FBI is wrapping up e-mail investigation with no evidence Clinton willfully violated the law

[Hutch Starskey]

You insist you know better than the legal experts that contradict you.

We'll see what your opinions are worth, won't we?

I just quoted the actual fucking law to you. Read it you fucking idiot, it's quite clear.

And as mos of the legal experts asked on the topic agree, its a stretch to apply it to a SOS's communication with her own aides, rather than an enemy nation.

You insist you know better.

We'll see what your opinion is worth. Just remember.....I told you so.

You won't quote one single legal expert who says that having classified information on an unclassified email server is not a violation of the law dude. Not one.

It is a matter of record that the law was violated here. That isn't even at question. The question is, Was Hillary at fault, PERIOD. That's the part you don't seem to understand , all the "legal experts" who are defending her, they aren't arguing that the law wasn't violated, because it was, they are arguing that Hillary was not responsible for the material being on the unclassified server.

Seriously, if you're too stupid to understand the actual topic , why are you even posting, go post in the tv forum or something.

hey dude,

you are the one that posted the link to this supposed law that was broken...but FAILED at reading comprehension of the very first sentence of the law.... where was the intent to deliver this top secret info to the enemy kiddo?

that's your problem, not mine or Hillary's.

intent is not required. but if you think it is, give us the quote from the law.

"with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,"

 

[Skylar]

I do not believe the FBI is corrupt. I believe that if there is evidence that Hillary committed a crime, they will recommend indictment.

That's not to say that Loretta Lynch , who IS corrupt, will allow such, but I don't believe the FBI will sweep anything under the rug.

We all know she destroyed evidence...you try that and see what the FBI does to you then tell me the FBI is not corrupt.

She destroyed evidence.....according to who?

Until she is recommended for indictment by Comey as far as I'm concerned the FBI is no different than the IRS corrupted as hell.

So the only outcome of the investigation is one that reaffirms what you already believe. And you'll ignore anything else.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you an American Conservative.

 

[Rambunctious]

Why are the libs on this board so angry? Hillary is going to get off scott free. She is as evil and corrupt as one can get but she is a democrat and the American people knew all along the fix was in. No surprise here except for the anger coming from the left.

She still will lose to Trump...then you all will have something to really get angry over..... BUUUUUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Siete]

sure I understand that .. you do understand there were no laws against Clinton having a private server until 21 months AFTER she left office don''t you?

No laws against it for private use.

She used it for official business. Very different.

no law ... PERIOD.

The Espionage Act....

Read it Goober.


Anyone who is criminally negligent and allows classified information to fall into the hands of foreign nations can be prosecuted for Espionage.

nope, dope ... try again.

no classified intel.


deal with it.

and it's "there" not "their" you flaming idget

I'm not going to insult you for not understanding the Espionage Act, but you could at least say "hmm maybe I should listen to those who do"

When you receive a security clearance, you are obligated to different standards. A paper doesn't have to be actively marked "hey top secret, classified" for you to be to be required to treat it as such. You are in fact required to use good judgement about what is classified information and not disseminate such that might be. Even accidental dissemination is a crime.


Let me give you an example.

Suppose I work for a certain agency and I'm tasked with meeting with a person who works for a certain foreign agency to acquire some intel. Not let's say I get that intel. That intel isn't technically classified until someone with the proper authority says "this intel is classified" BUT it is still my duty to think to myself "self, this information could be vital to national security and thus I should treat it as such and not use nonsecure communications" and if I don't , I could be charged with the crime of espionage.

This is all theoretical and assumes I work for said agency , which I can neither confirm nor deny.

and I wont insult you for not being able to prove there was classified intel in the emails .. now look up HR 1233.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I just quoted the actual fucking law to you. Read it you fucking idiot, it's quite clear.

And as mos of the legal experts asked on the topic agree, its a stretch to apply it to a SOS's communication with her own aides, rather than an enemy nation.

You insist you know better.

We'll see what your opinion is worth. Just remember.....I told you so.

