FBI on Clinton

[NJpatbee]

Federal Government information handling and security is the largest part of my career.  It is incomprehensible that Secretary Clinton did not know how to properly handle classified information - everyone including myself receives training on at least an annual basis and the rules are clear.  A suspension at least, probable loss of position, and perhaps criminal charges would occur if Clinton was a Federal Government employee.  The FBI has decided not to press criminal charges based on lack of proven "intent" to violate National Security Regulations, but that has no bearing on her reckless decision to violate standard conduct for her own purposes.  Did she want WikiLeaks to get her emails?  Of course not, but she chose to proceed in spite of the risk.

I have no horse in the race in this unbelievable Presidential election, but Secretary Clinton has demonstrated once again her lack of clear judgement and candor at the highest level, and IMO does not have the character and presence of mind to be President of the United States. 

 

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

Federal Government information handling and security is the largest part of my career.  It is incomprehensible that Secretary Clinton did not know how to properly handle classified information - everyone including myself receives training on at least an annual basis and the rules are clear.  A suspension at least, probable loss of position, and perhaps criminal charges would occur if Clinton was a Federal Government employee.  The FBI has decided not to press criminal charges based on lack of proven "intent" to violate National Security Regulations, but that has no bearing on her reckless decision to violate standard conduct for her own purposes.  Did she want WikiLeaks to get her emails?  Of course not, but she chose to proceed in spite of the risk.

I have no horse in the race in this unbelievable Presidential election, but Secretary Clinton has demonstrated once again her lack of clear judgement and candor at the highest level, and IMO does not have the character and presence of mind to be President of the United States. 

 

Well said and 100% accurate in terms of information handling and security.  

[Valleygolfer]

I guess the higher up on the chain the less trouble you get into....  When I was an Airman security breaches got you locked out of the vault.

[rehmwa]

6 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

Federal Government information handling and security is the largest part of my career.  It is incomprehensible that Secretary Clinton did not know how to properly handle classified information - everyone including myself receives training on at least an annual basis and the rules are clear.  A suspension at least, probable loss of position, and perhaps criminal charges would occur if Clinton was a Federal Government employee.  The FBI has decided not to press criminal charges based on lack of proven "intent" to violate National Security Regulations, but that has no bearing on her reckless decision to violate standard conduct for her own purposes.  Did she want WikiLeaks to get her emails?  Of course not, but she chose to proceed in spite of the risk.

So the FBI said it's not indictable under the legal standard of intent.

So the next step would be administrative corrections by the department in charge.

So......that would fall under the head of the State Department to make it right - ........

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

So the FBI said it's not indictable under the legal standard of intent.

So the next step would be administrative corrections by the department in charge.

So......that would fall under the head of the State Department to make it right - ........

That is what should happen and would happen to any regular person but it won't happen to HRC.  

Without a criminal indictment she's not likely to be considered a national threat and have her security clearance revoked. If she's allowed to run for POTUS and wins she'd just have to take an oath to uphold national security.  

[Gator Hazard]

2 hours ago, rehmwa said:

I'm less upset about not indicting (if intent really is key), but I am upset that there is no administrative reaction.  Upset that people are treated differently in this situation.  Upset that the lefty advocates won't even acknowledge the seriousness of this, even if they still want to support her, the total lack of objectivity on a subject by subject basis is scary.

Not going to jail, but restricted from having any position that requires a security clearance would be very normal in any other case.

This did border on willful disregard.  So we have to decide (since it's now considered unintentional), was she negligent, or stupid, or careless.  I don't think there is any other options.

The thing that bothers me is that she was an attorney. Anyone who thinks she didnt think about and weigh possible consequences and a strategy how she would defend against them is a sucker. She herself as an attorney would say to anyone that ignorance is not a defense to the law. But they say they don't have anything so I guess that is that. I think she is disgusting but I think the same of her opponent and that our system is being viewed by the world as a joke for these two being the best we have to offer. 

[metbid]

4 hours ago, Elmer said:

Name me an incumbent president who did not use Air-Force one to campaign, either for their re-election or campaign for others?

Not my point, I was wondering how taxpayer money can be used for campaigning.

[gregsandiego]

10 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

Did I just hear the FBI director say that if it were anyone other than Clinton they'd probably get charged?

Weirdest press conference ever.

But wait! Didn't the AG say (later) she does reserve the right to weigh in? There's always the chance she'll go with her gut and throw the book at Hillary - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[newtogolf]

4 hours ago, Gator Hazard said:

The thing that bothers me is that she was an attorney. Anyone who thinks she didnt think about and weigh possible consequences and a strategy how she would defend against them is a sucker. She herself as an attorney would say to anyone that ignorance is not a defense to the law. But they say they don't have anything so I guess that is that. I think she is disgusting but I think the same of her opponent and that our system is being viewed by the world as a joke for these two being the best we have to offer. 

It's crony politics, it doesn't matter that they all knew they were being grossly negligent with national security documents, the people responsible for enforcing the laws don't want to prosecute her.  

[saevel25]

20 hours ago, Braivo said:

One week ago: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

Former President Bill Clinton "crosses paths" with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on tarmac. 

