IG Report Thread

[AntonToo]

Aaaaaand what did Strzok DO?

IG report found that Hillary got screwed by Comey's inappropriate public comments but that the actual investigation came to a correct conclusion that no charges are to be brought.

Strzok was removed from Mueller investigation a YEAR AGO.

General Flynn - PLED GUILTY, because he was on tape talking to Kysliak and then lying about it to FBI.

Finally, IG report found NO BIASED DECISION MAKING.

Yet, Strzok is still on the payroll.

Because no wrong doing was found except personal opinions that were not reflected in his professional work.

There certainly was intent, and we only know half of the players involved.

IG report says you are wrong, Comey had it right - intent could not be established in the case and it was brought to correct conclusion. It's over, sorry bub.

Unfortunately it's only beginning.

I think more unfortunate is you saying silly nonsense like that.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ron Johnson Letter

 

[AntonToo]

Aaaaaand what did Strzok DO?

IG report found that Hillary got screwed by Comey's inappropriate public comments but that the actual investigation came to a correct conclusion that no charges are to be brought.

Strzok was removed from Mueller investigation a YEAR AGO.

General Flynn - PLED GUILTY, because he was on tape talking to Kysliak and then lying about it to FBI.

Finally, IG report found NO BIASED DECISION MAKING.

He was part of the process..............He wasn't canned until his emails came out............He's biased as hell..............

Therefore the process is Tainted.................and yes..............HE WAS POLITICALLY BIASED.

He was part of the process and in that capacity IG review found nothing inappropriate.

That's the bottom line - can you live with that? You'll have to, because there is not going to be a review of this review - sorry.

I will continue to call Hillary a Criminal until Hell Freezes over......................And given their positions in the investigation and their emails..............they are biased as well..............let me repeat my view on that.............Until Hell Freezes Over..............

Find me a court case conviction for Section 793 F....................

You can call Hillary whatever you want to, like I give a shit.

Just don't tell us it's based on something provable in the court of law, because vigorous investigations on Hillary prove it isn't.

Flynn, Papadapolous, Manafort, Gates - now we talking talking about real, provable criminality. Trump will be joining that club soon enough.

Nice Double Standard you have there.........Do you seek to be a member of Mueller's team.............they would accept you there.........

Show me a case where the section 793 F nabbed the bad guys.........I'll be waiting...........Of course they have a free reign to find anything in history of anyone in the scope of their investigation..................Not to be narrowed as it was on Clinton............Had she been charged under Sections D and E as most are..........she could have faced 110 counts of Negligence and Recklessness...........but they made sure she was charged with the Section that never convicts..........

Do you need the website for applying for a job at the FBI.............we could probably help you find it..

You don't know wtf you are talking about, everything Hillary sent out willfully, she sent to authorized people.

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it

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

The only objection critics of decision ever point to is section F, which NO ONE has ever been charged with.

 

[Thinker101]

He was part of the process..............He wasn't canned until his emails came out............He's biased as hell..............

Therefore the process is Tainted.................and yes..............HE WAS POLITICALLY BIASED.

He was part of the process and in that capacity IG review found nothing inappropriate.

That's the bottom line - can you live with that? You'll have to, because there is not going to be a review of this review - sorry.

I will continue to call Hillary a Criminal until Hell Freezes over......................And given their positions in the investigation and their emails..............they are biased as well..............let me repeat my view on that.............Until Hell Freezes Over..............

Find me a court case conviction for Section 793 F....................

You can call Hillary whatever you want to, like I give a shit.

Just don't tell us it's based on something provable in the court of law, because vigorous investigations on Hillary prove it isn't.

Flynn, Papadapolous, Manafort, Gates - now we talking talking about real, provable criminality. Trump will be joining that club soon enough.

Nice Double Standard you have there.........Do you seek to be a member of Mueller's team.............they would accept you there.........

Show me a case where the section 793 F nabbed the bad guys.........I'll be waiting...........Of course they have a free reign to find anything in history of anyone in the scope of their investigation..................Not to be narrowed as it was on Clinton............Had she been charged under Sections D and E as most are..........she could have faced 110 counts of Negligence and Recklessness...........but they made sure she was charged with the Section that never convicts..........