You won't quote one single legal expert who says that having classified information on an unclassified email server is not a violation of the law dude. Not one.

It is a matter of record that the law was violated here. That isn't even at question. The question is, Was Hillary at fault, PERIOD. That's the part you don't seem to understand , all the "legal experts" who are defending her, they aren't arguing that the law wasn't violated, because it was, they are arguing that Hillary was not responsible for the material being on the unclassified server.

Seriously, if you're too stupid to understand the actual topic , why are you even posting, go post in the tv forum or something.

hey dude,

you are the one that posted the link to this supposed law that was broken...but FAILED at reading comprehension of the very first sentence of the law.... where was the intent to deliver this top secret info to the enemy kiddo?

that's your problem, not mine or Hillary's.

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


Show me where in that law intent is required.

Wow!

"with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,"

wrong. intent is irrelevant. SCOTUS ruled on this over 70 years ago and it has always been upheld.

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive Correcting a Common Misperception of the Espionage Act - Opinio Juris

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No laws against it for private use.

She used it for official business. Very different.

no law ... PERIOD.

The Espionage Act....

Read it Goober.


Anyone who is criminally negligent and allows classified information to fall into the hands of foreign nations can be prosecuted for Espionage.

nope, dope ... try again.

no classified intel.


deal with it.

and it's "there" not "their" you flaming idget

I'm not going to insult you for not understanding the Espionage Act, but you could at least say "hmm maybe I should listen to those who do"

When you receive a security clearance, you are obligated to different standards. A paper doesn't have to be actively marked "hey top secret, classified" for you to be to be required to treat it as such. You are in fact required to use good judgement about what is classified information and not disseminate such that might be. Even accidental dissemination is a crime.


Let me give you an example.

Suppose I work for a certain agency and I'm tasked with meeting with a person who works for a certain foreign agency to acquire some intel. Not let's say I get that intel. That intel isn't technically classified until someone with the proper authority says "this intel is classified" BUT it is still my duty to think to myself "self, this information could be vital to national security and thus I should treat it as such and not use nonsecure communications" and if I don't , I could be charged with the crime of espionage.

This is all theoretical and assumes I work for said agency , which I can neither confirm nor deny.

and I wont insult you for not being able to prove there was classified intel in the emails .. now look up HR 1233.

The FBI has already confirmed that there was classified information in the email. I will insult you for being stupid and not knowing that.

 

[Skylar]

PROVE IT....

every single lawyer that has defended those charged with top secret violations that have spoken up on this case have STATED that it has to be knowingly and willfully committed or severely gross negligence, in order for the gvt to prosecute.

Bullshit, I held top secret and SAP clearances for years, a violation does not have to be knowing or willing or grossly negligent. If I did what she did, I would be typing this from a jail cell.

your head is so far up Hillary's fat butt that you cant see reality.

yeah, sure, whatever....

Have you ever received a briefing on the proper way to handle classified information? Don't bother , it's obvious you haven't.

Let's say you work for the State Department and you have classiied material in your briefcase, and you stop off for a drink on your way home from work. Let's say you accidently leave the bar without your briefcase.

Let's now say the next day you realize such and report it to your superiors. Guess what happens? You violated the law and will lose your security clearance, your job, and possibly your freedom.


speaking of that, here is another interesting question. What if the FBI stripped Hillary of her security clearance? Could a person who isn't eligible for a security clearance become President?

What emails are you referring to and when were they classified?

When they were classified is irrelevant to the law. Why do yall REFUSE to understand that? Hillary was bound to use her own good judgement and not disseminate information that should be classified regardless of whether it was classified or not. Her excuse of "it was later classified" doesn't hold water because that's not the way the law works, as she was well aware.

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

That's got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Worse for your claims, the CIA already reviewed the information in question and said they wouldn't have classified it.

Third, as for 'how the law works', you don't know what you're talking about. As almost no one indicated for mishandling classified information. They simply have their security clearance revoked. It has to be especially egregious.....intentional, willful attempts to get information into the wrong hands.

Fourth, the previous SOS' did the same thing and weren't prosecuted for anything.

