IG Report Thread

[eagle1462010]

Bush / Cheney Attacked Joe Wilson & Exposed Covert CIA Valerie Plame

But Bush..................Diversion..................

Why wasn't the investigation prosecuted under Section E.................I'll tell you why...........so she wouldn't be nailed for Negligence and Recklessness..........set the bar for criminal misconduct high enough.................she gets away with it....................

Smoke and mirrors and corruption.

 

[eagle1462010]

This statement makes me doubt your claim of reading the whole report

I read it you should do the same....

So, you read the part where the IG determined that the FBI's decision not to charge Clinton was unbiased, and according to protocol and precedence?

That doesn't really jive with your claim that the FBI "let her walk" and did a "phony investigation".

Yeah....I was pretty sure that this would be the finding.....even though anyone with half a brain can point out a shitload of examples of blatantly political biased activity.

You know this IG report reads not much different than Comey's report. Pages of bias shown but in the end says not enough. And their was no names given as far as which FBI agents got "GIFTS" or from which news services.
A cop getting a GIFT is a BRIBE. We have a right to know WHO and what they got from WHO. Because it's THAT, that will clean up our crooked press.

Took me a little digging early this morning to understand what they did...............nice nifty move they did to make sure she got a pass............

 

[eagle1462010]

My Country Versus Me: The First-Hand Account by the Los Alamos Scientist Who Was Falsely Accused of Being a Spy by Wen Ho Lee

Wen Ho Lee, a patriotic American scientist born in Taiwan, devoted most of his life to science and to helping improve U.S. defense capabilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Then, in January of 1999, everything changed and he was accused of espionage by members of Congress and portrayed as the most dangerous traitor since the Rosenbergs. He was even told that their fate--execution--might well be his own. For the first time, Dr. Wen Ho Lee chronicles his experiences before, during, and after his imprisonment. He takes you inside Los Alamos, describes the false charges leveled against him, and tells how his career and life were threatened and his civil rights taken away. A riveting true story about prejudice, suspicion, and courage, My Country Versus Me is a vitally important book for our time.

 

[eagle1462010]

How the 1999 Arrest of Wen Ho Lee Taught Chinese Americans Their Country May Never Trust Them

It can be easy to forget the enormity of the Wen Ho Lee debacle. Nearly every assumption the government made—that China had acquired a miniature-warhead design through espionage, that Los Alamos had been its source, and that it had done so using intel from a “master spy”—was refuted by the facts. After Lee’s release, the New York Times conducted an internal investigation, detailing what “we wish we had done differently” in its one-sided and sensationalist stories but retaining a defiant tone that disappointedcritics who believed the paper had stoked the entire ordeal. (In 2006, Lee would receive a settlement from the government and several newspapers including the Times for the leaking of his name.) The federal judge, in releasing Lee, offered an extraordinary and emotional apology, firing a salvo at the executive branch for drumming up the case and causing “embarrassment to our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen in it.”

 

[eagle1462010]

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.

Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[KissMy]

Bush / Cheney Attacked Joe Wilson & Exposed Covert CIA Valerie Plame

But Bush..................Diversion..................

Why wasn't the investigation prosecuted under Section E.................I'll tell you why...........so she wouldn't be nailed for Negligence and Recklessness..........set the bar for criminal misconduct high enough.................she gets away with it....................

Smoke and mirrors and corruption.

No - Bush / Cheney got away with Lying, Killing, Disabled, Tortured, Stealing, Cheating, Attacking, Treason, Cronies, Crimes, Corruption, Massive Deficits, Debt, Economic Destruction of the USA!

 

[eagle1462010]

Bush / Cheney Attacked Joe Wilson & Exposed Covert CIA Valerie Plame

But Bush..................Diversion..................

Why wasn't the investigation prosecuted under Section E.................I'll tell you why...........so she wouldn't be nailed for Negligence and Recklessness..........set the bar for criminal misconduct high enough.................she gets away with it....................

Smoke and mirrors and corruption.

No - Bush / Cheney got away with Lying, Killing, Stealing, Cheating, Attacking, Treason, Cronies, Crimes, Corruption, Massive Deficits, Debt, Economic Destruction of the USA!

And Clinton gets guidelines for prosecution from the FBI and DOJ on which virtually NO ONE EVER GETS CONVICTED....................

While those they want to take down.............are prosecuted under Section E....................Lee was held without trial for many years in isolation........The abuses of the law were so flagrant...............that they violated his Constitutional rights................the Judge apologized for it...........didn't change what they did...........

He was denied his rights as a citizen................

But the Double Standard doesn't exist for those they choose to give a pass..............Clinton.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ouldve-helped-this-marine-avoid-a-conviction/

Rather than just going through the Roller case and trying to make comparisons to the Clinton case, let’s answer this question instead: Under FBI Director James Comey’s so-called “Clinton Standard,” would Rickie Roller have been prosecuted?

