No Charges for Clinton

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One can only wonder what the charges would have been had Hillary outed an active under-cover CIA agent for political purposes.

They didn't prosecute the one who did!

But of course, you knew that and chose to ignore it, like a good liberal sycophant.

 

[Care4all]

I think the ''and RETENSION'' part is different... I think once they told her the classified was on there, her actions of immediately handing it over and her not trying to destroy any of it as this military reservist tried to do, is the difference.

I dont think that that is the record, C4A.

There was a long dragged out sequence of denial, obfuscation and lawyering up instead.

Arrangements to turn over her server were made right after she was told T/S Classified material was on it....her lawyer worked with the govt to obtain the server and memory disc, and store them in a locked safe in his office, until the FBI could make arrangements to recover them is what I read, early on....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As are Republicans.

What the fuck are you today? A Democrat?

A Republican truthteller as always. Our party has sunk to DP lows. Shameful,

Shut the fuck up you waste of bandwidth SOB.....

The good people in the GOP are now in a position to put a finis to Trump either this month at the convention or during the general election. You crazies are looking at catastrophic defeat.

I'm trying my best to figure you out - but it's not working. More Americans have cast ballots for Trump than any other candidate (republican) in American history and somehow - that doesn't matter to you. So, what are we to take from that? Apparently, you don't give a shit about what "Americans" want.

Yep - typical liberal. Guess I was wrong. You are indeed a provocateur.

Still several million fewer than Clinton.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Right. And it's just fine that Clinton secretly met with Lynch...

Lynch is Justice, the report today was the FBI - thus your comment is foolish and or ignorant.

But I thought this was the law.

18 US Code 793 Section F:
(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.

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

Never ever pretend you think. You emote, thought is never part of your posts.

The FBI sent to the DOJ their conclusions with the opinion that no crime had been committed. Therefore, the ball is now in the hands of the DOJ who will apply the law; that is their call, not the call of the FBI as everyone who passed 12th grade civics understands.

 

[Care4all]

U.S. Attorney’s Office July 29, 2015

• Eastern District of California (916) 554-2700

SACRAMENTO, CA—Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.


U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.


According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.


Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.


This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case.


This content has been reproduced from its original source.


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

I believe the difference between the two cases, is that this man went home after confessing to the Navy that he had handled this classified information improperly, and tried to dispose of the evidence and destroyed large quantities of the classified material he maintained at his home, and despite that they still found numerous classified materials in digital AND Hard Copy forms.

Where as Clinton, immediately gave her server and memory disc to the FBI and in to their custody, when they determined these devices had classified material on them.

I'm not certain, but that's the difference I see that could be a reason for the different actions? If the military guy had gathered all of his classified material and handed it over to the proper authorities right after his confession, things may have been different for him?

PLUS, we don't know if the classified material in Clinton's email chains was Military related and critical to the Military's safety, while we do know Military Briefings that this other man retained were military related???

I dunno?

And what was he guilty of? unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials,

And Hillary broke laws regarding? unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials,

When did the Democrats become the lap dogs of the 1%?

I think the ''and RETENSION'' part is different... I think once they told her the classified was on there, her actions of immediately handing it over and her not trying to destroy any of it as this military reservist tried to do, is the difference.

Are you serious?

Yes.

I think the confusion you are experiencing involves 2 different things.... one involves Congress critters wanting her emails as secretary of state...and how they reacted

vs.

the other involves the determination of T/S material being on her server, and getting that in to the hands of the FBI to secure it.

 

[JoeMoma]

Right. And it's just fine that Clinton secretly met with Lynch...

Lynch is Justice, the report today was the FBI - thus your comment is foolish and or ignorant.

But I thought this was the law.

18 US Code 793 Section F:
(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.

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

Never ever pretend you think. You emote, thought is never part of your posts.

The FBI sent to the DOJ their conclusions with the opinion that no crime had been committed. Therefore, the ball is now in the hands of the DOJ who will apply the law; that is their call, not the call of the FBI as everyone who passed 12th grade civics understands.

