Development on Clinton Email Probe?

[shady28]

The FBI Director lied when he said no sane prosecutor would prosecute such a case.

It happens all the time.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Naval reservist was sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.

A federal attorney announced Wednesday that Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials.

Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended.

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

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

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...eral-cases-on-handling-classified-information

JOHN DEUTCH

Deutch was CIA director from May 1995 until December 1996. He came under Justice Department investigation after his resignation when classified material was found on his home computer in Maryland.
...
Deutch apologized for his actions and was pardoned by President Bill Clinton before the Justice Department could file a misdemeanor plea deal for mishandling government secrets.

Thomas Drake



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/17/officials-double-standard-in-clinton-email-scandal.html

Thomas Drake, a former NSA official who after 9/11 went to Congress to sound the alarms about what he called unconstitutional surveillance, also says there is a double standard when it comes to applying classification law.

"I got hammered good," Drake told FoxNews.com.

Though the government's Espionage Act case against him fell apart in 2011, Drake practically lost everything and faced a mountain of legal bills. He pleaded to a single misdemeanor for "exceeding authorized use of a government computer," a violation he compares to "spitting on the NSA sidewalk."

 

[Knowing]

It is pretty hilarious that you're using the example of someone the DOJ declined to press charges against in order to complain about the DOJ not pressing charges.

Odd that you mentioned Clinton's pardon but not the earlier DOJ decision not to prosecute. Considering we are discussing DOJ's decision not to prosecute don't you think that was relevant information?

If the DOJ isn't going to prosecute then why would there be reports of a plea deal? If the DOJ isn't going to prosecute, then why pardon?

 

[sunzt]

Why does anyone need to eat crow? I am very satisfied with Comey's comments. Intent is very difficult to prove. More politically damaging is evidence of gross negligence and I dare say arrogance. You left out the best part:

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

The IG report and now the FBI findings are consistent with the narrative around how the Clinton's manage things.

This is what i see as well.

Grossly incompetent in handling classified information, especially in foreign countries....

However, can't prosecute cause no evidence of intent. Can be other consequences like revoking clearances or such, but no criminal charges..

Clinton and Democrats can at least finally move on knowing she won't be indicted. Not really sure if i would call this a "win" for them though.

 

[phillyTIM]

Hillary Clinton has NOTHING on the 20 million missing emails scandal of Bush/Cheney: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

 

[werepossum]

The FBI Director lied when he said no sane prosecutor would prosecute such a case.

It happens all the time.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...eral-cases-on-handling-classified-information

Thomas Drake

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/17/officials-double-standard-in-clinton-email-scandal.html

He meant no sane prosecutor would prosecute such a case against one of the elites.

 

[senseamp]

A Republican FBI director has cleared Hillary.

 

[fskimospy]

If the DOJ isn't going to prosecute then why would there be reports of a plea deal? If the DOJ isn't going to prosecute, then why pardon?

There could be lots of reasons, including that they didn't know what the next administration would do.

Are you denying that the DOJ said it wouldn't prosecute? If not, why did you omit that information?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So sounds like the usual result. People who wouldn't vote for her before are still not going to vote for her. People who were going to vote for her will still vote for her.

 

[Knowing]

Hillary Clinton has NOTHING on the 20 million missing emails scandal of Bush/Cheney: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

If it was bad then, it's bad now, and it was bad when she did it. I don't see how that's a defense, but "Bush did it" has been the go-to excuse for "Hope and Change" since 2008.

 

[wetech]

This is what i see as well.

Grossly incompetent in handling classified information, especially in foreign countries....

However, can't prosecute cause no evidence of intent. Can be other consequences like revoking clearances or such, but no criminal charges..

Clinton and Democrats can at least finally move on knowing she won't be indicted. Not really sure if i would call this a "win" for them though.

This is the part that I found odd about the statement. Comey used the term "extremely careless" about the handling of classified info. The statute does not require intent, but only negligence.

 

[Perknose]

The FBI Director lied when he said no sane prosecutor would prosecute such a case.

It happens all the time.

Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices.

He came under Justice Department investigation after his resignation when classified material was found on his home computer in Maryland.

Though the government's Espionage Act case against him [Drake] fell apart in 2011...

You have conveniently missed this key distinction:

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally sent or received classified information — something that the F.B.I. did not find.

Each one of the others knowingly purloined classified info from a "secure server" to their home computers.

 

[soundforbjt]

A Republican FBI director has cleared Hillary.

And a Republican led investigation on Benghazi cleared her...

