congress!) on that same unsecured email server sending classified materials to her!

Simple: Because Obama didn't relay any classified information to Clinton via her email server. Why then would Obama be culpable for anything?

By the absurd standards of your pseudo-legal analysis, anyone who emailed Hillary's server in ANY capacity was 'mishandling classfied materials' ...even if they never sent or received any classified materials to her email. Per your absurd reasoning if Hillary received a coupon from Dominos, Dominos was culpable.

Um, no. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you not know that Obama relayed information to Clinton via her illegal email servers...did so using an alias...and that the information on those emails was not made public because they were deemed "sensitive"?

Sensitive....and classified, are two different distinctions. The emails released today by Democrats in the Senate were sensitive. Nothing they released was classified.

And the distinction is what makes your pseudo-legal gibberish such a giggle fest. As you're arguing that Obama is culpable for merely communicating with clinton on her own server. Apparently in any capacity

Which, of course, is nonsense.

I'll add yet another failed claim of yours to the rhetorical midden heap.

We won't ever know what Obama communicated to Clinton on her private servers, Skylar because Obama invoked Executive Privilege to keep that secret.

So with zero evidence that anything that Obama sent her was 'classified', you imagine it was and then draw a nested series of pseudo-legal gibberish conclusions?

Um, no.

Obama only would have been culpable if he'd sent or received classified information. And there is no evidence that he did.

This thread is a was

[quto
We do however know that Clinton routinely communicated classified information through those two private unsecured servers hidden in her house and hid the existence of those servers from Congressional investigators looking into the Benghazi debacle.

No, we don't 'know' that. You keep mistaking your imagination for knowldge.

Out of literally tens of thousands of emails, there were a few dozen that contained classified information. And those were almost entirely forwarded to Hillary without classification markings. You're offering us a conspiracy theory backed by jack shit as your entire basis of reasoning.

Your imagination is not a standard of evidence. Nor is your baseless insinuation.

Is that literally all you've got? Bullshit claims like "they started with their conclusion before the investigation" or the "Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.....and then you just abandon it and come up with brand new conspiracy batshit?

If so, that was easy.

Obama is "culpable" if he's communicating official government business with anyone in his administration through private email accounts! He claims not to have known what Clinton was doing...running the State Department through private email accounts...yet he himself sent her emails at those accounts and did so using an alias.

 

[Skylar]

As for what laws Clinton and Obama violated...

"§ 503.59 Safeguarding classified information.
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.

(b) Whenever classified material is removed from a storage facility, such material shall not be left unattended and shall be protected by attaching an appropriate classified document cover sheet to each classified document.

(c) Classified information being transmitted from one Commission office to another shall be protected with a classified document cover sheet and hand delivered by an appropriately cleared person to another appropriately cleared person.

(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:

(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and

(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

(e) The requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information, may be waived for persons who:

(1) Are engaged in historical research projects, or

(2) Previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.

(f) Waivers under paragraph (e) of this section may be granted when the Commission Senior Agency Official:

(1) Determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;

(2) Takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is properly safeguarded; and

(3) Limits the access granted to former presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a presidential appointee.

(g) Persons seeking access to classified information in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must agree in writing:

(1) To be subject to a national security check;

(2) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526; and

(3) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.

(h) Except as authorized by the originating agency, or otherwise provided for by directives issued by the President, the Commission shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency.

(i) Only appropriately cleared personnel may receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for classified material.

(j) Each office which has custody of classified material shall maintain:

(1) A classified document register or log containing a listing of all classified holdings, and

(2) A classified document destruction register or log containing the title and date of all classified documents that have been destroyed.

(k) An inventory of all documents classified higher than confidential shall be made at least annually and whenever there is a change in classified document custodians. The Senior Agency Official shall be notified, in writing, of the results of each inventory.

(l) Reproduced copies of classified documents are subject to the same accountability and controls as the original documents.

(m) Combinations to dial-type locks shall be changed only by persons having an appropriate security clearance, and shall be changed whenever such equipment is placed in use; whenever a person knowing the combination no longer requires access to the combination; whenever a combination has been subject to possible compromise; whenever the equipment is taken out of service; and at least once each year. Records of combinations shall be classified no lower than the highest level of classified information to be stored in the security equipment concerned. One copy of the record of each combination shall be provided to the Senior Agency Official.

