Hillary Clinton email scandal

Amerika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Wow - lock her up!

She should already be locked up for the mishandling of classified and top secret materials, and for lying to the FBI.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

She should already be locked up for the mishandling of classified and top secret materials, and for lying to the FBI.

That's not what the FBI concluded.

Amerika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's not what the FBI concluded.

That's not what Comely concluded... which seems to differ from what field agents concluded. But I guess we’ll never know the truth since the FBI suspiciously required agents to sign Non Disclosure Agreements.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-fbi-agents-believe-inside-deal-happened-in-clinton-email-probe/article/2596357

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

That's what Comely concluded... and not according to field agents… but I guess we’ll never know the truth since the FBI suspiciously required agents to sign Non Disclosure Agreements.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-fbi-agents-believe-inside-deal-happened-in-clinton-email-probe/article/2596357

NDAs: suspicious when the Federal Bureau of Investigation does it; perfectly reasonable when Donald Trump does it with employees and ex wives.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

I guess we’ll never know the truth

I guess one of us never will.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

NDAs: suspicious when the Federal Bureau of Investigation does it; perfectly reasonable when Donald Trump does it with employees and ex wives.

Correct. The difference is one is a government agency who’s goal is to seek the truth and take action against those who commit crimes, the other is a private entity protecting themselves.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Correct. The difference is one is a government agency who’s goal is to seek the truth and take action against those who commit crimes, the other is a private entity protecting themselves.

A private entity running for President...

Do you think it's odd that government agencies use NDAs? Why?

aloyisious

Amerika wrote: »

Correct. The difference is one is a government agency who’s goal is to seek the truth and take action against those who commit crimes, the other is a private entity protecting themselves.

Also mentioned by one of the former FBI agents interviewed. they were already under Non-disclosure agreements AND the new ones were reminders according to one description in the NY Post article. I'd imagine that Don, as a law-abiding citizen, wouldn't be happy if FBI agents were blabbing to the media on stuff they knew about him, any less than Hillary would.

It would be a crime to reveal info one became privy to, due to employment as an FBI law enforcement agent (especially for a purpose or profit of any kind) outside of offering it as legal evidence in a court case or pre-trial deposition.

Amerika

aloyisious wrote: »

Also mentioned by one of the former FBI agents interviewed. they were already under Non-disclosure agreements AND the new ones were reminders according to one description in the NY Post article. I'd imagine that Don, as a law-abiding citizen, wouldn't be happy if FBI agents were blabbing to the media on stuff they knew about him, any less than Hillary would.

It would be a crime to reveal info one became privy to, due to employment as an FBI law enforcement agent (especially for a purpose or profit of any kind) outside of offering it as legal evidence in a court case or pre-trial deposition.

This whole ‘gag’ order seems to have stunk to high heavens from the beginning. These were additional non-disclosure agreements that caused agents to be sworn to secrecy and subject to subsequent lie detector tests in the Hillary Clinton email probe. "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is reserved for "the most sensitive of sensitive cases and can have a "chilling effect" on agents. What makes this extremely suspicious is that the FBI gagged its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes. In recent House hearings FBI Director Comey provided some information on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case. The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is evidence that the probe was always a serious criminal investigation, and never a "security review" or "security inquiry" as described by Clinton and her campaign team.

House judiciary committee chairman Charles Grassley’s investigation into this matter will take time. It just recently became knowledge to the committee that the FBI had given immunity to some, made agreements that some questions would be off limits for some of Clinton’s associates under investigation, and that their computers would be destroyed by the FBI. Some of the people given immunity for testimony still refused to provide information and nothing was done to them. Unfortunately the truth won’t come out until after the election.

Part of what I believe will come out is Comely’s refusal to recommend charges in order to protect President Obama from the lies he told the people. Obama publicly claimed he learned about the email arrangement Clinton had through the media… "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports." Now we find out he used a code name in some of his correspondence to Hillary’s unsecured server. This all seems to be an extraordinary effort from top levels of our government to protect Hillary and get her elected.

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

https://conservativedailypost.com/fbi-documents-now-reveal-obama-used-code-name-in-clinton-emails/

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

This whole ‘gag’ order seems to have stunk to high heavens from the beginning. These were additional non-disclosure agreements that caused agents to be sworn to secrecy and subject to subsequent lie detector tests in the Hillary Clinton email probe. "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is reserved for "the most sensitive of sensitive cases and can have a "chilling effect" on agents. What makes this extremely suspicious is that the FBI gagged its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes. In recent House hearings FBI Director Comey provided some information on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case. The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is evidence that the probe was always a serious criminal investigation, and never a "security review" or "security inquiry" as described by Clinton and her campaign team.