Today: Hillary's State Department is accused of being "extremely careless" yet she won't face charges

The investigation was lead by James Comey, Director of the FBI, and former Deputy Attorney General under George W. Bush. 

I doubt Bill had any sway on this. 

There were two reasons why Comey didn't think there should be charges pressed against Clinton, 

1. The lack of evidence that Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intended to break any laws.
2. Prosecutions of similar cases in the past have relied on some combination of elements that were missing in this case: the intentional mishandling of classified information, indications of disloyalty to the United States, and efforts to obstruct justice.

I particularly have issue with the first one. There are countless examples of where people didn't intend to do wrong, or were ignorant of the laws, and still got charged with a crime. 

I could say that I didn't intend to speed, that a lack of awareness caused me to speed, but I am not getting out of that ticket. 

The closest example of intent would be the difference between Manslaughter and Murder. In both instances the person broke a crime. Intent elevates the severity of the punishment. 

 

[NJpatbee]

17 hours ago, rehmwa said:

So the FBI said it's not indictable under the legal standard of intent.

So the next step would be administrative corrections by the department in charge.

So......that would fall under the head of the State Department to make it right - ........

The FBI is recommending that Hillary not be indicted since her intent was not to hurt national security.  That is his opinion but it is clear that her intent was to deceive the Federal Government and she is guilty of intentionally mishandling sensitive information.

A minimum next step would be administrative punishment and not necessarily a correction of the policies and procedures in place which are clear and known by all who handle government information.  She broke the rules intentionally but unintentionally got caught.  It was her clear intent to deceive the Federal Government and by doing so it is likely that she put National Security at risk.  This is a criminal act and is indictable. 

The FBI director made a decision that a prosecutor would have difficulty winning a criminal case against Hillary but it would have been proper to allow the DOJ to make that call since they would have to pursue litigation.  But of course our Attorney General agreed to accept the recommendation of the FBI after her private meeting with Bill Clinton was reported.  What she did not have to do is remove the entire Agency from reviewing the findings of the FBI. 

Let us remember that the FBI Director is appointed by the President and approved by the Congress and is responsible to the Attorney General for the operation of the bureau.  The Attorney General is appointed by the President, a member of the Cabinet, and serves at the pleasure of the President.  Right after the Attorney General's meeting with Bill Clinton and the announcement of the recommendation not to indict Hillary President Obama takes her on a campaign stop using Air Force One.  This is not a conspiracy but has all the signs of blatant disregard for the law and the use political influence.

[Patch]

Just DC politics as usual. Nothing new here. It's the American voters fault for continuing to elect these kinds of law makers. 

[jsgolfer]

I'll bet this gentleman, Bryan Nishimura, would've liked to have been afforded the same charge as HRC.  None.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

An FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.

He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance

[newtogolf]

46 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

I'll bet this gentleman, Bryan Nishimura, would've liked to have been afforded the same charge as HRC.  None.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

An FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.

He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance

Definitely two standards of law, one for the politicians and very wealthy and one for the rest of us.  

[Gunther]

Some are saying this was a master stroke by Comey.  He devasted Crooked Hillary by directly refuting something like 25 lies she told, while showing her to be an inept, feckless leader with no concern for the country.  It falls to Trump and the RNC to capitalize on this and show those who aren't hyper-partisan that she is absolutely unfit to lead anything.  We'll see.

[rehmwa]

21 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Some are saying this was a master stroke by Comey.  He devasted Crooked Hillary by directly refuting something like 25 lies she told, while showing her to be an inept, feckless leader with no concern for the country.  It falls to Trump and the RNC to capitalize on this and show those who aren't hyper-partisan that she is absolutely unfit to lead anything.  We'll see.

Sure - out of 300M voters, how many aren't already partisan or have their minds made up on which of the two is more despicable?

20?  I think at least 20 voters......

[Gunther]

53 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Sure - out of 300M voters, how many aren't already partisan or have their minds made up on which of the two is more despicable?

20?  I think at least 20 voters......

Have you seen the polls?  A good 15-20% remain undecided, which is many millions.

[Elmer]

18 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

I'll bet this gentleman, Bryan Nishimura, would've liked to have been afforded the same charge as HRC.  None.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

An FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.

He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance

That Navy engineer is in no way comparable to Hillary. Stop with the false equivalency!

The Engineer was "downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended."

His INTENT was to down load classified record and material and take it home.

Hillary, like it or not, as Secretary of State simply was careless in her use of an unsecured server.
Part of her job was to send, receive and maintain these emails.
You can not compare Hillary to Petraeus, snowden or this engineer!
Now had Hillary downloaded the classified information and given them to a friend to be used as a coffee table book, you might have a comparison.

but the facts and intent are not the same!

17 hours ago, Gunther said:

Some are saying this was a master stroke by Comey.  He devasted Crooked Hillary by directly refuting something like 25 lies she told, while showing her to be an inept, feckless leader with no concern for the country.  It falls to Trump and the RNC to capitalize on this and show those who aren't hyper-partisan that she is absolutely unfit to lead anything.  We'll see.

Of course on the same day the FBI report broke and what should be a embarrassing news day for Hillary, Trump pee's in his own well by complimenting Saddam