Actually, Comey outlined several violations of the law by Clinton, but reconmended that no charges be brought anyway.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think the confusion you are experiencing involves 2 different things.... one involves Congress critters wanting her emails as secretary of state...and how they reacted

vs.

the other involves the determination of T/S material being on her server, and getting that in to the hands of the FBI to secure it.

Too bad this poor guy wasnt born into the Clinton Dynasty.

If Your Name Isn't Hillary, the Hammer for Mishandling Secrets
The problems began in late 2010 when Van Buren wrote a book titled “We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.” He submitted it to the department for prepublication review and, after a mandatory waiting period in 2011, it was shipped to bookstores. Just before it hit the shelves, his publisher was urged to hit the brakes.

There were three allegedly classified details, the department claimed about the book poised to sharply criticize U.S. diplomatic efforts. The details including mention that an unnamed CIA officer who had worked in Iraq and Afghanistan had also worked in Somalia, that the CIA controlled the budget of Iraqi intelligence services – a rehash, the author says, of mainstream press reporting – and that the CIA had once worked with Saddam Hussein.


Van Buren's publisher concluded the contested passages “clearly did not contain classified information” and brushed off the threat without legal consequences.

Then a ton of bricks fell on Van Buren. His security clearance was suspended. His access to State Department facilities was restricted. He was essentially unable to work. The reason he was given, he recalls, was that he linked to a WikiLeaks cable on his personal blog.

The cable, with the low classification "confidential," recounted an apparently chummy visit that Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., had with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2009.

The State Department told Van Buren, a 24-year diplomat, in 2012 he was being fired.

The Washington Post reported eight alleged infractions, including linking to WikiLeaks on his blog, not clearing blog posts with the department, exhibiting a “lack of candor” with diplomatic security officers, allegedly leaking classified information in his book and showing “bad judgement” by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.

The revelation that the State Department’s diplomatic security branch requested Van Buren be prosecuted came later, after his negotiated exit.

Van Buren believes the emails in Clinton’s private server that contained highly classified information did not include documents, but the information itself, and that the State Department is being deceptive in making the true but incomplete statement that the messages “were not marked as classified” when they were sent, as spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday.

Low-level diplomats who do so much as leave a document of low classification on a guarded embassy desk, Van Buren says, risk demerits that jeopardize future job prospects.

“I cannot conceive any other person in government being able to do what she did without being punished,” he says. “Lots of people have lost their clearances, lost their jobs and in some cases lost their freedom and gone to jail” for allegedly being careless in protecting classified documents.

Van Buren isn't sure how closely Clinton followed his case, but he heard through the rumor mill that Clinton became aware of it in October 2011 when The New York Times reportedon his book and State Department pushback.

The man he believes led the investigation into him, Van Buren says, reported to Clinton and “is not a bureaucrat who sticks his neck out unwisely, and he would not proceed in something as public as my case was without keeping her office informed.”

Mishandling classified documents often is alleged when authorities seek to punish embarrassing leaks to the press, but also appears in lesser-known cases, such as the prosecution of Arabic translator James Hitselberger, who was fired and criminally charged for printing two classified documents and attempting to leave a Bahrain naval base. He pleaded guilty to mishandling documents last year.

 

[Rozman]

Comey went before the American people and gave us a lot of information...
Telling was the statement that if anyone other then the beast did this they would be in serious trouble.
Then he pretty much said hey what can I tell you we all know Hillary can do whatever the fuck she wants
and we are all powerless to stop her...

 

[WillowTree]

U.S. Attorney’s Office July 29, 2015

• Eastern District of California (916) 554-2700

SACRAMENTO, CA—Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.


U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.


According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.


Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.


This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case.


This content has been reproduced from its original source.


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

I believe the difference between the two cases, is that this man went home after confessing to the Navy that he had handled this classified information improperly, and tried to dispose of the evidence and destroyed large quantities of the classified material he maintained at his home, and despite that they still found numerous classified materials in digital AND Hard Copy forms.