(n) Individuals charged with the custody of classified information shall conduct the necessary inspections within their areas to insure adherence to procedural safeguards prescribed to protect classified information. The Commission Senior Agency Official shall conduct periodic inspections to determine if the procedural safeguards prescribed in this subpart are in effect at all times.

(o) Whenever classified material is to be transmitted outside the Commission, the custodian of the classified material shall contact the Commission Senior Agency Official for preparation and receipting instructions. If the material is to be hand carried, the Senior Agency Official shall ensure that the person who will carry the material has the appropriate security clearance, is knowledgeable of safeguarding requirements, and is briefed, if appropriate, concerning restrictions with respect to carrying classified material on commercial carriers.

(p) Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.

(q) Employees of the Commission shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation, if they:

(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders;

(2) Knowingly and willfully classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526 or any implementing directive; or

(3) Knowingly and willfully violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526 or implementing directive.

(r) Any person who discovers or believes that a classified document is lost or compromised shall immediately report the circumstances to his or her supervisor and the Commission Senior Agency Official, who shall conduct an immediate inquiry into the matter.

(s) Questions with respect to the Commission Information Security Program, particularly those concerning the classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of classified information, shall be directed to the Commission Senior Agency Official.

[ 49 FR 44401, Nov. 6, 1984; 49 FR 47395, Dec. 4, 1984, as amended at 64 FR 23548, May 3, 1999; 76 FR 10264, Feb. 24, 2011]

Says you, laughably citing yourself as a legal authority. The same hapless soul that offered us the 'Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.

Comey and the FBI on the other hand contradict you explicitly.

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With Trump's IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on both law and precedent.

With either source trumping you every time. And both making your pseudo-legal assertions rather adorable.

I show you the Federal statute that Clinton violated and you claim that's me claiming to be a legal authority?

You show me a list of federal statutes that you CLAIM Clinton violated. With you as your legal source. You keep offering us your legal assessments as some sort of evidence. And you're nobody. You insisting it was a violation is meaningless.

Meanwhile, we have actual law enforcement officers making reasonable legal judgements based on both the law and precedent. And they contradict you explicitly. First, the FBI with its legal findings that Clinton did nothing worthy of criminal charges. And second with the IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on both the law and precedent.

But you know better, huh?

Um, no.

 

[Skylar]

So your claim that the outcome was decided first at the start of the investigation was proven demonstrably false, with the first 'draft' that you complain about coming near the investigations end, about 6 weeks before the investigation wrapped and 10 months after.

Just obliterating your entire argument. So you completely abandoned the claim and shift your accusations. We'll toss your last nonsense claim on the midden heap and move to the next.

Keep in mind that you're offering your personal legal assessments of what constitutes a crime is legally meaningless. If you insisting that your legal assessments are evidence is literally your entire argument, you're done. As the FBI's findings trump yours every time:

With the IG's findings backing Comey's conclusions as reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Smiling.....but you know better, huh?
Save that he didn't. Obama said she was careless, but that she never endangered national security. Obama never makes any mention about what Clinton 'intended', despite your flagrantly misleading paraphrases to the contrary.

Comey's findings are very different. He makes no differential between various kinds classified information in his legal analysis. Instead, he focuses on if the information was improperly stored in an an intentional or grossly negligent way.

Comey's entire rationale is dissimilar from Obama's, he makes different conclusions, makes none of the distinctions that Obama did on the degree of classification as the basis of his findings, Comey focuses on intent and focuses on precedent in previous cases. Finding no case in which prosecutors brought charges under similar circumstances.

In fact, the only similarity in their statements is the word 'careless'.

And this is why we don't use you for legal analysis.

Simple: Because Obama didn't relay any classified information to Clinton via her email server. Why then would Obama be culpable for anything?

By the absurd standards of your pseudo-legal analysis, anyone who emailed Hillary's server in ANY capacity was 'mishandling classfied materials' ...even if they never sent or received any classified materials to her email. Per your absurd reasoning if Hillary received a coupon from Dominos, Dominos was culpable.

