Well, what I want to know as a taxpayer .... why have the investigation at all? Why spend all that time and all those resources on this investigation?
I don't mean that it is unimportant. It is clearly important.
What i mean is, why spend a ton of money and resources investigating a crime, only to find the exact crime you were worried might have occurred did occur and then do nothing about it? That is basically what he said/did today.
The FACTS that are incontrovertible, detailed by the FBI:
Fact #1. Hillary committed 110 felonies - sending 110 emails marked as classified in 52 different email threads, 7 chains were marked TOP SECRET, on her private email server
Fact #2. The FBI for whatever reason decided to not recommend that she be arrested for these felonies (hint, hint, political corruption)
Fact #3 The FBI cited "intent" as an issue for not indicting her (Um, even my kids in 2nd grade knew that lack of intent is not an excuse for breaking the law)
How do you like them FACTS?
We are all sheep. Regardless who vote for or if OJ or Hillary were guilty
[h=1]FBI’s Comey Makes It Clear: Hillary Clinton Is Above the Law[/h]Is Hillary Clinton innocent? Or did she manage to avoid indictment? The two are not the same, as FBI Director James Comey made clear, even as he decided against recommending that Clinton be prosecuted for mishandling state secrets.
About half the country will now conclude what it has long suspected: the Clintons are above the law. How else to interpret Comey’s announcement?
Comey revealed his decision today, just in time to let Clinton hit the campaign trail with President Obama. And, just days after former president Bill Clinton happened to bump into Justice Department chief Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix. What a happy coincidence — allowing the two old pals to catch up on the joys of grandparenting.
Related: Under Fire, Lynch Removes Herself from Final Decision on Clinton Email
It is difficult not to be cynical about the sequence of events. Unhappily, given the multiple occurrences of corruption in the Obama White House (see: Lois Lerner, Fast & Furious, etc.) and the innumerable scandals that have engulfed the Clintons over several decades, cynicism is quite appropriate.
Let’s consider Comey’s conclusions. Most curious is that he judges Clinton and her aides to have been “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Nonetheless, he declines to prosecute her for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified information, which is a felony. How Clintonian to find airspace between those two standards.
As Comey said, “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.” In other words, Clinton broke the law, but the evidence is not solid enough to indict. Is that the issue? Or were the straight arrow Comey and his FBI deterred by the calamitous political fallout of charging the presumed Democratic nominee for president with a felony.
Related: Extremely Proud to Be an American? Fewer People Say They Are
Most fair-minded people will believe that Clinton purposefully hid her correspondence. It turns out, as Comey noted, that the former secretary of state employed not one personal email server, but several. When she shifted from one to another, large caches of emails disappeared.
Specifically, Comey said, “Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored and decommissioned in various ways.”
The FBI laboriously tried to reassemble much of what was destroyed, with only partial success. Remember that public officials are supposed to preserve their work-related correspondence for posterity; Clinton did not.
That Clinton lied repeatedly about her personal server use is a fact. She said she never sent or received classified information. To the contrary, Comey notes that “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department [from Clinton’s server] 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received…For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.”
In true Clintonian fashion, Hillary would have us believe that classified emails sent to her were “not marked” as such; Comey blows that line out of the water arguing that “even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
Related: Big Winners in the Trump-Clinton Race: Hatred and Voter Disgust
That mishandling such information is against the law is a fact. Comey referenced the “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.”
It is also worrisome; there’s a reason officials are meant to use secure communications systems. As Comey noted: “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the U.S. government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.” At the least, the infractions prove Clinton’s judgment appalling.
Clinton also lied about those 30,000 personal emails she claimed concerned matters such as her yoga classes and Chelsea’s wedding. Comey: “The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain.” Not only did Clinton lie about those emails, in destroying them she broke a law.
Some will draw parallels between Chief Justice John Roberts’ surprising decision to uphold Obamacare and Comey’s decision on Clinton. Both may have decided that it was more important to prevent massive political upheaval than to follow the letter of the law. Comey himself gave us some sense of that, when he said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
Related: Clinton’s VP List May Have Just Gotten a Little Shorter
Individuals, for instance, like Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier, who was indicted recently for taking cell phone pictures of the engine room of his submarine — even though the government agreed he had no intention of sending the photos to anyone. In a case that many contrasted with the Clinton investigation, Saucier was expected to serve several years in prison for having mishandled national defense information.
So Comey let Clinton off the hook, even as he accused her of breaking the law. Let us hope that voters come November do not follow his lead.
[h=1]FBI’s Comey Makes It Clear: Hillary Clinton Is Above the Law[/h]Is Hillary Clinton innocent? Or did she manage to avoid indictment? The two are not the same, as FBI Director James Comey made clear, even as he decided against recommending that Clinton be prosecuted for mishandling state secrets.
About half the country will now conclude what it has long suspected: the Clintons are above the law. How else to interpret Comey’s announcement?