House judiciary committee chairman Charles Grassley’s investigation into this matter will take time. It just recently became knowledge to the committee that the FBI had given immunity to some, made agreements that some questions would be off limits for some of Clinton’s associates under investigation, and that their computers would be destroyed by the FBI. Some of the people given immunity for testimony still refused to provide information and nothing was done to them. Unfortunately the truth won’t come out until after the election.

Part of what I believe will come out is Comely’s refusal to recommend charges in order to protect President Obama from the lies he told the people. Obama publicly claimed he learned about the email arrangement Clinton had through the media… "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports." Now we find out he used a code name in some of his correspondence to Hillary’s unsecured server. This all seems to be an extraordinary effort from top levels of our government to protect Hillary and get her elected.

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?'” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”

https://conservativedailypost.com/fbi-documents-now-reveal-obama-used-code-name-in-clinton-emails/

What a load of nothing. The Feds investigated, found no grounds for charges, and, in the absence of anything meaningful to harass Hillary with, this whole dull affair is dragged out over and over by a desperate conservative base. Wild conjecture on the basis of precisely zilch evidence. The Feds didn't pursue the matter to charges because it's demonstrably not got any merit in doing so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I can only assume you're referring to all those under Clinton involved in this who are currently rotting away in secret prisons following their criminal trials for their involvement?

Zubeneschamali

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Clintons have been hounded by Republicans for decades now just because their last name is Clinton.

Do you know how many embassy staff were killed under Dubya? Now, how many were killed on Hillarys watch, more or less? How much time did the House spend investigating those deaths under Dubya vs. under Clinton?

Answer: Benghazi! Benghazi benghazi, benghazi benghazi benghazi!

Why? Klinton! Benghazi!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It really isn't. Comey's testimony to Congress made very clear why she wasn't charged. Bill Clinton's chat with the AG played no role whatsoever.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness, "But Hillary..." is the standard Trump lobby defence.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In fairness, "But Hillary..." is the standard Trump lobby defence.

In fairness, it’s more like “If you have a problem with Trump in that matter, then you should REALLY have a problem with Hillary doing...”

And to which the standard reply from the Hillary lobby to the comment is... “It’s not the same thing,” no matter what.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

In fairness, it’s more like “If you have a problem with Trump in that matter, then you should REALLY have a problem with Hillary doing...”

And to which the standard reply from the Hillary lobby to the comment is... “It’s not the same thing,” no matter what.

It's usually not the same thing at all. Trump, to give him credit, has a unique set of things to get wound up about.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

In fairness, it’s more like “If you have a problem with Trump in that matter, then you should REALLY have a problem with Hillary doing...”

And to which the standard reply from the Hillary lobby to the comment is... “It’s not the same thing,” no matter what.

It's still a deflection. I'm well aware of Clinton's record as Secretary of State, her hypocrisy in condemning the TPP that she'd previously championed, the emails scandal, etc... The problem is that deflection is the only way to shine the light away from Trump because his comments are simply indefensible.

alastair

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's still a deflection. I'm well aware of Clinton's record as Secretary of State, her hypocrisy in condemning the TPP that she'd previously championed

That's not hypocrisy though - that's called changing your mind. She acknowledges her changed position.

Overheal

alastair wrote: »

That's not hypocrisy though - that's called changing your mind. She acknowledges her changed position.

Indeed. Trump also used to champion Hillary and her husband. He changed his mind on that too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's nothing naive in grasping the points that Comey made, and recognising that they didn't require any political interference to stand on their own merit. Occam's razor etc.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That wasn't levelled at you at all! Just a general observation based on the Trump supporters I've known. I know a gay chap who's a big Hillary fan sharing various videos hailing her as the hero the world needs instead of the deeply flawed individual she is and it makes me cringe.

