FBI Directors Most Mind Boggling Statement

[Seawytch]

Did you forget that the FBI report had the same thing to say about Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice?

Other Secretaries Handled Classified Material on Private Email, State Dept. Concludes

The State Department’s internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.

So, not even on private, secured servers but on a private email system where the server is contained elsewhere.

But you'd vote for Rice or Powell in a NY second wouldn't you? Just another fake Clinton "scandal" from the hypocrite party.

Nothing fake about Hitlery's incompetence and if you can't see it then you are blind as a bat.

Nice deflection to Rice and Powell. Of course when dealing with your hero any deflection in a storm right?? LOL

The deflection is in making this about Hillary. If it was incompetent of Hillary, then it was also incompetent of Rice and Powell, right? And yet you'd vote for them in a second wouldn't you?

Clinton has already admitted it was a mistake to use a personal server. No one else that has ever done what she did has been indicted have they? Maybe you should ask yourself why you are holding Hillary Clinton to a standard you wouldn't hold to anyone else.

Seriously, if you all want to see Hillary brought up on charges for what she did, why are you also not demanding the heads of Rice, Powell, Cheney, etc?

Neither Powell Nor Rice had "Multiple Personal" servers in an unsecured location.
They also didn't use unsecured devices overseas.

No, they used fucking gmail to conduct State Department business. A private secure server is a damn sight better security-wise than a gmail account.

If you believe that Hillary Clinton should be run out by rail over this, then you should also be demanding the same of Rice, Powell, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang.

The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten

You claimed the FBI said that.
You have yet to post any proof of your claims.

My apologies. The State Department said that Clinton did exactly the same thing that Rice and Powell did and that their correspondences (on a gmail account) contained classified information. Odd that the FBI didn't investigate that isn't it?

And how come the FBI never investigated all the missing Bush emails? So weird.

In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted

 

[StevenC]

Nothing fake about Hitlery's incompetence and if you can't see it then you are blind as a bat.

Nice deflection to Rice and Powell. Of course when dealing with your hero any deflection in a storm right?? LOL

The deflection is in making this about Hillary. If it was incompetent of Hillary, then it was also incompetent of Rice and Powell, right? And yet you'd vote for them in a second wouldn't you?

Clinton has already admitted it was a mistake to use a personal server. No one else that has ever done what she did has been indicted have they? Maybe you should ask yourself why you are holding Hillary Clinton to a standard you wouldn't hold to anyone else.

Seriously, if you all want to see Hillary brought up on charges for what she did, why are you also not demanding the heads of Rice, Powell, Cheney, etc?

Neither Powell Nor Rice had "Multiple Personal" servers in an unsecured location.
They also didn't use unsecured devices overseas.

No, they used fucking gmail to conduct State Department business. A private secure server is a damn sight better security-wise than a gmail account.

If you believe that Hillary Clinton should be run out by rail over this, then you should also be demanding the same of Rice, Powell, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang.

The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten

You claimed the FBI said that.
You have yet to post any proof of your claims.

My apologies. The State Department said that Clinton did exactly the same thing that Rice and Powell did and that their correspondences (on a gmail account) contained classified information. Odd that the FBI didn't investigate that isn't it?

And how come the FBI never investigated all the missing Bush emails? So weird.

In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted

What was there to investigate? Also there is no evidence that the emails on Powell and Rice where classified at the time. It has been proven that 110 emails on Clintons "Private Unsecured" server were.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh and what of this little tidbit?

"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."

Read more at: Hillary’s Banana Republic

So what where you saying about Powell and Rice seawytch?

I'm pretty sure any property that the Clintons owned has a full time security staff. Secret Service ring any bells?

What I said about Powell, Rice, Cheney and Bush still hold true. If you want Hillary's head, go after theirs.

How about, instead, we focus on security as a whole, especially cyber security and make improvements in policy based on what was learned? Maybe because that isn't anyone's concern when it comes to this issue. They just want Hillary's head.

Get used to saying "Madam President".

 

[StevenC]

Oh and what of this little tidbit?

"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."

Read more at: Hillary’s Banana Republic

So what where you saying about Powell and Rice seawytch?

I'm pretty sure any property that the Clintons owned has a full time security staff. Secret Service ring any bells?

What I said about Powell, Rice, Cheney and Bush still hold true. If you want Hillary's head, go after theirs.