Do you need the website for applying for a job at the FBI.............we could probably help you find it..

You don't know wtf you are talking about, everything Hillary sent out willfully, she sent to authorized people.

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it

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

The only objection critics of decision ever point to is section F, which NO ONE has ever been charged with.

You're right, must have been those 30,000 emails sent out against her will.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Peter Strzok (headed Clinton and Russia investigations)
"WE WILL STOP HIM"
Case closed. Trump vindicated.

IG directly said that Strzok was not in decision making position and there was no action to match.

Easiest example is the fact that Strzok and Page did not leak that Trump's campaign was being investigated during campaign.

Reality is tough to swallow for nutbags like you, I get it, but you look like a moron trying to make up your own.

"His misconduct has sent shock waves through Washington because in July 2016, just days after closing the Clinton email case he led, Strzok signed the document that opened the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. His fingerprints are all over both cases, one widely criticized as a whitewash and the other condemned by the president and many in his party as a witch hunt."

 

[eagle1462010]

Holy Crap.............I finally found a case for Section F.........

UNITED STATES v. DEDEYAN | 584 F.2d 36 (1978) | 84f2d361612 | Leagle.com
In September, 1972, the defendant, a civilian mathematician, working on certain United States Department of Defense contracts in private industry, was assigned by his supervisor at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to conduct a Navy study.2 An Air Force study previously made had recommended that airlift be given a greater role in sending American soldiers and supplies to Western Europe, but had not adequately considered the possibility of a Russian attack upon the airlift. The study to be made by the defendant was a re-examination of American plans to defend NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] from a Russian and Warsaw Pact attack upon Western Europe in 1976.

The defendant worked on the project from late September, 1972, through Friday, March 30, 1973. On that date he assigned the study a preliminary "secret" classification and submitted copies to the project officer for the Chief of Naval Operations, who testified that he approved the classification "since it contained information that was secret."3 The defendant took a copy of the study home with him in order to proof-read it.4 On that same date, Friday, March 30th, a second cousin from New York arrived to visit defendant.5 Defendant says he showed his cousin the cover of the Vulnerability Analysis and then replaced it in his brief case. On the next day while the defendant and his wife were out of the house, his cousin photographed the first seventy pages of the Vulnerability Analysis, using a miniature camera which had been supplied to him by a Soviet representative to the United States.

According to the defendant some eight months later his cousin told him that he had photographed part of the Vulnerability Analysis and gave the defendant $1,000, which the defendant said he understood was intended to be payment for his remaining silent.

 

[AntonToo]

Holy Crap.............I finally found a case for Section F.........

UNITED STATES v. DEDEYAN | 584 F.2d 36 (1978) | 84f2d361612 | Leagle.com
In September, 1972, the defendant, a civilian mathematician, working on certain United States Department of Defense contracts in private industry, was assigned by his supervisor at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to conduct a Navy study.2 An Air Force study previously made had recommended that airlift be given a greater role in sending American soldiers and supplies to Western Europe, but had not adequately considered the possibility of a Russian attack upon the airlift. The study to be made by the defendant was a re-examination of American plans to defend NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] from a Russian and Warsaw Pact attack upon Western Europe in 1976.

The defendant worked on the project from late September, 1972, through Friday, March 30, 1973. On that date he assigned the study a preliminary "secret" classification and submitted copies to the project officer for the Chief of Naval Operations, who testified that he approved the classification "since it contained information that was secret."3 The defendant took a copy of the study home with him in order to proof-read it.4 On that same date, Friday, March 30th, a second cousin from New York arrived to visit defendant.5 Defendant says he showed his cousin the cover of the Vulnerability Analysis and then replaced it in his brief case. On the next day while the defendant and his wife were out of the house, his cousin photographed the first seventy pages of the Vulnerability Analysis, using a miniature camera which had been supplied to him by a Soviet representative to the United States.