The Aleppo incident didn't put you off, then? I did find it amusing that Johnson's Facebook page was sharing images of him climbing a mountain during the Trump/Clinton health scandals.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

WSJ reports that a very close Clinton ally donated a half a million dollars to the poitical campaign of the wife of an FBI official who later became responsible for the investigation into Clinton.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114

The donation was made in 2015 and the FBI investigator was only appointed to the clinton case in 2016, so it's probably just a coincidence, but this is the kind of story that is very easy to spin into 'evidence' that clinton bribed the FBI.

aloyisious

Akrasia wrote: »

WSJ reports that a very close Clinton ally donated a half a million dollars to the poitical campaign of the wife of an FBI official who later became responsible for the investigation into Clinton.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-ally-aids-campaign-of-fbi-officials-wife-1477266114

The donation was made in 2015 and the FBI investigator was only appointed to the clinton case in 2016, so it's probably just a coincidence, but this is the kind of story that is very easy to spin into 'evidence' that clinton bribed the FBI.

Mental addition at play

Amerika

Is something wrong at The New York Times? Could it be a rare moment of conscience? They actually published a piece critical about both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the lies they told the American people in regards to Hillary’s unsecured server. I’m shocked, I say... shocked! [/political_sarcasm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Is something wrong at The New York Times? Could it be a rare moment of conscience? They actually published a piece critical about both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the lies they told the American people in regards to Hillary’s unsecured server. I’m shocked, I say... shocked!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

That shock may come for those following a false narrative that the media are some agent in a vast Orwellian conspiracy etc etc

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This quick hand waving away of Clinton's misdeeds is exactly the attitude that many, myself included, find infuriating. You're casually dismissing actions that are demonstrably illegal, re: emails, or demonstrate poor judgement and lack of political nous, i.e. Libya involvement, previous legislative efforts etc.

It's a consistent feature of her career, where she has demonstrated a disregard for established rules, exercised poor judgment in her actions and responded to exposure of said actions with dishonesty and evasion.

The emails are dismissed as not worthy of a charge by the very people who enforce the law. Nothing casual in dismissing them, and nothing to suggest illegal activity in what went on.

I'm dismissing the Libya thing, on exactly the same basis - a congressional investigation turned up nothing untoward in her dealings regarding Benghazi.

You can choose to be guided by unsubstantiated innuendo, or the facts. I'm going to go with facts, and make no apology for doing so.

AbusesToilets

alastair wrote: »

The emails are dismissed as not worthy of a charge by the very people who enforce the law. Nothing casual in dismissing them, and nothing to suggest illegal activity in what went on.

I'm dismissing the Libya thing, on exactly the same basis - a congressional investigation turned up nothing untoward in her dealings regarding Benghazi.

You can choose to be guided by unsubstantiated innuendo, or the facts. I'm going to go with facts, and make no apology for doing so.

Fact, her actions re: emails broke the law surrounding classified materials. The details of which I have bored people to death with 3 or 4 times to date in this thread. The decision to not prosecute doesn't change her actions and imo, was made based off of political considerations.

With reference to Libya, I was referring to her push for US involvement in overthrowing Quaddafi, not specifically Benghazi. She has been at the forefront of proponents for using US military power to overthrow unfriendly regimes. See her recent statements championing the idea of a no-fly zone in Syria, a terrible idea and one with potential to incite direct military conflict with Russia.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fact, her actions re: emails broke the law surrounding classified materials. The details of which I have bored people to death with 3 or 4 times to date in this thread. The decision to not prosecute doesn't change her actions and imo, was made based off of political considerations.

That's just your opinion though. The FBI's is the one which counts and they didn't follow up. It's done and dusted, yet it keeps being dragged up by the pro-Trumpers as they have little else.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just your opinion though. The FBI's is the one which counts and they didn't follow up. It's done and dusted, yet it keeps being dragged up by the pro-Trumpers as they have little else.

It’s not done and dusted, though. If by some miracle Trump wins, the next head of the DOJ could decide to prosecute Hillary for gross negligence in the handling of classified and top secret materials, and for a pay-to-play scheme regarding the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not done and dusted, though. If by some miracle Trump wins, the next head of the DOJ could decide to prosecute Hillary for gross negligence in the handling of classified and top secret materials, and for a pay-to-play scheme regarding the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.

Of course , there are lots of things that could happen , but on balance of probability (and its fairly heavily balanced this way) the reality is regardless of peoples feelings on the issue , it is over.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's just your opinion though. The FBI's is the one which counts and they didn't follow up. It's done and dusted, yet it keeps being dragged up by the pro-Trumpers as they have little else.

It is my opinion re: the reasoning for not prosecuting, yes. The law that pertains to classified materials is unequivocal, the actions taken by Clinton and her staff violated the law.