Here are the facts:

U.S. Marines Sergeant Rickie Roller was responsible for all of the classified material that came into the Intelligence Division at the Marines Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Due to a conflict with his supervisor he requested a transfer and he “hastily packed his gym bag” with materials from his desk on his last day at the Intelligence Division HQ. Several weeks later as Roller was unpacking the gym bag he discovered the classified materials in his gym bag. Fearing he would get into trouble, Roller decided he would destroy the items once he arrived at his new duty station. However, a moving company employee discovered the classified materials before Roller could destroy them and notified authorities. Roller was convicted in a general court martial under Section 793(f), which provides, in part:


As you can see, the court determined that the act of unknowingly placing the classified material in his gym bag satisfied the “gross negligence” requirement under 793(f). Furthermore, the court found that Roller’s negligence in failing to protect the information once it was taken out of the secured area resulted in its “loss” — even though it was returned to the proper authorities by the moving company employee. They specifically found Roller had a duty to protect the information until he could return it to the government. Therefore, the court held the conviction under 793(f) was appropriate.

So, would the outcome in Roller’s case change under the so-called “Clinton Standard” as articulated by Director Comey at the congressional hearing on Thursday? The answer is most probably yes, Rickie Roller’s conviction would not stand under the “Clinton Standard.” Here is why.

The most fundamental difference in how the two cases were handled begins with the court’s acceptance that Congress’ intent in drafting the Espionage Act was “to create a hierarchy of offenses against national security, ranging from ‘classic spying’ to merely losing classified materials through gross negligence.” Director Comey, however, stated his belief that the U.S. government should not prosecute someone unless they know what they are doing is wrong. Thus, he would have refused to even attempt recommend a prosecution under section 793(f).



So far the only offense I can find under Section 793 F.........................

He was in a hurry............was moving and jamming his stuff in a gym bag to move..............then later went OH SHIT................I FUCKED UP.............yet the Court Martial said it was Malicious Intent......................and these are military standards.......Not State Dept. Standards..........and a Military Court Martial which are held to higher standards than a regular court.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ouldve-helped-this-marine-avoid-a-conviction/

Rather than just going through the Roller case and trying to make comparisons to the Clinton case, let’s answer this question instead: Under FBI Director James Comey’s so-called “Clinton Standard,” would Rickie Roller have been prosecuted?

Here are the facts:

U.S. Marines Sergeant Rickie Roller was responsible for all of the classified material that came into the Intelligence Division at the Marines Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Due to a conflict with his supervisor he requested a transfer and he “hastily packed his gym bag” with materials from his desk on his last day at the Intelligence Division HQ. Several weeks later as Roller was unpacking the gym bag he discovered the classified materials in his gym bag. Fearing he would get into trouble, Roller decided he would destroy the items once he arrived at his new duty station. However, a moving company employee discovered the classified materials before Roller could destroy them and notified authorities. Roller was convicted in a general court martial under Section 793(f), which provides, in part:


As you can see, the court determined that the act of unknowingly placing the classified material in his gym bag satisfied the “gross negligence” requirement under 793(f). Furthermore, the court found that Roller’s negligence in failing to protect the information once it was taken out of the secured area resulted in its “loss” — even though it was returned to the proper authorities by the moving company employee. They specifically found Roller had a duty to protect the information until he could return it to the government. Therefore, the court held the conviction under 793(f) was appropriate.

So, would the outcome in Roller’s case change under the so-called “Clinton Standard” as articulated by Director Comey at the congressional hearing on Thursday? The answer is most probably yes, Rickie Roller’s conviction would not stand under the “Clinton Standard.” Here is why.

The most fundamental difference in how the two cases were handled begins with the court’s acceptance that Congress’ intent in drafting the Espionage Act was “to create a hierarchy of offenses against national security, ranging from ‘classic spying’ to merely losing classified materials through gross negligence.” Director Comey, however, stated his belief that the U.S. government should not prosecute someone unless they know what they are doing is wrong. Thus, he would have refused to even attempt recommend a prosecution under section 793(f).



So far the only offense I can find under Section 793 F.........................

He was in a hurry............was moving and jamming his stuff in a gym bag to move..............then later went OH SHIT................I FUCKED UP.............yet the Court Martial said it was Malicious Intent......................and these are military standards.......Not State Dept. Standards..........and a Military Court Martial which are held to higher standards than a regular court.

The military is always held to a higher standard, what is your point in all of this?