How about, instead, we focus on security as a whole, especially cyber security and make improvements in policy based on what was learned? Maybe because that isn't anyone's concern when it comes to this issue. They just want Hillary's head.

Get used to saying "Madam President".

Actually no, there was no full time security. You even have the paragraph I posted that says just that.
I bolded that part for you.
What Powell and Rice did is nowhere near as bad as Hillary.

 

[StevenC]

Here is a link to NBC

Fact Check: FBI Investigation Undercuts Clinton Claims

Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny.

Pretty damning especially that it is posted on NBC. This proves that Hillary has been lying through her teeth. For years even. What else has she lied about.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I think his hands were tied. Its DC after all. And don't forget that little meeting between Bill and Lynch. Kina sorta looks like the fix was in.

I really liked the way he wasted no time called Hitlery stupid and incompetent. I doubt he thinks she's worth a tinkers damn.

I certainly have to agree.

Comey is a Republican--and right now he is taking a lot of heat for even commenting on this. His job to either prove innocence or guilt, not make commentary. It just goes to show you can't even get politics out of the FBI.

James Comey's unusual step of detailing the bureau's evidence against Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, before recommending that she face no charges, drew immediate fire from some critics who said he was acting more like a politician than a policeman.

Indeed, the speech was a stark departure from the prosecutor's rule of thumb that you should say it in an indictment or you shouldn't say it at all. But former prosecutors said it was a justified exception to assure the public of the probe's independence in an extraordinarily contentious case, especially given the controversy surrounding Bill Clinton's meeting with Comey's boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Comey takes heat for 'unprecedented' rebuke

Of course he's taking heat. He spoke honestly about how incompetent and stupid Hitlery and her staff were to use a personal server to conduct the business of the SOS.

Did you forget that the FBI report had the same thing to say about Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice?

Other Secretaries Handled Classified Material on Private Email, State Dept. Concludes

The State Department’s internal investigation arm issued a final memorandum today on the email practices of past and current secretaries of state, and it said definitively that past secretaries handled classified material on unclassified email systems.

So, not even on private, secured servers but on a private email system where the server is contained elsewhere.

My hats off to him for doing so. I think his hands were tied on the prosecution end but he had no problem speaking his mind on the incompetence of Hitlery and her staff.

Just think, that incompetent ass wants to be POTUS. I sure hope she never makes it to the WH. Good God. What a disaster that would be. She doesn't know the meaning of the word "Classified."

But you'd vote for Rice or Powell in a NY second wouldn't you? Just another fake Clinton "scandal" from the hypocrite party.

I would vote for Rice in a NY minute. Last I checked, she did not have a foundation on the side bearing her name generating millions in donations. As for Powell, he whined about the GOP "tent" not being big enough only to be shut out completely by the Democrat tent. He sold out hoping to get a role and got nothing.

 

[depotoo]

So if no laws then why have some been prosecuted for the mishandling of cl@ssified info, even though it was gross negligence that was unintended?

its been over a month when it was determined rules were broken NOT laws.

what do you want the FBI to do make their on laws like a bunch of miserable RW dipshits?

 

[flacaltenn]

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

 

[Care4all]

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

 

[flacaltenn]

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

 

[flacaltenn]

OR -- even WORSE than being given to or stolen by our opposition -- any nefarious group or foreign entity could then BLACKMAIL YOU with the information they now possess.

And being Blackmail--able is in the top 5 reasons for REJECTING someone for security clearances. Can you imagine the danger of having a meglomaniac president who is subject to blackmail by the Saudis or the Russians or the Chinese? OR ISIS or Anonymous -- for that matter.

One that cares more about their polls and legacy than they do about making the right decision for America? Ponder that a bit...

 

[Care4all]

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

 

[depotoo]

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information



(f)

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.

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

 

[flacaltenn]

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

Just because USC 18 -793 appears under the Espionage Act -- it has nothing to do with Espionage.

(f)
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.


---------------------------

It's no difference than the standards for tampering with a chain of evidence in the criminal justice world. If you remove that evidence from it's proper "chain of custody" by gross negligence of your duty to KEEP it within the prescribed channels and documentation. .

She REMOVED herself from "the proper place of custody" by CREATING several networks for REMOVING classified information from the APPROVED channels it needs to flow in..

That's INTENT and that's "gross negligience"..