Um, no. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you not know that Obama relayed information to Clinton via her illegal email servers...did so using an alias...and that the information on those emails was not made public because they were deemed "sensitive"?

Sensitive....and classified, are two different distinctions. The emails released today by Democrats in the Senate were sensitive. Nothing they released was classified.

And the distinction is what makes your pseudo-legal gibberish such a giggle fest. As you're arguing that Obama is culpable for merely communicating with clinton on her own server. Apparently in any capacity

Which, of course, is nonsense.

I'll add yet another failed claim of yours to the rhetorical midden heap.

We won't ever know what Obama communicated to Clinton on her private servers, Skylar because Obama invoked Executive Privilege to keep that secret.

So with zero evidence that anything that Obama sent her was 'classified', you imagine it was and then draw a nested series of pseudo-legal gibberish conclusions?

Um, no.

Obama only would have been culpable if he'd sent or received classified information. And there is no evidence that he did.

This thread is a was

[quto
We do however know that Clinton routinely communicated classified information through those two private unsecured servers hidden in her house and hid the existence of those servers from Congressional investigators looking into the Benghazi debacle.

No, we don't 'know' that. You keep mistaking your imagination for knowldge.

Out of literally tens of thousands of emails, there were a few dozen that contained classified information. And those were almost entirely forwarded to Hillary without classification markings. You're offering us a conspiracy theory backed by jack shit as your entire basis of reasoning.

Your imagination is not a standard of evidence. Nor is your baseless insinuation.

Is that literally all you've got? Bullshit claims like "they started with their conclusion before the investigation" or the "Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.....and then you just abandon it and come up with brand new conspiracy batshit?

If so, that was easy.

Obama is "culpable" if he's communicating official government business with anyone in his administration through private email accounts!

Says who?

Again, you keep making these pseudo-legal assertions backed by jack shit. Assertions you have no evidence to support. By your own admission, you have no idea what was in Obama's emails.

But from that starting place of pristine ignorance, you're going to tell us that you know better than both the FBI and the Inspector General on what constitutes a legal violation for Obama?

I'm sorry.....but your delusions of legal expertise aren't evidence. They're an excuse for it.

 

[Oldstyle]

What are you babbling on about "Dominoes coupons"? I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about with that...do you?

 

[Skylar]

What are you babbling on about "Dominoes coupons"? I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about with that...do you?

As you've condemned Obama for merely emailing Hillary's private server...in any capacity. When he would have only been guilty of a legal violation if he'd sent classified information.

Yet in the pseudo-legal wasteland of your mind, merely sending an Email to Hillary void of any classified content makes Obama 'legally culpable'. By that absurdity, Domino's would be equally 'culpable' for sending her a coupon for $5 dollar medium one topping pies.

Alas, your pseudo-legal analysis is gloriously irrelevant to the actual law or precedent. As demonstrated elegantly by the findings of both the FBI and the Inspector General.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for what laws Clinton and Obama violated...

"§ 503.59 Safeguarding classified information.
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.

(b) Whenever classified material is removed from a storage facility, such material shall not be left unattended and shall be protected by attaching an appropriate classified document cover sheet to each classified document.

(c) Classified information being transmitted from one Commission office to another shall be protected with a classified document cover sheet and hand delivered by an appropriately cleared person to another appropriately cleared person.

(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:

(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and

(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

(e) The requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information, may be waived for persons who:

(1) Are engaged in historical research projects, or

(2) Previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.

(f) Waivers under paragraph (e) of this section may be granted when the Commission Senior Agency Official:

(1) Determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;

(2) Takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is properly safeguarded; and

(3) Limits the access granted to former presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a presidential appointee.

(g) Persons seeking access to classified information in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must agree in writing:

(1) To be subject to a national security check;

(2) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526; and

(3) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.

(h) Except as authorized by the originating agency, or otherwise provided for by directives issued by the President, the Commission shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency.

(i) Only appropriately cleared personnel may receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for classified material.

(j) Each office which has custody of classified material shall maintain:

(1) A classified document register or log containing a listing of all classified holdings, and

(2) A classified document destruction register or log containing the title and date of all classified documents that have been destroyed.