As to the issue being done with, I am quite interested to see what will occur when her staff apply for updated clearances when she wins the election.

Timberrrrrrrr

The same could be said for Trump though

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's a consistent feature of HIS career, where HE has demonstrated a disregard for established rules, exercised poor judgment in HIS actions and responded to exposure of said actions with dishonesty and evasion.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not done and dusted, though. If by some miracle Trump wins, the next head of the DOJ could decide to prosecute Hillary for gross negligence in the handling of classified and top secret materials

Trump apparently thinks he can order them to do this, but that is because he is an ignorant buffoon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump apparently thinks he can order them to do this, but that is because he is an ignorant buffoon.

Not exactly correct. The current Department of Justice proves it. Erich Holder and Loretta Lynch, as Attorney Generals, have both been little more than political shills bent on doing little more than the bidding of the Obama administration. And yes, that is my (and many others) opinion.

Zubeneschamali

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't see these apologists, just people who understand that in a 2 party system you vote for the least worst candidate.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

It’s not done and dusted, though. If by some miracle Trump wins, the next head of the DOJ could decide to prosecute Hillary for gross negligence in the handling of classified and top secret materials, and for a pay-to-play scheme regarding the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.

I doubt Clinton is going to go appointing people who want to prosecute her.

Overheal

Billy86 wrote: »

I doubt Clinton is going to go appointing people who want to prosecute her.

Jan 19: Obama pardons Clinton

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fact, her actions re: emails broke the law surrounding classified materials. The details of which I have bored people to death with 3 or 4 times to date in this thread. The decision to not prosecute doesn't change her actions and imo, was made based off of political considerations.

Thing is - your personal opinion doesn't really hold up against that of the FBI - who didn't find any criminality with the emails.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

With reference to Libya, I was referring to her push for US involvement in overthrowing Quaddafi, not specifically Benghazi. She has been at the forefront of proponents for using US military power to overthrow unfriendly regimes. See her recent statements championing the idea of a no-fly zone in Syria, a terrible idea and one with potential to incite direct military conflict with Russia.

19 countries opted to go into Libya to enforce the UN mandated no-fly zone. Nobody in any of those countries has been charged with any crime in advocating the removal of a man who was attempting to continue his autocratic rule through the bombing of civilians. He's no loss, and his removal was widely considered a good thing at the time, particularly with a transitional government in place and with international recognition. The scaremongering over Syria and WWIII doesn't really convince, as Hillary has never actually specified under what terms a no-fly zone might apply - it may well be in agreement with the Russians, who have no great commitment to Assad, but simply want to ensure they retain their foothold and influence in the region.

AbusesToilets

Thing is - your personal opinion doesn't really hold up against that of the FBI - who didn't find any criminality with the emails.

It's not my personal opinion, it's the stated law. Her actions violated US Code. You seem unable to separate the decision of the DoJ not to prosecute from the facts relating to the actions taken by her and her staff. This exact point has been pointed out, with sources, repeatedly.

alastair wrote: »

19 countries opted to go into Libya to enforce the UN mandated no-fly zone. Nobody in any of those countries has been charged with any crime in advocating the removal of a man who was attempting to continue his autocratic rule through the bombing of civilians. He's no loss, and his removal was widely considered a good thing at the time, particularly with a transitional government in place and with international recognition. The scaremongering over Syria and WWIII doesn't really convince, as Hillary has never actually specified under what terms a no-fly zone might apply - it may well be in agreement with the Russians, who have no great commitment to Assad, but simply want to ensure they retain their foothold and influence in the region.

Stating that 19 countries were behind the ousting of Qaddafi, ignores the fact that without the US providing logistical and material support, nothing would have occurred. Clinton was at the head of the group pushing for his removal, the effects of which continue to devastate the region today.

A President Clinton would have no leverage to persuade Russia to rein in Syria or establish a No-Fly zone. Any unilateral attempt at such would likely end in an embarrassing failure or shooting war.

alastair

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not my personal opinion, it's the stated law. Her actions violated US Code. You seem unable to separate the decision of the DoJ not to prosecute from the facts relating to the actions taken by her and her staff. This exact point has been pointed out, with sources, repeatedly.

