Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: FBI recommends no charges to be filed against Clinton

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    https://youtu.be/tC0us-oDSnI

    NBC Host Can’t Take It, Unloads After Hillary Escapes Indictment


    Moments after FBI Director James Comey announced on Tuesday that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, liberal NBC host Andrea Mitchell listed the reasons why Clinton will wind up paying a huge price for her behavior nevertheless.

    “(Hillary) has been saying for more than a year now that she never sent or received anything that was classified at the time, and his (FBI Director James Comey’s) analysis completely disputes that,” Mitchell said, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

    Moreover, Comey is not some right-wing pundit; he’s the director of the FBI and therefore someone all Americans trust, regardless of their own political beliefs. And the fact that someone of such prominence just essentially called Clinton a liar … that’s got to hurt.

    The NBC host then explained how Comey also spoke of Clinton’s recklessness, of how she used a private server to pass “information back and forth to people in the State Department,” of how her server “was likely hacked by hostile actors” and of how “she used her devices overseas.”

    “This is politically very damaging,” Mitchell continued. “Not as damaging as a prosecution obviously …. which could be disabling for a nominee … but the fact is this is a big political hit.”

    A huge political hit indeed, especially considering all that it revealed about Clinton’s true nature — namely her carelessness, her recklessness and her disdain for the truth.

    http://conservativetribune.com/nbc-host-cant-take-it/
    Last edited by artist; 07-06-2016 at 10:59 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

    by Andrew C. McCarthy July 5, 2016 12:45 PM

    There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 1: With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

    Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

    In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require.

    The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense:
    The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing.

    The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

    I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

    It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

    Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today.

    It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

    Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security.

    So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
    Last edited by artist; 07-06-2016 at 11:09 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member European Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    France
    Posts
    4,548
    ‘FBI’s failure to prosecute Clinton is essentially a political coup’

    Published time: 6 Jul, 2016 12:47

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation has basically said the upcoming presidential election belongs to Hillary Clinton, and we really needn’t do much more than wait out the clock until November, former State Department official Peter Van Buren told RT.
    The FBI recommended on Tuesday no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton, despite the confirmation the e-mails she used via an insecure server contained classified data. However, FBI Director James Comey called the Democratic presidential hopeful "extremely careless" for the way she handled confidential information.
    RT: The FBI calls it 'extreme carelessness' on Hillary Clinton's part: 110 e-mails contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. Why is the FBI not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton?
    Peter Van Buren: This is the question that is now on the minds and the lips of pretty much all American citizens. This decision by the FBI is without precedent. Hillary Clinton, by the FBI’s statement, transmitted 110 classified emails over an unclassified system. The system was created by her for her own purposes. Those 110 emails could not have been moved electronically to her system from a classified system and thus had to be retyped by someone. This is obvious intent, this is obvious transmission of classified materials, it is obviously in violation of national security laws. Yet, the FBI recommends no prosecution. The FBI has prosecuted a number of government officials for far lesser infractions and leaves us literally speechless here in the US about how this could possibly be justified.




    FBI recommends no charges against Clinton, but Snowden & others didn’t get off so easy



    RT: What’s behind the FBI’s decision then, in your opinion?

    PVB:
    The only conclusion a rational person could make is that this is politics. We are seeing an election stolen even before the votes are cast. The only thing that really significantly stood between Hillary Clinton and the White House was this email scandal… Donald Trump is a candidate who is running hard against her, but does not enjoy very wide support. Many Americans are frightened by the possibility of his presidency.

    Clinton had one shadow and one shadow only. By the FBI announcing that there will be no criminal prosecution of her, they have basically said the election is hers now, and we really needn’t do much other than wait out the clock until November. This is the equivalent of a coup.

    RT:
    Last week, Bill Clinton met Justice Department Head and Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately, but they claim the e-mail scandal was not discussed. How do you view that?