Where as Clinton, immediately gave her server and memory disc to the FBI and in to their custody, when they determined these devices had classified material on them.

I'm not certain, but that's the difference I see that could be a reason for the different actions? If the military guy had gathered all of his classified material and handed it over to the proper authorities right after his confession, things may have been different for him?

PLUS, we don't know if the classified material in Clinton's email chains was Military related and critical to the Military's safety, while we do know Military Briefings that this other man retained were military related???

I dunno?

And what was he guilty of? unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials,

And Hillary broke laws regarding? unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials,

When did the Democrats become the lap dogs of the 1%?

I think the ''and RETENSION'' part is different... I think once they told her the classified was on there, her actions of immediately handing it over and her not trying to destroy any of it as this military reservist tried to do, is the difference.

Are you serious?

Yes.

I think the confusion you are experiencing involves 2 different things.... one involves Congress critters wanting her emails as secretary of state...and how they reacted

vs.

the other involves the determination of T/S material being on her server, and getting that in to the hands of the FBI to secure it.

Hey! Can Trump rent that plane? Yes or no?

 

[Votto]

Conservatives are such naive children.

Why is it then that only the Dims want a nanny state?

 

[Votto]

Right. And it's just fine that Clinton secretly met with Lynch...

Lynch is Justice, the report today was the FBI - thus your comment is foolish and or ignorant.

But I thought this was the law.

18 US Code 793 Section F:
(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.

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

Never ever pretend you think. You emote, thought is never part of your posts.

The FBI sent to the DOJ their conclusions with the opinion that no crime had been committed. Therefore, the ball is now in the hands of the DOJ who will apply the law; that is their call, not the call of the FBI as everyone who passed 12th grade civics understands.

Actually, Comey outlined several violations of the law by Clinton, but reconmended that no charges be brought anyway.

He recommended that no charges be directed at Hillary even though she broke the law because..........why?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What the fuck are you today? A Democrat?

A Republican truthteller as always. Our party has sunk to DP lows. Shameful,

Shut the fuck up you waste of bandwidth SOB.....

The good people in the GOP are now in a position to put a finis to Trump either this month at the convention or during the general election. You crazies are looking at catastrophic defeat.

I'm trying my best to figure you out - but it's not working. More Americans have cast ballots for Trump than any other candidate (republican) in American history and somehow - that doesn't matter to you. So, what are we to take from that? Apparently, you don't give a shit about what "Americans" want.

Yep - typical liberal. Guess I was wrong. You are indeed a provocateur.

Still several million fewer than Clinton.

The clown car, no one wanted any member of the clown car to be nominated; Trump was so off the wall most figured he would never get the nomination so they voted for him. Now they have voter remorse, they seem to understand Trump will a) lose the election badly, and b) potentially send the Republican Party onto the trash heap of history.

They fear loosing the Senate and the H. of Rep. I hope that happens and the Democratic Leadership invites the RINO's (tossed under the bus by the crazy right wing who now control the R. Party) to join them in putting America First; meaning to take care of our citizens needs by rebuilding the infrastructure with American know how, US Steel and American Labor; keeping the pressure on Iran, ISIS, Russia and China; fixing immigration and restoring the middle class, raising the minimum wage and fixing what ails Obamacare.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Do you have a point to make or are your ankles stuck in the stirrups of your high horse. You don't have to like reality but you can't expect others to join you in your fantasy world. Sorry.

I'll ask you one more time...Do you actually READ your posts?

I have you to read them. Your welcome.

I thought that it might be "you are" or maybe "you're" but YOUR? Sir Issac Newton would be deeply troubled at your lack of knowledge of the common vernacular

Thank you my personal spell checker, you are on the job! Be sure to proof read all my upcoming posts, you appear to have the time.