 

[depotoo]

And she probably could have been charged with
18 U.S.C. § 1924: Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Material
The same charge Sandy Berger was found guilty of

(a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

Just because USC 18 -793 appears under the Espionage Act -- it has nothing to do with Espionage.

(f)
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.


---------------------------

It's no difference than the standards for tampering with a chain of evidence in the criminal justice world. If you remove that evidence from it's proper "chain of custody" by gross negligence of your duty to KEEP it within the prescribed channels and documentation. .

She REMOVED herself from "the proper place of custody" by CREATING several networks for REMOVING classified information from the APPROVED channels it needs to flow in..

That's INTENT and that's "gross negligience"..

 

[boedicca]

Comey said:


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. 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.

IT would have been an injustice to charge her when others like her in similar situations WERE NOT.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

That's not how it works. The FBI doesn't charge someone with a crime, they provide information to a prosecutor who makes that decision. The Obama Admin had clearly decided in advance not to prosecute hiLIARy. Comey should have insisted that a Grand Jury review the evidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

Or many other places under USC 18 --- like "1924" which states.

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

 

[flacaltenn]

And she probably could have been charged with
18 U.S.C. § 1924: Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Material
The same charge Sandy Berger was found guilty of

(a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

INTENT?? FUCKING INTENT?? When you set a completely parallel UNSECURED and UNAPPROVED communication link to perform 90% of your communications OUTSIDE the LAW ---

That's NOT INTENT???

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

Just because USC 18 -793 appears under the Espionage Act -- it has nothing to do with Espionage.

(f)
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.


---------------------------

It's no difference than the standards for tampering with a chain of evidence in the criminal justice world. If you remove that evidence from it's proper "chain of custody" by gross negligence of your duty to KEEP it within the prescribed channels and documentation. .

She REMOVED herself from "the proper place of custody" by CREATING several networks for REMOVING classified information from the APPROVED channels it needs to flow in..

That's INTENT and that's "gross negligience"..

Thank you counselor. You beat me to it by about 20 seconds !!!!

 

[depotoo]

Great minds think alike.

And she probably could have been charged with
18 U.S.C. § 1924: Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Material
The same charge Sandy Berger was found guilty of

(a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Intent to commit Espionage... there was no intent to do such.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

Just because USC 18 -793 appears under the Espionage Act -- it has nothing to do with Espionage.

(f)
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.


---------------------------

It's no difference than the standards for tampering with a chain of evidence in the criminal justice world. If you remove that evidence from it's proper "chain of custody" by gross negligence of your duty to KEEP it within the prescribed channels and documentation. .

She REMOVED herself from "the proper place of custody" by CREATING several networks for REMOVING classified information from the APPROVED channels it needs to flow in..

That's INTENT and that's "gross negligience"..

Thank you counselor. You beat me to it by about 20 seconds !!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Great minds think alike.

And she probably could have been charged with
18 U.S.C. § 1924: Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Material
The same charge Sandy Berger was found guilty of

(a)

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Why did you escalate my comments on intent to espionage? That's not in the picture. What's in the picture is the arrogance to INTENTIONALLY violate serious rules about how to work in a very sensitive job where most ALL your communications have to be dictated by recognizing the SENSITIVITY of the material.

Mishandling those communications is ENOUGH OF A CRIME -- without it being given to or stolen by our opposition.

Because the law that Comey could have charged her for gross negligence under, is a law from the Espionage Act.

Just because USC 18 -793 appears under the Espionage Act -- it has nothing to do with Espionage.

(f)
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.


---------------------------

It's no difference than the standards for tampering with a chain of evidence in the criminal justice world. If you remove that evidence from it's proper "chain of custody" by gross negligence of your duty to KEEP it within the prescribed channels and documentation. .

She REMOVED herself from "the proper place of custody" by CREATING several networks for REMOVING classified information from the APPROVED channels it needs to flow in..

That's INTENT and that's "gross negligience"..

Thank you counselor. You beat me to it by about 20 seconds !!!!

Too bad there aren't a couple of "great minds" in that minion of morons in DC.. They are all chicken shit bootlickers who don't want to end up as a Clinton "suspicious death" footnote..

FootNote: The above reference to the "clinton suspicious death list" is sarcasm and solely is there as wimpy attempt to bait the last remaining "fans" of the Meglomaniacal power whore known as Hilliary..