    PVB:
    It is difficult to accept that. But even if we do take them at their word that they only talked about grandchildren – what kind of level of judgment does that indicate for Attorney General Lynch – that she would do something which had such an extreme appearance of impropriety.

    Let’s take a quick look at the timeline, which is very important. Former [US] President Bill Clinton meets with Loretta Lynch for their grandchildren conversation. Soon after that the FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for three and a half hours. The New York Times then reports that Hillary Clinton is considering Lynch stay on as Attorney General in Hillary’s first term. Soon after that - in less than two days - the FBI processes whatever it learned from Clinton and instantly concludes that she is not indictable. The same day that the FBI makes that announcement, Hillary Clinton and President Obama travel on Air Force One to their very first joint campaign appearance. You cannot say that that can all be reconciled with questions of propriety, with questions of open government. We can’t talk about conspiracy theories, and it is not we don’t need to talk about conspiracy theories. The images alone raise questions that must be answered.

    'FBI is creating a double-standard for Hillary Clinton'


    Coleen Rowley, former FBI agent, whistleblower

    RT: Why is the FBI is not recommending charges for Hillary Clinton?

    Coleen Rowley:
    I think James Comey is splitting hairs when he tries to distinguish reckless, negligent and careless – these are all variations of intent. It is easy to say she didn’t have deliberate intent to be a spy or commit espionage or to willingly allow her e-mail to be hacked into – that is true enough. But the difference between negligence and foreseeable carelessness and recklessness is very much splitting hairs.

    Comey is trying to create a double standard for Clinton because she is so powerful and all likely is ready to be elected president. He is going to go on into that next administration – his term goes for 10 years - and he is a political guy.



    RT: Clinton aside that sets a precedent, doesn’t it?

    CR:
    Yes, and that is another reason why he had to split hairs. He does want to reserve the option of prosecuting whistleblowers in the future. People who do far less than General [David] Petraeus or Hillary Clinton. A person like Tom Drake, for instance, were found to have not even leaked classified information, and was facing 35 years in prison.

    What he is trying to do is to distinguish not only past cases where they have prosecuted, but also trying distinguish future cases where they will prosecute people for telling the truth for having good public benefit and intent, and actually far less dangerous than what Hillary Clinton has already done.

    RT:
    It was almost 2015 when it became publically known that Clinton had used private e-mail for official communications when she was a Secretary of State. Why do you think it has taken so long for the FBI to finally interview Hillary Clinton?

    CR: I worked in the FBI for 24 years and I don’t think this has taken too much time. Actually Comey was rushed. At the tail end he rushed to finish it only three days after going through the motions of interviewing

    Hillary Clinton, and the reason he rushed it in three days – not just to put behind the Clinton scandal, but he wanted to put the Loretta Lynch – Bill Clinton leading scandal behind him. So I think it was the opposite, especially at the end – they rushed to put their conclusions out.

    RT:
    That is unlikely to go away, isn’t it? This meeting that Bill Clinton had with the head of the Justice Department.

    CR:
    Honestly Donald Trump is going to try – obviously that is one of the political tactics he has. I think it is unfortunate that the general public doesn’t pay more attention to the double standard generally. Allowing this powerful elite, connected to banks and corporations, to engage in a legalized form of corruption – that is really the bigger issue here than just this one case…

    ‘FBI’s failure to prosecute Clinton is essentially a political coup’

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    Yes, Hillary Had 'Intent' Under Law. Comey Lied. She Should Be Prosecuted.

    AP Photo/Carlos Osorio

    By:Ben Shapiro July 6, 2016 55 Comments


    On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend obvious felon Hillary Clinton for indictment. His rationale: she didn’t have the requisite “intent” to move forward with a prosecution. Here was Comey’s conclusion:
    Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent…. 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.

    This logic relies on two facts, neither of which is in evidence: first, that the law requires intent; second, that even if the law did require intent, that intent would have to rise to the level of treasonable activity.