There's a reason why legal expert after legal expert on national security law is on one side of this issue......and you're on the other.

 

[Siete]

And as mos of the legal experts asked on the topic agree, its a stretch to apply it to a SOS's communication with her own aides, rather than an enemy nation.

You insist you know better.

We'll see what your opinion is worth. Just remember.....I told you so.

You won't quote one single legal expert who says that having classified information on an unclassified email server is not a violation of the law dude. Not one.

It is a matter of record that the law was violated here. That isn't even at question. The question is, Was Hillary at fault, PERIOD. That's the part you don't seem to understand , all the "legal experts" who are defending her, they aren't arguing that the law wasn't violated, because it was, they are arguing that Hillary was not responsible for the material being on the unclassified server.

Seriously, if you're too stupid to understand the actual topic , why are you even posting, go post in the tv forum or something.

hey dude,

you are the one that posted the link to this supposed law that was broken...but FAILED at reading comprehension of the very first sentence of the law.... where was the intent to deliver this top secret info to the enemy kiddo?

that's your problem, not mine or Hillary's.

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


Show me where in that law intent is required.

Wow!

"with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,"

wrong. intent is irrelevant. SCOTUS ruled on this over 70 years ago and it has always been upheld.

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive Correcting a Common Misperception of the Espionage Act - Opinio Juris

HR 1233

(Sec. 10) Prohibits an officer or employee of an executive agency from creating or sending a record using a non-official electronic messaging account unless such officer or employee: (1) copies an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee in the original creation or transmission of the record, or (2) forwards a complete copy of the record to an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee not later than 20 days after the original creation or transmission of the record. Provides for disciplinary action against an agency officer or employee for an intentional violation of such prohibition


active as of 2014 ... not before.

 

[Lewdog]

Bullshit, I held top secret and SAP clearances for years, a violation does not have to be knowing or willing or grossly negligent. If I did what she did, I would be typing this from a jail cell.

your head is so far up Hillary's fat butt that you cant see reality.

yeah, sure, whatever....

Have you ever received a briefing on the proper way to handle classified information? Don't bother , it's obvious you haven't.

Let's say you work for the State Department and you have classiied material in your briefcase, and you stop off for a drink on your way home from work. Let's say you accidently leave the bar without your briefcase.

Let's now say the next day you realize such and report it to your superiors. Guess what happens? You violated the law and will lose your security clearance, your job, and possibly your freedom.


speaking of that, here is another interesting question. What if the FBI stripped Hillary of her security clearance? Could a person who isn't eligible for a security clearance become President?

What emails are you referring to and when were they classified?

When they were classified is irrelevant to the law. Why do yall REFUSE to understand that? Hillary was bound to use her own good judgement and not disseminate information that should be classified regardless of whether it was classified or not. Her excuse of "it was later classified" doesn't hold water because that's not the way the law works, as she was well aware.

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

That's got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Worse for your claims, the CIA already reviewed the information in question and said they wouldn't have classified it.

Third, as for 'how the law works', you don't know what you're talking about. As almost no one indicated for mishandling classified information. They simply have their security clearance revoked. It has to be especially egregious.....intentional, willful attempts to get information into the wrong hands.

Fourth, the previous SOS' did the same thing and weren't prosecuted for anything.

There's a reason why legal expert after legal expert on national security law is on one side of this issue......and you're on the other.

Did you really just say that? See into the future? She was the fucking Secretary of State... she has to have enough brain cells to have an idea of what is going to be considered classified, and at the VERY least error on the side of caution. That is unless she doesn't care and thinks she is above the law. Yeah I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Skylar]

yeah, sure, whatever....

Have you ever received a briefing on the proper way to handle classified information? Don't bother , it's obvious you haven't.

Let's say you work for the State Department and you have classiied material in your briefcase, and you stop off for a drink on your way home from work. Let's say you accidently leave the bar without your briefcase.