Comey revealed his decision today, just in time to let Clinton hit the campaign trail with President Obama. And, just days after former president Bill Clinton happened to bump into Justice Department chief Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix. What a happy coincidence — allowing the two old pals to catch up on the joys of grandparenting.
Related: Under Fire, Lynch Removes Herself from Final Decision on Clinton Email
It is difficult not to be cynical about the sequence of events. Unhappily, given the multiple occurrences of corruption in the Obama White House (see: Lois Lerner, Fast & Furious, etc.) and the innumerable scandals that have engulfed the Clintons over several decades, cynicism is quite appropriate.
Let’s consider Comey’s conclusions. Most curious is that he judges Clinton and her aides to have been “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Nonetheless, he declines to prosecute her for “gross negligence” in the handling of classified information, which is a felony. How Clintonian to find airspace between those two standards.
As Comey said, “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.” In other words, Clinton broke the law, but the evidence is not solid enough to indict. Is that the issue? Or were the straight arrow Comey and his FBI deterred by the calamitous political fallout of charging the presumed Democratic nominee for president with a felony.
Related: Extremely Proud to Be an American? Fewer People Say They Are
Most fair-minded people will believe that Clinton purposefully hid her correspondence. It turns out, as Comey noted, that the former secretary of state employed not one personal email server, but several. When she shifted from one to another, large caches of emails disappeared.
Specifically, Comey said, “Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored and decommissioned in various ways.”
The FBI laboriously tried to reassemble much of what was destroyed, with only partial success. Remember that public officials are supposed to preserve their work-related correspondence for posterity; Clinton did not.
That Clinton lied repeatedly about her personal server use is a fact. She said she never sent or received classified information. To the contrary, Comey notes that “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department [from Clinton’s server] 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received…For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.”
In true Clintonian fashion, Hillary would have us believe that classified emails sent to her were “not marked” as such; Comey blows that line out of the water arguing that “even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
Related: Big Winners in the Trump-Clinton Race: Hatred and Voter Disgust
That mishandling such information is against the law is a fact. Comey referenced the “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.”
It is also worrisome; there’s a reason officials are meant to use secure communications systems. As Comey noted: “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the U.S. government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.” At the least, the infractions prove Clinton’s judgment appalling.
Clinton also lied about those 30,000 personal emails she claimed concerned matters such as her yoga classes and Chelsea’s wedding. Comey: “The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain.” Not only did Clinton lie about those emails, in destroying them she broke a law.
Some will draw parallels between Chief Justice John Roberts’ surprising decision to uphold Obamacare and Comey’s decision on Clinton. Both may have decided that it was more important to prevent massive political upheaval than to follow the letter of the law. Comey himself gave us some sense of that, when he said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
Related: Clinton’s VP List May Have Just Gotten a Little Shorter
Individuals, for instance, like Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier, who was indicted recently for taking cell phone pictures of the engine room of his submarine — even though the government agreed he had no intention of sending the photos to anyone. In a case that many contrasted with the Clinton investigation, Saucier was expected to serve several years in prison for having mishandled national defense information.
So Comey let Clinton off the hook, even as he accused her of breaking the law. Let us hope that voters come November do not follow his lead.
<header class="articleheader" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.4px;">FBI Proves Hillary Clinton Committed Perjury Before Benghazi Committee
<figure class="figurearticlefeatured" style="margin: 0px;">
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
</figure>by JOEL B. POLLAK5 Jul 20164,440</header>
<form method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data" action="http://www.breitbart.com/newsletter-signup/" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; position: relative;">
</form>
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified under oath before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the State Department.
But on Tuesday, FBI director James Comey revealed that the agency had found “several thousand” work-related emails Clinton had not turned over, including three that included information that had been classified at the time that they had been sent.
Clinton’s testimony, under questioning from committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), was as follows:
7517
16
<figure class="figurearticlefeatured" style="margin: 0px;">
</figure>by JOEL B. POLLAK5 Jul 20164,440</header>
- <input name="input_1" type="text" value="" class="medium" tabindex="1" placeholder="email address" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 36px; margin: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px 73px 0px 10px; width: 310px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; font-style: italic;">
</form>
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified under oath before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the State Department.
But on Tuesday, FBI director James Comey revealed that the agency had found “several thousand” work-related emails Clinton had not turned over, including three that included information that had been classified at the time that they had been sent.
Clinton’s testimony, under questioning from committee chair Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), was as follows:
GOWDY: Let me ask you this. You say that you turned over everything. I don’t get a chance to watch you a lot on television, but when I see you are interviewed, you make a point of saying, I turned over everything.
CLINTON: All my work related emails, yes.
GOWDY: How do you know that?
CLINTON: I know that because there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys, and that is exactly the outcome. We turned over every work related email, in fact, as somebody referred to earlier, we turned over too many.
The State Department and the National Archives said there are 1,246 out of the 30,000-plus that they have already determined did not need to be turned over.
