Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

FBI recommends no charges for Clinton

267 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword

Time for a new revolution

Quote

 

FBI Director James Comey makes a statement at FBI Headquarters on Tuesday and Hillary Clinton addresses the the U.S. Conference of Mayors last week. (Photos: Michael Conroy/AP, Cliff Owen/AP)

In a bombshell announcement, FBI Director James Comey accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday of having been “extremely careless” in handling classified information on her private email server but recommended that she not face criminal charges.

“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,” Comey said in a televised statement from FBI headquarters. “Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

 

source

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

Is it coincidence or purposely announced the day after we all celebrated the Declaration of Independence that states Americans not only have the right but have a duty to abolish the old government and institute a new government?

 

Is it a secret "call to arms" or a slap in the face? 

 

Perhaps she is Satan incarnate...  ever watch Mr. Pickles?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

This is obviously corruption.  The one email alone in which Hillary instructs her aids to white out anything that would indicate that the information on a document was secret and then fax it on over is enough to warrant espionage charges.  The fix is in.  So when your governmental agencies are this obviously corrupt what's the next step to take? 

 

edit to add I'm calling for the immediate resignation of James Comey

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

She is human garbage.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

This is obviously corruption.  The one email alone in which Hillary instructs her aids to white out anything that would indicate that the information on a document was secret and then fax it on over is enough to warrant espionage charges.  The fix is in.  So when your governmental agencies are this obviously corrupt what's the next step to take? 

 

edit to add I'm calling for the immediate resignation of James Comey

I think Comey's hands are tied. I think he wanted to indict her badly, but whatever was said by Bill or Hillary or both on the tarmac and in the air just before her "interview" must have really shaken Comey. He read the list of charges, he made it very clear that anyone else would have gone to jail without hesitation. That, to me at least, is a public admission that Hillary is guilty as sin but corruption is protecting her.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.

What's with this crap that there's evidence of her breaking the law, but no evidence of a crime? She set up those servers to avoid accountability and in doing so totally compromised national security. But yeah, whatever, we all knew that cow wouldn't be indicted.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

than what is the point of these investigations, if they recommend no charges????  the system is a joke.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

At the end of the article this is said.

 

Quote

 

Still, Comey said, individuals found to have done what Clinton and her senior aides did rarely face “no consequences.”

Instead, “those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions,” he said.

But with Clinton and her top aides out of government, that seemed unlikely to occur.

 

Security  and administrative sanctions usually include loss of security clearance.  Wouldn't that automatically ,make someone ineligible for the presidency?  One would certainly suppose so.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

At the end of the article this is said.

 

Security  and administrative sanctions usually include loss of security clearance.  Wouldn't that automatically ,make someone ineligible for the presidency?  One would certainly suppose so.

No, it does not. A Prezz does not need any security clearance, in fact, at the point you are a party nominee you get CIA briefings without one. Will be fun to see what Trump does with his first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
Just now, OverSword said:

At the end of the article this is said.

 

Security administrative sanctions usually include loss of security clearance.  Wouldn't that automatically ,make someone ineligible for the presidency?  One would certainly suppose so.

Failing health, a concussion, senility...

What's a best case scenario for Hillary in office? We have 3 years of corporate power beyond measure, a renewed push for globalization, doubling-down on free speech, loss of gun rights...then the stress of the job and the hatred of the people will result in a major stroke.
Note that when/if she does take office, she will be starting her crusades from where we are now. With all the constitutional workarounds already put in place by her predecessors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Nah, you could be a felon and still run for president.  Or insane, or senile. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Read section F of the code pertaining to transmitting or losing defense information

Quote

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.

Source

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.

Meh, like it'll make a difference. They know the law. We know the law. But the FBI is now sucking and blowing. So what if Hillary and her minions did not intend to violate laws? They still did. And if Hillary gets away with it, why shouldn't everyone else? This whole situation reeks and if she becomes President after this, after Benghazi, and after everything else she has done, I will have a meltdown.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Read section F of the code pertaining to transmitting or losing defense information

Source

Wherein, you have to demonstrate that the removed property was stolen (not demonstrated), misused (not demonstrated) or delivered to a non-authorized third party.

Guys, don't thumb laws, read them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

it was delivered to none authorized third party, her server was not authorised for such communication, demonstrated and confirmed.

 

but none of it matters, it was pretty much obvious since the day 1 she wont be indited. 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
1 minute ago, Taun said:

I was in military communications and was responsible for "net" security... And although I handled some pretty sensitive (Life and death) information - it was nothing compared to what a Sec. Of State would handle... If I or anyone in my command had allowed what she did - either through intent or carelessness - we would have been "hung out to dry"... Full courts-martial, loss of all benefits and rank PLUS an extended stay at the "Fort Leavenworth Leisure Lounge"... That she is not even being seriously questioned about the situation is a slap in the face to everyone who has held a security clearance in the entire history of our country...  I would like to say that I am shocked at this turn of events - unfortunately, due to the history of this administration and the Clinton family, I'm not...

I doubt that. If that were the case half the Army (and certainly the Air Force) would have been in Leavenworth by now. Classified information is mishandled every day, classified regulations are exchanged and the old ones (still classified) dumped into the waste basket. Classified equipment is discarded at the economy dump once broken, and so on and so forth.

The worst that happens in those cases is that you get yourself a dishonorable discharge... and for that you have to have a pretty thick record of misdemeanors additionally.

I even know a case where the classified briefing material for travels in the East Block was taken to the Soviet Union to "read it there". Nothing happened except that it was reviewed and changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
2 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Wherein, you have to demonstrate that the removed property was stolen (not demonstrated), misused (not demonstrated) or delivered to a non-authorized third party.

Guys, don't thumb laws, read them.

Would that apply to hackers? Obviously the documents would not have been delivered voluntarily, but by exposing them to such a vulnerability, does that not in a way make them available to non-authorized third parties? Comey mentioned there was no evidence found of hackers, BUT he also stated this:

“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,” he added. “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email 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 email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails 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 email account.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, Clair said:

Would that apply to hackers? Obviously the documents would not have been delivered voluntarily, but by exposing them to such a vulnerability, does that not in a way make them available to non-authorized third parties? Comey mentioned there was no evidence found of hackers, BUT he also stated this:

“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,” he added. “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email 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 email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails 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 email account.”

Then you have to produce the hacker who has the stuff. Without him or her all you have is the possibility that it could have happened. And "could have happened" is not legally binding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
Just now, questionmark said:

Then you have to produce the hacker who has the stuff. Without him or her all you have is the possibility that it could have happened. And "could have happened" is not legally binding.

Yes I realize that. My question was whether that part of the law would apply to hackers or to any other unauthorized party even though the information was stolen not delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, Clair said:

Yes I realize that. My question was whether that part of the law would apply to hackers or to any other unauthorized party even though the information was stolen not delivered.

If there was a damage caused to the US of A, certainly. Then the charge would change from careless to reckless. Reckless is already enough to make it criminal. If there is no damage we would be exactly where we are now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

Just as i suspected...

Now we await the real crime,people actually going out and voting for this corrupt POS!

It's time for a new party or two my friends!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rather obscure Bassoon

No surprises there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.

x1IvsTb.jpg

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.