Let's now say the next day you realize such and report it to your superiors. Guess what happens? You violated the law and will lose your security clearance, your job, and possibly your freedom.


speaking of that, here is another interesting question. What if the FBI stripped Hillary of her security clearance? Could a person who isn't eligible for a security clearance become President?

What emails are you referring to and when were they classified?

When they were classified is irrelevant to the law. Why do yall REFUSE to understand that? Hillary was bound to use her own good judgement and not disseminate information that should be classified regardless of whether it was classified or not. Her excuse of "it was later classified" doesn't hold water because that's not the way the law works, as she was well aware.

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

That's got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Worse for your claims, the CIA already reviewed the information in question and said they wouldn't have classified it.

Third, as for 'how the law works', you don't know what you're talking about. As almost no one indicated for mishandling classified information. They simply have their security clearance revoked. It has to be especially egregious.....intentional, willful attempts to get information into the wrong hands.

Fourth, the previous SOS' did the same thing and weren't prosecuted for anything.

There's a reason why legal expert after legal expert on national security law is on one side of this issue......and you're on the other.

Did you really just say that? See into the future? She was the fucking Secretary of State... she has to have enough brain cells to have an idea of what is going to be considered classified, and at the VERY least error on the side of caution. That is unless she doesn't care and thinks she is above the law. Yeah I think that pretty much sums it up.

Even the CIA says they wouldn't have classified those documents. So who am I to believe?

Your bizarro assumptions about Hillary being able to tell the future.....backed by jack shit? Or the CIA?

 

[Rambunctious]

Dead heat: Trump, Clinton tied in 3 swing-state polls

 

[Lewdog]

Have you ever received a briefing on the proper way to handle classified information? Don't bother , it's obvious you haven't.

Let's say you work for the State Department and you have classiied material in your briefcase, and you stop off for a drink on your way home from work. Let's say you accidently leave the bar without your briefcase.

Let's now say the next day you realize such and report it to your superiors. Guess what happens? You violated the law and will lose your security clearance, your job, and possibly your freedom.


speaking of that, here is another interesting question. What if the FBI stripped Hillary of her security clearance? Could a person who isn't eligible for a security clearance become President?

What emails are you referring to and when were they classified?

When they were classified is irrelevant to the law. Why do yall REFUSE to understand that? Hillary was bound to use her own good judgement and not disseminate information that should be classified regardless of whether it was classified or not. Her excuse of "it was later classified" doesn't hold water because that's not the way the law works, as she was well aware.

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

That's got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Worse for your claims, the CIA already reviewed the information in question and said they wouldn't have classified it.

Third, as for 'how the law works', you don't know what you're talking about. As almost no one indicated for mishandling classified information. They simply have their security clearance revoked. It has to be especially egregious.....intentional, willful attempts to get information into the wrong hands.

Fourth, the previous SOS' did the same thing and weren't prosecuted for anything.

There's a reason why legal expert after legal expert on national security law is on one side of this issue......and you're on the other.

Did you really just say that? See into the future? She was the fucking Secretary of State... she has to have enough brain cells to have an idea of what is going to be considered classified, and at the VERY least error on the side of caution. That is unless she doesn't care and thinks she is above the law. Yeah I think that pretty much sums it up.

Even the CIA says they wouldn't have classified those documents. So who am I to believe?

Your bizarro assumptions about Hillary being able to tell the future.....backed by jack shit? Or the CIA?

Even the CIA said they wouldn't have classified all the documents on her server? Care to share something to back that up? Or are you just full of lib shit?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

there are two separate systems they worked off of....one is for top secret/secret stuff which I had read is not connected to their regular email system or the internet at all, but is an IN HOUSE system only.

The other system the State department communicated their daily duties with, is an UNCLASSIFIED system, the State.gov system that Hillary forfeited getting an email from and used her server....both were unclassified systems....NOT unsecure systems, because even her system was secure.... both systems, the State.gov and the clinton email.com were not the top secret/secret system with the super duper duper protection on it....

The problem seems to stem from the government OVER CLASSIFYING things, and keeping too much from us.