The law may be a fact, but it's also a fact that no criminality was found with regard to Hillary's actions. That's been established by the legal body who investigated the case. This isn't a political decision, it's a legal finding.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Stating that 19 countries were behind the ousting of Qaddafi, ignores the fact that without the US providing logistical and material support, nothing would have occurred. Clinton was at the head of the group pushing for his removal, the effects of which continue to devastate the region today.

A President Clinton would have no leverage to persuade Russia to rein in Syria or establish a No-Fly zone. Any unilateral attempt at such would likely end in an embarrassing failure or shooting war.

You seem to want to ignore that without the logistical support of the other 18 countries, or indeed the mandate of the UN, it wouldn't have happened either. Clinton was certainly one of many who advocated for the removal of Ghadaffi. Nothing to be critical if there imo. The actual airstrikes that led to the capture of Ghadaffi didn't even involve the U.S. - they were French and British planes. I don't agree that president Hillary Clinton will have no leverage in Syria. She's got about as much leverage as any other player in the conflict, and doesn't have to rely on a smokey old aircraft carrier to demonstrate military capacity. Putin is savvy enough to know he's dealing with weakness or strength. A no-fly zone in Syria is entirely possible, and need not usher in any apocalypse.

AbusesToilets

The law may be a fact, but it's also a fact that no criminality was found with regard to Hillary's actions. That's been established by the legal body who investigated the case. This isn't a political decision, it's a legal finding.

At least you can admit she broke the law, some progress there. Clearly we will never agree with respect to her criminality.

alastair wrote: »

You seem to want to ignore that without the logistical support of the other 18 countries, or indeed the mandate of the UN, it wouldn't have happened either. Clinton was certainly one of many who advocated for the removal of Ghadaffi. Nothing to be critical if there imo. The actual airstrikes that led to the capture of Ghadaffi didn't even involve the U.S. - they were French and British planes. I don't agree that president Hillary Clinton will have no leverage in Syria. She's got about as much leverage as any other player in the conflict, and doesn't have to rely on a smokey old aircraft carrier to demonstrate military capacity. Putin is savvy enough to know he's dealing with weakness or strength. A no-fly zone in Syria is entirely possible, and need not usher in any apocalypse.

Those other 18 countries were heavily if not wholly dependent upon the US to conduct their operations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/africa/nato-war-in-libya-shows-united-states-was-vital-to-toppling-qaddafi.html?_r=0

Can you outline the areas in which you feel that Clinton could hold leverage over Russia? The only likely effective avenue is increased economic sanctions, which will require cooperation from other western nations. A no-fly zone is a lost cause, for the same reasons that Russia was able to get away with annexing the Crimean peninsula and other Ukrainian territories.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It is my opinion re: the reasoning for not prosecuting, yes. The law that pertains to classified materials is unequivocal, the actions taken by Clinton and her staff violated the law.

As to the issue being done with, I am quite interested to see what will occur when her staff apply for updated clearances when she wins the election.

The case has been reviewed and not followed up. If she broke the law, the FBI would have taken it further.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The case has been reviewed and not followed up. If she broke the law, the FBI would have taken it further.

That view is not supported by the facts pertaining to the law, nor by statements made by Comey where he stated that there were significant violations, that would have warranted prosecution in other instances.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

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. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

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.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

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.

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.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/transcript-james-comey-clinton-email-225103#ixzz4OEVWKXro
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Bolded portions with respect to the discussion. I can't get behind a mindset that thinks that any of the above is appropriate behavior for someone seeking the Presidency. These are laws that are fundamental to the integrity of the US Government and Clinton deliberately circumnavigates and ignores them to do what is in her best interest.

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

These are laws that are fundamental to the integrity of the US Government and Clinton deliberately circumnavigates and ignores them to do what is in her best interest.

Do you think she should be entitled to a trial before we pronounce her guilty ?

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Bolded portions with respect to the discussion. I can't get behind a mindset that thinks that any of the above is appropriate behavior for someone seeking the Presidency. These are laws that are fundamental to the integrity of the US Government and Clinton deliberately circumnavigates and ignores them to do what is in her best interest.

I never said it was appropriate behaviour. My point was that this doesn't absolve Trump of anything he's said as many Trump supporters seem to think. The issue has been dealt with and isn't going to prevent Clinton taking the White house.

AbusesToilets

marienbad wrote: »

Do you think she should be entitled to a trial before we pronounce her guilty ?

A trial would be a welcome development relative to what actually occurred, as it would demonstrate a willingness on the part of the DoJ to take the law seriously as it pertains to this case.