(k) An inventory of all documents classified higher than confidential shall be made at least annually and whenever there is a change in classified document custodians. The Senior Agency Official shall be notified, in writing, of the results of each inventory.

(l) Reproduced copies of classified documents are subject to the same accountability and controls as the original documents.

(m) Combinations to dial-type locks shall be changed only by persons having an appropriate security clearance, and shall be changed whenever such equipment is placed in use; whenever a person knowing the combination no longer requires access to the combination; whenever a combination has been subject to possible compromise; whenever the equipment is taken out of service; and at least once each year. Records of combinations shall be classified no lower than the highest level of classified information to be stored in the security equipment concerned. One copy of the record of each combination shall be provided to the Senior Agency Official.

(n) Individuals charged with the custody of classified information shall conduct the necessary inspections within their areas to insure adherence to procedural safeguards prescribed to protect classified information. The Commission Senior Agency Official shall conduct periodic inspections to determine if the procedural safeguards prescribed in this subpart are in effect at all times.

(o) Whenever classified material is to be transmitted outside the Commission, the custodian of the classified material shall contact the Commission Senior Agency Official for preparation and receipting instructions. If the material is to be hand carried, the Senior Agency Official shall ensure that the person who will carry the material has the appropriate security clearance, is knowledgeable of safeguarding requirements, and is briefed, if appropriate, concerning restrictions with respect to carrying classified material on commercial carriers.

(p) Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.

(q) Employees of the Commission shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation, if they:

(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders;

(2) Knowingly and willfully classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526 or any implementing directive; or

(3) Knowingly and willfully violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526 or implementing directive.

(r) Any person who discovers or believes that a classified document is lost or compromised shall immediately report the circumstances to his or her supervisor and the Commission Senior Agency Official, who shall conduct an immediate inquiry into the matter.

(s) Questions with respect to the Commission Information Security Program, particularly those concerning the classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of classified information, shall be directed to the Commission Senior Agency Official.

[ 49 FR 44401, Nov. 6, 1984; 49 FR 47395, Dec. 4, 1984, as amended at 64 FR 23548, May 3, 1999; 76 FR 10264, Feb. 24, 2011]

Says you, laughably citing yourself as a legal authority. The same hapless soul that offered us the 'Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.

Comey and the FBI on the other hand contradict you explicitly.

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With Trump's IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on both law and precedent.

With either source trumping you every time. And both making your pseudo-legal assertions rather adorable.

I show you the Federal statute that Clinton violated and you claim that's me claiming to be a legal authority?

You show me a list of federal statutes that you CLAIM Clinton violated. With you as your legal source. You keep offering us your legal assessments as some sort of evidence. And you're nobody. You insisting it was a violation is meaningless.

Meanwhile, we have actual law enforcement officers making reasonable legal judgements based on both the law and precedent. And they contradict you explicitly. First, the FBI with its legal findings that Clinton did nothing worthy of criminal charges. And second with the IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on both the law and precedent.

But you know better, huh?

Um, no.

We have "actual law enforcement officers" who were blatantly ignoring violations of Federal law in order to protect Hillary Clinton! James Comey's explanation on why Clinton wasn't charged with violating those laws was tortured and anyone who watched him deliver it...KNOWS that! She broke the law and should have been charged. She wasn't because she was protected by Barack Obama, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzak. The FBI investigation into Clinton was a sham.

As for precedent in this case? Show me another case that involved a Secretary of State running the State Department through private email servers to avoid Congressional scrutiny! Show me another case where the person under investigation destroyed tens of thousands of pieces of evidence that they knew investigators were asking for! Show me another case where high ranking members of the FBI and the Justice Department politicized their offices like what happened here!

 

[Oldstyle]

What are you babbling on about "Dominoes coupons"? I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about with that...do you?

As you've condemned Obama for merely emailing Hillary's private server...in any capacity. When he would have only been guilty of a legal violation if he'd sent classified information.

Yet in the pseudo-legal wasteland of your mind, merely sending an Email to Hillary void of any classified content makes Obama 'legally culpable'. By that absurdity, Domino's would be equally 'culpable' for sending her a coupon for $5 dollar medium one topping pies.