Here we have a couple things classified as top secret and secret AFTER this info had circulated on the UNCLASSIFIED system for over a year, and one of them they classified top secret, when Hillary received the info from Blumenthal through his regular sources IN THE PUBLIC, so it was public information yet the Intelligence dept decided to make it top secret classified....public information for goodness sakes!

And when you have a seasoned Diplomat for over a decade who is knowledgeable on what should be classified and what not, had nearly 100 of his messages sent to Hillary classified and parts blotted out, before releasing on the FOIA request....and he swears up and down and inside out that NOT ONE of those nearly 100 of his messages were deemed nor should have been deemed, classified.

The gvt is over-classifying and keeping unnecessary things out of these FOIA Requests imo!

Yea, he was reading the correspondence of a woman who sits in the situation room. Some low level IT guy who normally works on shit like connecting diplomats to talk about financial aid and bitch about foreigners.

Are you serious right now?

Just ignoring the obvious attempt to subvert history. That server was a blatant security risk, it was not "secure" by any standard that would be acceptable for a figure of her level. The guy comes from the Clinton political machine not DoD. She has terrible judgement and should be punished

hello? the State.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED email system.... sending top secret information in emails to each other was no more 'secure' than them sending this TS info to her email....technically, it should not be on either system....

so why was it passed around on the .gov email system?

First guess, is it was not considered top secret classified info, in some cases for over a year before someone in another agency, decided to make it classified TS.

WE KNOW her aids who had passed emails back and forth on this T/S material for a year on the .gov unclassified system before even forwarding it to Hillary did not believe it was classified T/S material...the gvt/fbi that interviewed them would have found that out... if they had known it was top secret and did this anyway, then they would have been reprimanded for it...

I'm certain the FBI when interviewing her IT guy would have sought out whether he read any of her emails as well....if it is as important as you believe it is.....

And then after it was classified let it sit on that server, what are you talking about?

She knew that would happen, everyone knows things get retroactively classified. That's why you don't let shills from your political campaign be your IT guy and run you a private server you have no legal justification in using on state business

She's guilty

No. The emails were classified by an inter- agency group of intelligence specialists as they were reviewed for public release. Well after Clinton's tenure at state was over and well after the server was no more.

 

[Rambunctious]

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

I would hope our president would know the difference...that is why she is unqualified.

 

[Rambunctious]

Dead heat: Trump, Clinton tied in 3 swing-state polls

 

[Siete]

What emails are you referring to and when were they classified?

When they were classified is irrelevant to the law. Why do yall REFUSE to understand that? Hillary was bound to use her own good judgement and not disseminate information that should be classified regardless of whether it was classified or not. Her excuse of "it was later classified" doesn't hold water because that's not the way the law works, as she was well aware.

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

That's got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Worse for your claims, the CIA already reviewed the information in question and said they wouldn't have classified it.

Third, as for 'how the law works', you don't know what you're talking about. As almost no one indicated for mishandling classified information. They simply have their security clearance revoked. It has to be especially egregious.....intentional, willful attempts to get information into the wrong hands.

Fourth, the previous SOS' did the same thing and weren't prosecuted for anything.

There's a reason why legal expert after legal expert on national security law is on one side of this issue......and you're on the other.

Did you really just say that? See into the future? She was the fucking Secretary of State... she has to have enough brain cells to have an idea of what is going to be considered classified, and at the VERY least error on the side of caution. That is unless she doesn't care and thinks she is above the law. Yeah I think that pretty much sums it up.

Even the CIA says they wouldn't have classified those documents. So who am I to believe?

Your bizarro assumptions about Hillary being able to tell the future.....backed by jack shit? Or the CIA?

Even the CIA said they wouldn't have classified all the documents on her server? Care to share something to back that up? Or are you just full of lib shit?

read the thread, Ive done exactly that 3 times ..... don't pretend that makes any difference.

4

On October 7, 2015, you sent me a 13-page letter making a grave new accusation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Specifically, you accused her of compromising national security and endangering lives.

The problem with your accusation--as with so many others during this investigation--is that you failed to check your facts before

you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.