The military can and will punish you for adultery, such a thing does not exist in the civilian world any more.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ouldve-helped-this-marine-avoid-a-conviction/

Rather than just going through the Roller case and trying to make comparisons to the Clinton case, let’s answer this question instead: Under FBI Director James Comey’s so-called “Clinton Standard,” would Rickie Roller have been prosecuted?

Here are the facts:

U.S. Marines Sergeant Rickie Roller was responsible for all of the classified material that came into the Intelligence Division at the Marines Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Due to a conflict with his supervisor he requested a transfer and he “hastily packed his gym bag” with materials from his desk on his last day at the Intelligence Division HQ. Several weeks later as Roller was unpacking the gym bag he discovered the classified materials in his gym bag. Fearing he would get into trouble, Roller decided he would destroy the items once he arrived at his new duty station. However, a moving company employee discovered the classified materials before Roller could destroy them and notified authorities. Roller was convicted in a general court martial under Section 793(f), which provides, in part:


As you can see, the court determined that the act of unknowingly placing the classified material in his gym bag satisfied the “gross negligence” requirement under 793(f). Furthermore, the court found that Roller’s negligence in failing to protect the information once it was taken out of the secured area resulted in its “loss” — even though it was returned to the proper authorities by the moving company employee. They specifically found Roller had a duty to protect the information until he could return it to the government. Therefore, the court held the conviction under 793(f) was appropriate.

So, would the outcome in Roller’s case change under the so-called “Clinton Standard” as articulated by Director Comey at the congressional hearing on Thursday? The answer is most probably yes, Rickie Roller’s conviction would not stand under the “Clinton Standard.” Here is why.

The most fundamental difference in how the two cases were handled begins with the court’s acceptance that Congress’ intent in drafting the Espionage Act was “to create a hierarchy of offenses against national security, ranging from ‘classic spying’ to merely losing classified materials through gross negligence.” Director Comey, however, stated his belief that the U.S. government should not prosecute someone unless they know what they are doing is wrong. Thus, he would have refused to even attempt recommend a prosecution under section 793(f).



So far the only offense I can find under Section 793 F.........................

He was in a hurry............was moving and jamming his stuff in a gym bag to move..............then later went OH SHIT................I FUCKED UP.............yet the Court Martial said it was Malicious Intent......................and these are military standards.......Not State Dept. Standards..........and a Military Court Martial which are held to higher standards than a regular court.

The military is always held to a higher standard, what is your point in all of this?

The military can and will punish you for adultery, such a thing does not exist in the civilian world any more.

My point is clear...............they pushed section F.................Yet it is a Section that I can't even find hardly a case of it actually winning in court.............Found one so far and it was a Court Martial..................His mistake.........in a hurry to move and stuffed his stuff in a gym bag...........and accidentally put classified information in the bag.......then tried to hide his screw up..........Never was there intent to do the crime............His CRIMINAL INTENT was to hide it later...............instead of disclosing he'd screwed up......................

He didn't intend to do the crime..........but realizing he'd be fragged he tried to hide the mistake..........

My point...........why were the guidelines to F when virtually nobody gets prosecuted under that standard..........why weren't the guidelines section E............

They set the bar HIGH to ENSURE she never got prosecuted...............
That is my take on it...........you and others are entitled to have an alternate opinion............My take..........they made sure she didn't get tried.

 

[DarkFury]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...ouldve-helped-this-marine-avoid-a-conviction/

Rather than just going through the Roller case and trying to make comparisons to the Clinton case, let’s answer this question instead: Under FBI Director James Comey’s so-called “Clinton Standard,” would Rickie Roller have been prosecuted?

Here are the facts:

U.S. Marines Sergeant Rickie Roller was responsible for all of the classified material that came into the Intelligence Division at the Marines Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Due to a conflict with his supervisor he requested a transfer and he “hastily packed his gym bag” with materials from his desk on his last day at the Intelligence Division HQ. Several weeks later as Roller was unpacking the gym bag he discovered the classified materials in his gym bag. Fearing he would get into trouble, Roller decided he would destroy the items once he arrived at his new duty station. However, a moving company employee discovered the classified materials before Roller could destroy them and notified authorities. Roller was convicted in a general court martial under Section 793(f), which provides, in part:


As you can see, the court determined that the act of unknowingly placing the classified material in his gym bag satisfied the “gross negligence” requirement under 793(f). Furthermore, the court found that Roller’s negligence in failing to protect the information once it was taken out of the secured area resulted in its “loss” — even though it was returned to the proper authorities by the moving company employee. They specifically found Roller had a duty to protect the information until he could return it to the government. Therefore, the court held the conviction under 793(f) was appropriate.

So, would the outcome in Roller’s case change under the so-called “Clinton Standard” as articulated by Director Comey at the congressional hearing on Thursday? The answer is most probably yes, Rickie Roller’s conviction would not stand under the “Clinton Standard.” Here is why.