According to the defendant some eight months later his cousin told him that he had photographed part of the Vulnerability Analysis and gave the defendant $1,000, which the defendant said he understood was intended to be payment for his remaining silent.

You are welcome.

Bad news though - charging Hillary under this section would be UNPRECEDENTED and section F would surely be struck down as unconstitutional if anyone was actually charged with it and would have the standing to challenge it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Holy Crap.............I finally found a case for Section F.........

UNITED STATES v. DEDEYAN | 584 F.2d 36 (1978) | 84f2d361612 | Leagle.com
In September, 1972, the defendant, a civilian mathematician, working on certain United States Department of Defense contracts in private industry, was assigned by his supervisor at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to conduct a Navy study.2 An Air Force study previously made had recommended that airlift be given a greater role in sending American soldiers and supplies to Western Europe, but had not adequately considered the possibility of a Russian attack upon the airlift. The study to be made by the defendant was a re-examination of American plans to defend NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] from a Russian and Warsaw Pact attack upon Western Europe in 1976.

The defendant worked on the project from late September, 1972, through Friday, March 30, 1973. On that date he assigned the study a preliminary "secret" classification and submitted copies to the project officer for the Chief of Naval Operations, who testified that he approved the classification "since it contained information that was secret."3 The defendant took a copy of the study home with him in order to proof-read it.4 On that same date, Friday, March 30th, a second cousin from New York arrived to visit defendant.5 Defendant says he showed his cousin the cover of the Vulnerability Analysis and then replaced it in his brief case. On the next day while the defendant and his wife were out of the house, his cousin photographed the first seventy pages of the Vulnerability Analysis, using a miniature camera which had been supplied to him by a Soviet representative to the United States.

According to the defendant some eight months later his cousin told him that he had photographed part of the Vulnerability Analysis and gave the defendant $1,000, which the defendant said he understood was intended to be payment for his remaining silent.

You are welcome.

Bad news though - charging Hillary under this section would be UNPRECEDENTED and would not survive Constitutional challenge.

LOL

They used that guideline on her.............LOL

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hillary hasn’t DONE anything.

Storing classified emails on your home brew email server is against the law.

it was not against the law at the time she was ding it. The fact that she did at no time use a state department email is at most problematic.
The biggest problems lie in the fact that the law does require ALL electronic communications to be archived. Therefore anytime any email was destroyed it broke the law. Even though she claimed to have had proper authorization that was not true. She claimed to not have any sensitive information which was not true. She claimed that her server had never been breached. That was not true. She did not dispose of her discarded devices properly.
All in all basicly she did what she wanted without regard for the law or the ways it could affect the U.S.
To say that her actions were extremely criminal would be mild.

It was illegal at the time.
But I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[eagle1462010]

Subjective or Objective Mens Rea?

Subjective or Objective Mens Rea?
The dividing line between 'recklessness' and 'negligence' is also important. It provides the dividing line between the subjective and the objective approaches to mens rea.

There are two basic methods of judging mens rea. First of all we can examine what was going on in the defendant's head; what he or she was thinking about, was aware of, was planning, was desiring, etc. We call this the subjective approach; we are focusing on the subject's perspective. Alternatively we can focus on the quality of the defendant's conduct; was it silly, foolish, dangerous, careful, diligent, etc? We call this the objective approach; we are focussing on how the behaviour compares to an objective standard.

With a subjective mens rea we have to examine what the defendant was 'thinking,' using 'thinking' in a very broad sense. We will examine his behaviour because that may give us clues. He had shouted, "I'll kill you!" He had aimed the gun and squeezed the trigger. This behaviour implies that he intended.

We are not judging the behaviour, rather we are using it to try and work out what 'was going on' in the defendant's head. Janine may say it was all a mistake, she only meant to frighten Barry. The judge and jury will have to take that into account in trying to discover whether Janine intended Barry's death. We cannot assume, just because most people would have intended, that this defendant also did. (Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 prohibits us from doing so.) The defendant might only have been trying to frighten.