 

[bendog]

Hillary's pretty good

 

[Skylar]

What emails are you referring to and when were they classified?

When they were classified is irrelevant to the law. Why do yall REFUSE to understand that? Hillary was bound to use her own good judgement and not disseminate information that should be classified regardless of whether it was classified or not. Her excuse of "it was later classified" doesn't hold water because that's not the way the law works, as she was well aware.

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

That's got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Worse for your claims, the CIA already reviewed the information in question and said they wouldn't have classified it.

Third, as for 'how the law works', you don't know what you're talking about. As almost no one indicated for mishandling classified information. They simply have their security clearance revoked. It has to be especially egregious.....intentional, willful attempts to get information into the wrong hands.

Fourth, the previous SOS' did the same thing and weren't prosecuted for anything.

There's a reason why legal expert after legal expert on national security law is on one side of this issue......and you're on the other.

Did you really just say that? See into the future? She was the fucking Secretary of State... she has to have enough brain cells to have an idea of what is going to be considered classified, and at the VERY least error on the side of caution. That is unless she doesn't care and thinks she is above the law. Yeah I think that pretty much sums it up.

Even the CIA says they wouldn't have classified those documents. So who am I to believe?

Your bizarro assumptions about Hillary being able to tell the future.....backed by jack shit? Or the CIA?

Even the CIA said they wouldn't have classified all the documents on her server? Care to share something to back that up? Or are you just full of lib shit?

Laughing.....says the poor soul that just insisted that Hillary should have been able to tell the future. Citing himself.

You back your batshit up first. Then I'll show you the article where the CIA indicated that the classified documents it reviewed wouldn't have been classified by the CIA.

Sigh....since we both know that you can't back any of silly nonsense you spew with jack shit, I'll give you yet another source to ignore in your never ending quest for willful blindness:

"The CIA yesterday (Saturday) informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified," Cummings wrote in the letter to Gowdy. "Specifically, the CIA confirmed that ‘the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information.’"

CIA Debunks Gowdy’s Allegation That Clinton Email Contained Classified CIA Source
​

But Clinton was supposed to be able to read tea leaves, check her crystal ball, and magically 'know' that at some future date some sentence was going to be redacted by someone for some reason....

.....when even the CIA wouldn't have redacted them?

 

[Skylar]

WTF? So she was supposed to see into the future and know what *would* be classified later?

I would hope our president would know the difference...that is why she is unqualified.

Would know the difference between what? Classified documents and documents that *will be* classified by someone at some future date for some reason?

Laughing.....does your idea of a president come with a cape and a crystal ball?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

sorry, but that does not excuse her. She is guilty, deal with it.

so the whole Bush Administration using the RNC server for government work should be behind bars, and Condi and Powell, and all the Diplomats communicating with the State Dept whose emails were after the fact classified...

SORRY, I disagree with you....

What should be done imo for the State Dept is develop an email system that is classified... which the Diplomat's can use for their daily work outside of the DC office, otherwise we will continue to have classified information on their UNCLASSIFIED State.gov email system.....

Please show us reliable sources stating that the WHOLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION used the Republican National Committee servers for all government work. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell sent several emails on their private email ACCOUNTS, NONE had their own, private, hidden, unsecured servers.

The State Department, this may be shocking to you, does use the GOVERNMENT SECURED email system.

You do realize that the level of security for any and all documents is not determined by what is stamped on the document. The level of security is determined by the content and is created as the original document is being originated. ALL State Department employees (including Hillary and her Cabal) are trained in recognizing Secret information. Do you REALLY want someone as President who doesn't now the difference?

Yes, I already mentioned this. She took an oath to protect any and all information that contained details that might end up being Classified, whether it was already labeled Classified or not. Yes, training is provided for State Department employees... but Hillary chose not to attend mandatory training.

And you know better than the FBI.....

Why do people keep referencing the FBI and the Justice Department as unbiased entities? It's absurd

Why do you and others immediately cry conspiracy when something doesn't turn out the way you had hoped?