Alas, your pseudo-legal analysis is gloriously irrelevant to the actual law or precedent. As demonstrated elegantly by the findings of both the FBI and the Inspector General.

Did Dominoes send the coupon using an alias so that nobody would know that it was them doing the sending? Did Dominoes then claim not to know that the email address they sent the coupon to even existed?

 

[Oldstyle]

Stupid analogy...I mean REALLY stupid!

 

[Skylar]

As for what laws Clinton and Obama violated...

"§ 503.59 Safeguarding classified information.
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.

(b) Whenever classified material is removed from a storage facility, such material shall not be left unattended and shall be protected by attaching an appropriate classified document cover sheet to each classified document.

(c) Classified information being transmitted from one Commission office to another shall be protected with a classified document cover sheet and hand delivered by an appropriately cleared person to another appropriately cleared person.

(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:

(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and

(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

(e) The requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information, may be waived for persons who:

(1) Are engaged in historical research projects, or

(2) Previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.

(f) Waivers under paragraph (e) of this section may be granted when the Commission Senior Agency Official:

(1) Determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;

(2) Takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is properly safeguarded; and

(3) Limits the access granted to former presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a presidential appointee.

(g) Persons seeking access to classified information in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must agree in writing:

(1) To be subject to a national security check;

(2) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526; and

(3) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.

(h) Except as authorized by the originating agency, or otherwise provided for by directives issued by the President, the Commission shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency.

(i) Only appropriately cleared personnel may receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for classified material.

(j) Each office which has custody of classified material shall maintain:

(1) A classified document register or log containing a listing of all classified holdings, and

(2) A classified document destruction register or log containing the title and date of all classified documents that have been destroyed.

(k) An inventory of all documents classified higher than confidential shall be made at least annually and whenever there is a change in classified document custodians. The Senior Agency Official shall be notified, in writing, of the results of each inventory.

(l) Reproduced copies of classified documents are subject to the same accountability and controls as the original documents.

(m) Combinations to dial-type locks shall be changed only by persons having an appropriate security clearance, and shall be changed whenever such equipment is placed in use; whenever a person knowing the combination no longer requires access to the combination; whenever a combination has been subject to possible compromise; whenever the equipment is taken out of service; and at least once each year. Records of combinations shall be classified no lower than the highest level of classified information to be stored in the security equipment concerned. One copy of the record of each combination shall be provided to the Senior Agency Official.

(n) Individuals charged with the custody of classified information shall conduct the necessary inspections within their areas to insure adherence to procedural safeguards prescribed to protect classified information. The Commission Senior Agency Official shall conduct periodic inspections to determine if the procedural safeguards prescribed in this subpart are in effect at all times.

(o) Whenever classified material is to be transmitted outside the Commission, the custodian of the classified material shall contact the Commission Senior Agency Official for preparation and receipting instructions. If the material is to be hand carried, the Senior Agency Official shall ensure that the person who will carry the material has the appropriate security clearance, is knowledgeable of safeguarding requirements, and is briefed, if appropriate, concerning restrictions with respect to carrying classified material on commercial carriers.

(p) Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.

(q) Employees of the Commission shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation, if they:

(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders;

(2) Knowingly and willfully classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526 or any implementing directive; or

(3) Knowingly and willfully violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526 or implementing directive.

(r) Any person who discovers or believes that a classified document is lost or compromised shall immediately report the circumstances to his or her supervisor and the Commission Senior Agency Official, who shall conduct an immediate inquiry into the matter.

(s) Questions with respect to the Commission Information Security Program, particularly those concerning the classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of classified information, shall be directed to the Commission Senior Agency Official.

[ 49 FR 44401, Nov. 6, 1984; 49 FR 47395, Dec. 4, 1984, as amended at 64 FR 23548, May 3, 1999; 76 FR 10264, Feb. 24, 2011]

Says you, laughably citing yourself as a legal authority. The same hapless soul that offered us the 'Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.

Comey and the FBI on the other hand contradict you explicitly.

"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."

From Statement of the FBI Director, July 5th, 2016

With Trump's IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable, based on both law and precedent.