The most fundamental difference in how the two cases were handled begins with the court’s acceptance that Congress’ intent in drafting the Espionage Act was “to create a hierarchy of offenses against national security, ranging from ‘classic spying’ to merely losing classified materials through gross negligence.” Director Comey, however, stated his belief that the U.S. government should not prosecute someone unless they know what they are doing is wrong. Thus, he would have refused to even attempt recommend a prosecution under section 793(f).



So far the only offense I can find under Section 793 F.........................

He was in a hurry............was moving and jamming his stuff in a gym bag to move..............then later went OH SHIT................I FUCKED UP.............yet the Court Martial said it was Malicious Intent......................and these are military standards.......Not State Dept. Standards..........and a Military Court Martial which are held to higher standards than a regular court.

The military is always held to a higher standard, what is your point in all of this?

The military can and will punish you for adultery, such a thing does not exist in the civilian world any more.

The FBI used to have those standards and it maybe time to bring them back.

 

[JoeB131]

They set the bar HIGH to ENSURE she never got prosecuted...............
That is my take on it...........you and others are entitled to have an alternate opinion............My take..........they made sure she didn't get tried.

They set the bar high because they realized they'd have to take this in front of a jury of DC voters at some point.

Not some minor technical violation that is done just abuot every day and people are never prosecuted for.

So the IG report was another big nothingburger for the right...

 

[eagle1462010]

The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails

These weren’t just ordinary secrets found in Clinton’s private server, but some of the most classified material the U.S. government has.

Most seriously, the inspector general assessed that Clinton’s emails included information that was highly classified—yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the inspector general’s report.

What, then, does all this mean for Hillary Clinton? There is no doubt that she, or someone on her State Department staff, violated federal law by putting TOP SECRET//SI information on an unclassified system. That it was Hillary’s private, offsite server makes the case even worse from a security viewpoint. Claims that they “didn’t know” such information was highly classified do not hold water and are irrelevant. It strains belief that anybody with clearances didn’t recognize that NSA information, which is loaded with classification markings, was signals intelligence, or SIGINT. It’s possible that the classified information found in Clinton’s email trove wasn’t marked as such. But if that classification notice was omitted, it wasn’t the U.S. intelligence community that took such markings away. Moreover, anybody holding security clearances has already assumed the responsibility for handling it properly.


Spy Satellite Secrets were on her bathroom server...........but she didn't know that was Classified........but hey...........it was marked unclassified.............................gets a pass.....................

Incredible.

 

[JoeB131]

Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the inspector general’s report.

Okay, but it wasn't, that was the point. Funny you guys want to prosecute Hillary for receiving it, but never talk about the people who sent it to her to start with.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Neither you nor I have the legal background not the understanding of how things work in DC on the level of understanding the implications. And don't pretend you do.

The report is written in plain English. It's not in a secret code.

And speak for yourself.

/----/ OK Pumpkin. As soon as you digest the 500 pages let us know your critical opinion.
View attachment 198558

There's a handy little executive summary, right at the beginning. It's only 15 or so pages long.

/----/ But the Executive Summary is someone's opinion which can be manipulated. Can't you think for yourself?
An executive summary, or management summary, is a short document or section of a document, produced for business purposes, that summarizes a longer report or proposal or a group of related reports in such a way that readers can rapidly become acquainted with a large body of material without having to read it all.

Do you not understand what the word "summary" means?

It's not "someone's opinion" - it's a summary of the findings of the report.

/——/ A summary is composed of editorial decisions based on that persons opinion on what is or isn’t important and how to frame the article. Give the report to three editors and you’ll get three different summaries. Again I spent nearly two decades in legal publishing. And why are you arguing such a benign point?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the inspector general’s report.

Okay, but it wasn't, that was the point. Funny you guys want to prosecute Hillary for receiving it, but never talk about the people who sent it to her to start with.

/——-/ Who said we didn’t want to prosecute those who sent her the CI?

 

[DarkFury]

They set the bar HIGH to ENSURE she never got prosecuted...............
That is my take on it...........you and others are entitled to have an alternate opinion............My take..........they made sure she didn't get tried.

They set the bar high because they realized they'd have to take this in front of a jury of DC voters at some point.

Not some minor technical violation that is done just abuot every day and people are never prosecuted for.

So the IG report was another big nothingburger for the right...

Not exactly, it fuels the base and the undecided with anger towards the democrats. It confirms they are the party of corruption. We may not get to lock up Clinton but caging the entire DNC up before the mid terms works for me.

 

[JoeB131]

/——-/ Who said we didn’t want to prosecute those who sent her the CI?

That you almost never, ever talk about the low-level State staffers who sent her stuff. These guys committed crimes, too, and not a one of them has been prosecuted.