GOWDY: And you have a really…
SANCHEZ: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
GOWDY: … good group of attorneys, which makes me wonder…
SANCHEZ: Chairman, regular order.
GOWDY: … how they missed 15 of them.
CLINTON: Well if you are talking about Mr. Blumenthal, which I assume you are, he had some that I didn’t have, and I had some that he didn’t have. And he — I was under no obligation to make any of his emails available unless I decided they were work related.
And the ones that I decided that were work related I forwarded to the state.gov accounts of the people with whom I worked.
GOWDY: Madam Secretary, is there any question that the 15 that James Cole turned over to us were work related? There’s no ambiguity about that. They were work related.
CLINTON: No. They were from a personal friend, not any official government — not any government official. And they were, I determined on the basis of looking at them, what I thought was work related and what wasn’t. And some I didn’t even have time to read, Mr. Chairman.
GOWDY: So are you telling me the 15…
SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman, regular order.
GOWDY: Are you saying that the 15…
SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman…
GOWDY: I will tell the gentlelady from California that I’m going to take a little extra time, just like everybody else has, and that we can either do it this round, or we can do it next round.
SANCHEZ: May I make a simple inquiry about how many more minutes the chairman plans?
GOWDY: The fewer the interruptions, the quicker I can get done. I’ll put it to you that way. How’s that?
SANCHEZ: OK, just be mindful of the time.
GOWDY: The 15 — my question to you, on the 15, did your lawyers find them and decide that they were not work related or did they not find them?
CLINTON: Well, I don’t know why he had emails I didn’t. And I don’t know why, apparently, I had emails he didn’t. And all I can tell you is that I turned over every work related email in my possession.
Several thousand emails tell a different story.CLINTON: All my work related emails, yes.
GOWDY: How do you know that?
CLINTON: I know that because there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys, and that is exactly the outcome. We turned over every work related email, in fact, as somebody referred to earlier, we turned over too many.
The State Department and the National Archives said there are 1,246 out of the 30,000-plus that they have already determined did not need to be turned over.
GOWDY: And you have a really…
SANCHEZ: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
GOWDY: … good group of attorneys, which makes me wonder…
SANCHEZ: Chairman, regular order.
GOWDY: … how they missed 15 of them.
CLINTON: Well if you are talking about Mr. Blumenthal, which I assume you are, he had some that I didn’t have, and I had some that he didn’t have. And he — I was under no obligation to make any of his emails available unless I decided they were work related.
And the ones that I decided that were work related I forwarded to the state.gov accounts of the people with whom I worked.
GOWDY: Madam Secretary, is there any question that the 15 that James Cole turned over to us were work related? There’s no ambiguity about that. They were work related.
CLINTON: No. They were from a personal friend, not any official government — not any government official. And they were, I determined on the basis of looking at them, what I thought was work related and what wasn’t. And some I didn’t even have time to read, Mr. Chairman.
GOWDY: So are you telling me the 15…
SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman, regular order.
GOWDY: Are you saying that the 15…
SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman…
GOWDY: I will tell the gentlelady from California that I’m going to take a little extra time, just like everybody else has, and that we can either do it this round, or we can do it next round.
SANCHEZ: May I make a simple inquiry about how many more minutes the chairman plans?
GOWDY: The fewer the interruptions, the quicker I can get done. I’ll put it to you that way. How’s that?
SANCHEZ: OK, just be mindful of the time.
GOWDY: The 15 — my question to you, on the 15, did your lawyers find them and decide that they were not work related or did they not find them?
CLINTON: Well, I don’t know why he had emails I didn’t. And I don’t know why, apparently, I had emails he didn’t. And all I can tell you is that I turned over every work related email in my possession.
She violated federal law and should be indicted for risking our national security. Others have served prison terms for doing much less. However, knowing the fix would be in, I have been betting that she wouldn't be brought up on charges. Doesn't make her innocent. Horrible judgment on her part.
Too bad that Bryan Nishimura's last name isnt Clinton... He did exactly what Hillary did... yet A LOT LESS... and he was sentenced!
.
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/pres...removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
SACRAMENTO, CA—Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.
According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.
Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.
This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case.
.
https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/pres...removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
SACRAMENTO, CA—Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.
According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.
Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.
This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case.
They investigated to see if what she did constituted enough to charge her criminally with anything. It didn't, so the investigation is completed. She did lots of stupid stuff, including setting up a Private server in the first place. But there's a difference between doing stupid stuff, acting arrogantly, or committing a crime. She didn't commit a crime,
They investigated to see if what she did constituted enough to charge her criminally with anything. It didn't, so the investigation is completed. She did lots of stupid stuff, including setting up a Private server in the first place. But there's a difference between doing stupid stuff, acting arrogantly, or committing a crime. She didn't commit a crime,
Um, Of course she committed a crime, the details have been iterated in this thread over and over. So, you just magically saying the words "she didn't do it," doesn't
magically change the FACT that she did indeed commit multiple egregious felonies.