With either source trumping you every time. And both making your pseudo-legal assertions rather adorable.

I show you the Federal statute that Clinton violated and you claim that's me claiming to be a legal authority?

You show me a list of federal statutes that you CLAIM Clinton violated. With you as your legal source. You keep offering us your legal assessments as some sort of evidence. And you're nobody. You insisting it was a violation is meaningless.

Meanwhile, we have actual law enforcement officers making reasonable legal judgements based on both the law and precedent. And they contradict you explicitly. First, the FBI with its legal findings that Clinton did nothing worthy of criminal charges. And second with the IG finding that the FBI's conclusions were reasonable and based on both the law and precedent.

But you know better, huh?

Um, no.

We have "actual law enforcement officers" who were blatantly ignoring violations of Federal law in order to protect Hillary Clinton! James Comey's explanation on why Clinton wasn't charged with violating those laws was tortured and anyone who watched him deliver it...KNOWS that!

Yet another piece of conspiracy batshit obliterated by Trump's own IG....finding that there as no evidence that political bias affected any investigative decision. And that the conclusions of the FBI were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Your every piece of pseudo-legal jabber shatters on these simple truths.

 

[Skylar]

"Obama repeatedly guaranteed the White House would not seek to influence a decision by the Justice Department or FBI about whether to prosecute Clinton if they find evidence of wrongdoing.

"I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations," Obama said. "I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line, and always have maintained it."

Sigh....remember the days?

Now we live in an era where Trump actively tries to influence investigations, demands that the AG prosecute his political enemies, and berates the AG for indicting republicans at a time that wasn't politically convenient.

This administration is rotting from the head.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do you not know that Obama relayed information to Clinton via her illegal email servers...did so using an alias...and that the information on those emails was not made public because they were deemed "sensitive"?

Sensitive....and classified, are two different distinctions. The emails released today by Democrats in the Senate were sensitive. Nothing they released was classified.

And the distinction is what makes your pseudo-legal gibberish such a giggle fest. As you're arguing that Obama is culpable for merely communicating with clinton on her own server. Apparently in any capacity

Which, of course, is nonsense.

I'll add yet another failed claim of yours to the rhetorical midden heap.

We won't ever know what Obama communicated to Clinton on her private servers, Skylar because Obama invoked Executive Privilege to keep that secret.

So with zero evidence that anything that Obama sent her was 'classified', you imagine it was and then draw a nested series of pseudo-legal gibberish conclusions?

Um, no.

Obama only would have been culpable if he'd sent or received classified information. And there is no evidence that he did.

This thread is a was

[quto
We do however know that Clinton routinely communicated classified information through those two private unsecured servers hidden in her house and hid the existence of those servers from Congressional investigators looking into the Benghazi debacle.

No, we don't 'know' that. You keep mistaking your imagination for knowldge.

Out of literally tens of thousands of emails, there were a few dozen that contained classified information. And those were almost entirely forwarded to Hillary without classification markings. You're offering us a conspiracy theory backed by jack shit as your entire basis of reasoning.

Your imagination is not a standard of evidence. Nor is your baseless insinuation.

Is that literally all you've got? Bullshit claims like "they started with their conclusion before the investigation" or the "Domino's Coupon' theory of legal culpability.....and then you just abandon it and come up with brand new conspiracy batshit?

If so, that was easy.

Obama is "culpable" if he's communicating official government business with anyone in his administration through private email accounts!

Says who?

Again, you keep making these pseudo-legal assertions backed by jack shit. Assertions you have no evidence to support. By your own admission, you have no idea what was in Obama's emails.

But from that starting place of pristine ignorance, you're going to tell us that you know better than both the FBI and the Inspector General on what constitutes a legal violation for Obama?

I'm sorry.....but your delusions of legal expertise aren't evidence. They're an excuse for it.

Neither the FBI...nor the Inspector General...or myself have any idea what was in Obama's emails! He's protected himself by invoking Executive Privilege on all those communications. That doesn't however change the fact that he was indeed sending emails to an email account that he later claimed he didn't know existed...and he was sending them using an alias! That positively REEKS and you know it!