And they have Trump as their Nominee,

Repubs are 0-3.

 

[Knowing]

There could be lots of reasons, including that they didn't know what the next administration would do.

Are you denying that the DOJ said it wouldn't prosecute? If not, why did you omit that information?

List them. Why would the next administration have anything to do with anything?

 

[fskimospy]

The FBI Director lied when he said no sane prosecutor would prosecute such a case.

It happens all the time.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...eral-cases-on-handling-classified-information

Thomas Drake

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/17/officials-double-standard-in-clinton-email-scandal.html

These examples all involve people knowingly mishandling classified information or are cases where charges weren't filed. Before you say someone is lying you should ensure that you understand what they are talking about.

 

[K1052]

This is the part that I found odd about the statement. Comey used the term "extremely careless" about the handling of classified info. The statute does not require intent, but only negligence.

I haven't followed every twist and turn of this but if the information was not classified (or known to be classified) at the time transferred or was retroactively classified during the subsequent probe I don't believe that would trip her up on the statute.

 

[fskimospy]

List them. Why would the next administration have anything to do with anything?

Why would they not? That makes no sense. I already listed one reason which is one more than I needed to.

For the third time can you explain why you neglected to mention that the DOJ declined to press charges in your example when that information is highly relevant to the topic? You can't plead ignorance as I had already told you about it before.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason outside of deliberate dishonesty. If you have another I'm open to hearing it though.

 

[fskimospy]

You have conveniently missed this key distinction:

Each one of the others knowingly purloined classified info from a "secure server" to their home computers.

But remember, Comey is the one who is lying.

 

[Jaskalas]

You have conveniently missed this key distinction:

Each one of the others knowingly purloined classified info from a "secure server" to their home computers.

Is that a key distinction? One might understand the premeditated intent to setup the server whereby you'd receive thousands of confidential documents... as being the same thing!

And I'm fairly sure the TOP SECRET ones are illegal for mere possession, under any circumstance.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This is what i see as well.

Grossly incompetent in handling classified information, especially in foreign countries....

However, can't prosecute cause no evidence of intent. Can be other consequences like revoking clearances or such, but no criminal charges..

Clinton and Democrats can at least finally move on knowing she won't be indicted. Not really sure if i would call this a "win" for them though.

Having such a finding in your career history would pretty much disqualify you from taking a job that requires the attainment of a security clearance. Ironically that reasoning does not apply to the highest office in our country.

 

[senseamp]

Is that a key distinction? One might understand the premeditated intent to setup the server whereby you'd receive thousands of confidential documents... as being the same thing!

And I'm fairly sure the TOP SECRET ones are illegal for mere possession, under any circumstance.

"One might understand" and "I'm fairly sure" is not the standard of proof.

 

[fskimospy]

Is that a key distinction? One might understand the premeditated intent to setup the server whereby you'd receive thousands of confidential documents... as being the same thing!

And I'm fairly sure the TOP SECRET ones are illegal for mere possession, under any circumstance.

They are not.

 

[Knowing]

I haven't followed every twist and turn of this but if the information was not classified (or known to be classified) at the time transferred or was retroactively classified during the subsequent probe I don't believe that would trip her up on the statute.

Information on her server was classified at the time. Information on her server was classified at the time by other classification authorities.

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).

This means that either the IC didn't mark their information or that some nebulous force of the interwebs removed the classification information before unreasonable people discussed it over a server in a bathroom.

 

[shady28]

You have conveniently missed this key distinction:



Each one of the others knowingly purloined classified info from a "secure server" to their home computers.

Sorry, I assumed that people in AT were moderately technically savvy. What do you think a personal email server is? Do you believe that a "personal email server" is technically any different from a home PC? In point of fact, it's probably less secure than your home PC.

And you conveniently ignore this :

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a 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.

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..

And here's what you're relying on :

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.

 

[Knowing]

Why would they not? That makes no sense. I already listed one reason which is one more than I needed to.

For the third time can you explain why you neglected to mention that the DOJ declined to press charges in your example when that information is highly relevant to the topic? You can't plead ignorance as I had already told you about it before.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason outside of deliberate dishonesty. If you have another I'm open to hearing it though.

You tell me, I'm all ears. I'm not responding to anything without a citation ie "real data" because your sophistry is boring.

IF "not illegal"
THEN "why pardon?"

 

[HomerJS]

If the DOJ isn't going to prosecute then why would there be reports of a plea deal? If the DOJ isn't going to prosecute, then why pardon?

Possible revocation of security clearance?