But we can infer intention from the facts. We do not have to believe the defendant. Ideally we would want much more information. Perhaps there is evidence of a long-term hatred of the victim, a motive; perhaps there is a confession. We might infer that he intended because he said he intended in his confession. But he may now be saying his confession was false. The judge or jury will have to decide whether they are satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the actus reus was intended.

With an objective mens rea we couldn't care less about what the defendant was thinking. We are only concerned with the quality of the behaviour. We compare it with others' standards was it dangerous, careless, etc.. Was driving at that speed, in those conditions, careless? Was swinging that sword, so close to people, dangerous?

 

[eagle1462010]

The difference between grossly negligent and extremely careless

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2016 — FBI director James Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in her handling of classified information.

According to the espionage act, gross negligence in the handling of classified information is a crime. Comey didn’t recommend prosecution of Clinton because she was just extremely careless but not, it seems, grossly negligent.

What’s the difference?

According to the Federal Bar Association, negligence is “An act or the omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person would, or would not, do under similar circumstances.”

To the average person this means simply the failure to take proper care. Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of gross negligence includes the words “extreme carelessness.”

According to Webster’s dictionary careless is simply defined as “the failure to take proper care.” “Grossly” and “extremely” are adjectives that have similar meanings. There is no clear difference between “grossly negligent” and “extremely careless.”

Then why did Comey recommend to not prosecute Clinton?

Comey said, “Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

The FBI found at least four more statements made by Clinton to be untruthful. In one instance, she made a statement under oath that was proven to be untrue. That is usually viewed as perjury.

Comey says “bad actors” had access to the email of Clinton and her staff, meaning that all those individuals could be open to blackmail.

 

[eagle1462010]

He NEVER had any intent of harming this country..........but I'm Sorry doesn't forgive mishandling of classified information........I'm sorry I screwed up doesn't stop you from being charged.........and I'm sorry doesn't excuse you from gross negligence or Extreme Carelessness in the handling of Classified Material.

It got him.................It got a Marine who accidentally put documents in a gym bag because he was in a hurry.......

But Clinton gets a pass...............

 

[busybee01]

I can’t understabd how it keeps getting said “they were grossly incompetent , insubordinate and in violation of agency policy” BUT they didn’t do it on purpose so not illegal

There should be No “but”.
Being that awful at your job is guilt of the charges brought

Amazing...a blind man could see there was complete political motivation for wrapping up Clinton investigation and going after Trump.

You are so full of bullshit. You are the blind person here. If Comey was so pro-Clinton then why did he announce the investigation was being re-opened. Strzoka played a role in it as well. Then why was the fact that Trump was under investigation not leaked.

If there was no wrong doing...why are FBI agents going to be, according to Director, “disciplined?”

Disciplined for not liking Trump? Good luck with that. The question is whether it will be political retaliation.

 

[busybee01]

If Comey was so pro-Clinton then why did he announce the investigation was being re-opened.

If Comey were so Pro-Trump, why'd he let Clinton off the hook? As far as I can tell, she's still off the hook.

Yeah. I didn't think so.

He was neither pro-Clinton or pro-Trump.

 

[eagle1462010]

His crime..............shared it with one person who he was sleeping with............

Clinton...........got hacked.............shared it to the world.................

Double Standards.......................

 

[busybee01]

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.

While Scott Pruitt shows how corrupt the Republicans and Trump are. The report shows no corruption. Not liking Trump is not corruption. Keep Dreaming.

 

[KissMy]

Trump's Republican Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort is now in JAIL!!!

 

[eagle1462010]

Trump's Republican campaign advisor Paul Manafort is now in JAIL!!!

If there was Justice in Washington...........Clinton and many FBI agents would be too..........

 

[g5000]

Not only does the IG report exonerate Donald Trump, so does the Warren report on the JFK assassination, and the 1972 Knapp Commission on police corruption in New York City.

Even more convincingly, the apprehension of Swiper the Fox trying steal Dora the Explorer's backpack proves once and for all Donald Trump is an innocent man and that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

Stop the Mueller investigation NOW!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump's Republican campaign advisor Paul Manafort is now in JAIL!!!

Certainly this is due to the IG report. This is Mueller's method of diverting attention from the Report back to him.