That's the thing about a 73 year old. The planting is done, weeding is done, stock has been fed and watered, cows milked at 4:30 AM. Nap. Now? Nothing but time on my hands. Might re-load a couple thousand rounds of ammo later, but until then...I guess I'll sit back in my Lazy-Boy and dream about the coming revolution in America. Isn't that what you "intellectual elites" have us "rednecks" doing all the time?

73 and 're-loading ammo'? Cheaper than buying it I guess. And dreaming about 'the coming revolution in America'. Not sure why someone would dream that but meh.

How's my spelling in this one?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So sad for you that the investigation found no reason to indict her. Any you've been promising "any day now" for so long.

No, actually they merely declined to recommend charges.

A sad day for all Americans. Too bad you and others are too stupid to realize that justice isn't blind after all. I'm sick, I thought the FBI was in better hands. Hillary OBVIOUSLY broke the law.

You OBVIOUSLY would disparage anyone who wouldn't give her the same unfair judgement as you.

You know what, go eat rat poison, you're a complete tool. It is BEYOND obvious that crimes were committed. The difference is it was a Democrat so you don't care. I don't care the party of the person who broke the law.

Pitiful. I've lost all respect for Jim Comey.

 

[IsaacNewton]

One can only wonder what the charges would have been had Hillary outed an active under-cover CIA agent for political purposes.

They didn't prosecute the one who did!

But of course, you knew that and chose to ignore it, like a good liberal sycophant.

Sure they did, Scooter Libby who did the dirty work for Shrub. Then Libby was convicted. Then Shrub pardoned him.

A president has one of his operatives out a CIA agent for political purposes, then pardons the criminal as soon as he is convicted. This is what a king does. It is how scumbags wipe their ass with the Constitution and write themself a get-out-of-jail-free card. And conservatives ignore this high crime with all their guts.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Anyone who votes for her is an idiot.

That's superfluous because democrats will vote for her.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sure they did, Scooter Libby who did the dirty work for Shrub. Then Libby was convicted. Then Shrub pardoned him.

At least Libby got prosecuted, genius, and you compare him to Royal Hillary Rodham Clinton of Clan House Clinton.

roflmao, you morons have no clue how this is going to go down, do you?

 

[Freewill]

I never thought they would, seldom are people indicted for being incompetent and downright stupid. Thankfully.

BTW, I was spot on. She grossly mishandled sensitive material but that does not rise to the level of a crime because her release of the material wasn't intentional.

Whow, I will now bust my speedometer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Shhh....listen....do you guys hear that?

It's the sound of millions of fully grown conservative men all crying at the same time.

Why.......it would have been a surprise if she had been indicted.

The woman is too important to be jailed. Obama interfered and influenced the investigation. If anyone thought this was gonna result in any charges they're kidding themselves.

They would have had to indict previous AGs too. They were not about to do that.

Hillary wasn't an AG.

Precedent for prosecution had already been established, but political pressure from the WH made it a difficult case for any prosecutor. Hillary destroyed too much evidence and nobody ratted on her, so she's free. If they had wanted to press charges, she would have been indicted.

What facts do you have to sustain your allegations?


This question ^^^ will never be answered.

 

[JoeMoma]

Right. And it's just fine that Clinton secretly met with Lynch...

Lynch is Justice, the report today was the FBI - thus your comment is foolish and or ignorant.

But I thought this was the law.

18 US Code 793 Section F:
(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.

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

Never ever pretend you think. You emote, thought is never part of your posts.

The FBI sent to the DOJ their conclusions with the opinion that no crime had been committed. Therefore, the ball is now in the hands of the DOJ who will apply the law; that is their call, not the call of the FBI as everyone who passed 12th grade civics understands.

Actually, Comey outlined several violations of the law by Clinton, but reconmended that no charges be brought anyway.

He recommended that no charges be directed at Hillary even though she broke the law because..........why?

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."

If you truly listen to or read his speech, you will find that he outlines several violations of the law. However, not all violations of the law are reconmended for prosecution. His reasons for not reconmending prosecution are in his speech. He did not say that he did not reconmended prosecution because there were no violations of the law.