    First, and most obviously, as I explained yesterday, that law simply does not require intent. Here is 18 USC 793(f), which Comey explicitly referenced:
    Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
    As former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy points out, Hillary was clearly responsible for “gross negligence,” even by Comey’s admission:

    Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require….The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

    But there’s another problem. Comey says that Hillary did not evidence “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 “efforts to obstruct justice.”

    All three were present here.

    “Intent” for purposes of committing a crime generally does not require intent to commit the final harm (specific intent). It requires intent to commit a criminal act (basic intent). For example, if you threw a rock into a crowd and it killed someone, you would likely be prosecuted for first-degree murder, even though you didn’t have specific intent to kill someone; you’d be guilty thanks to your intent to throw the rock.

    Hillary clearly had intent to mishandle classified information – she did it, set up a private server to do it, and had her lawyers destroy emails on that server. Hillary also exposed vast quantities of material intentionally – that was intentional misconduct. She didn’t have to purposefully expose those materials so that a specific person would access them, as General David Petraeus did. She could just expose them purposely because she believed it was important to do so to protect her own privacy from government discovery. And as to obstruction of justice, Comey himself acknowledged, “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

    Comey clearly didn’t obey the law here. But that was never going to happen. After all, we no longer live in a nation of laws. We live in a nation of Democratic rulers.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/7225/y...campaign=three

  5. #25
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #26
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    "No we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," James Comey said.

    Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses

    By Nick Gass 07/07/16 11:10 AM EDT Updated 07/07/16 11:38 AM EDT

    FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

    During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

    "That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."

    Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."

    "Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."

    Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.

    "No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

    "Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.

    "That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system."

    Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."

    "In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?" Gowdy inquired.

    Comey responded, "Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution."

    "Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?" Gowdy asked.

    "Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job you would prove intent as you just referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record, and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. Would you argue all that under heading of content--intent.


    You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme, when it started, when it ended and number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified, you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also probably under common scheme or plan argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal. Two days ago, director, you said a reasonable person in her should have known a private email is no place to send and receive classified information. You're right."

    "An average person does know not to do that. This is no average person," Gowdy said. "This is a former first lady, a former United States senator, and a former secretary of state that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but he says it now. She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account."

    He continued, "So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don't know whether or not she was. And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent."

    "You say careless but not intentionally. You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove," Gowdy continued. "Very rarely do defendants announce, 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence, or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence."

    Remarking that his time had expired, Gowdy said he still feared that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution for future cases similar to Clinton.

    "And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrongly perceived in this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be," Gowdy concluded. "So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be."


    http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-...25216?AID=7236
    Last edited by artist; 07-07-2016 at 08:53 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    FBI Proves Hillary Clinton Committed Perjury Before Benghazi Committee
    SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

    by Joel B. Pollak5 Jul 20163845

    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.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...azi-committee/

  9. #29
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,815
    It was stated weeks ago that hillary told her staff to send her the info and "strip" the "classified off the header" - so her statement of never rec'g/sending classified" info is a lie.

    How could she NOT "receive classified" info on her personal server & device that she used for her job? Comey said the FBI found 110 messages that were, indeed, classified when Clinton had them in her system.

    Comey remarked she might not have understood "c" in the body of an email but she knew to say to her staff, "send it to me & "strip classified" off the header. Comey is starting to look like the tinman from the Wizard of Oz - another fairy tale.


    Last edited by artist; 07-08-2016 at 10:33 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Grand jury recommends criminal charges against Kane
    By Newmexican in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-09-2015, 10:34 AM
  2. First criminal charges filed in BP oil spill
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2012, 01:27 PM
  3. Pandemic Charges filed...
    By grandmasmad in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-20-2009, 02:40 AM
  4. Ethics charges filed against Sutton
    By FedUpinFarmersBranch in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-22-2008, 08:05 PM
  5. New charges filed against Egyptian students
    By butterbean in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2008, 06:07 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •