Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton

[Freewill]

Clinton’s Handling of Classified Information

 

[Meathead]

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.

Bore markings??????????? What the fuck is "bore markings". When I was in the service, I worked in military intelligence.

There was no "bore markings". Things were stamped top secret, secret and confidential. And today's classified emails have what's called "water markings", like in this passport:

It's either marked or it's not. No such thing as "bore markings". The government isn't shy about marking classified info.

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found.

Which means you found nothing.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

We did not see those things here.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Only facts matter? Go back through his statement. It's filled with speculation. This is one disgraceful and partisan speech that calls into question the professionalism of the Head of the FBI.

"Bore" idiot, is the past of the irregular verb "bear" meaning to carry, bring forth or have children. So it is bear/bore/born as in "you were born an idiot" as a passive example. The active example would be "your mother bore an idiot".

 

[Oldstyle]

As he stated:
- She failed to TURN OVER all work-related e-mails...this is a violation of the FOIA and The Federal Records Act.

Wait, did he really say this? Because I'm sure he stated that he found other emails that were recovered by Analysts. Not that she kept them from anyone. I know facts dont matter to you but seriously....Did he say the above? I dont think so...I could be wrong tho

Are you really claiming that Clinton didn't try to keep those emails from Congressional investigators? Come on, Closed...nobody is that naive. You know as well as I do that Clinton deliberately hid what was on those two servers from Congress. It's the reason she worked through them in the first place. She wanted to conduct business without Congressional oversight. Forget about not protecting top secret material! Clinton's real crime here was that she deliberately skirted legislation that was put in place to stop government corruption.

 

[Tresha91203]

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

You've got to read this statement. The most partisan and misleading smear I have ever read that's supposed to be an unbiased report from the Head of the FBI.

Peppered through are statements like this:

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

Bore markings??????????? What the fuck is "bore markings". When I was in the service, I worked in military intelligence.

There was no "bore markings". Things were stamped top secret, secret and confidential. And today's classified emails have what's called "water markings", like in this passport:

It's either marked or it's not. No such thing as "bore markings". The government isn't shy about marking classified info.

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found.

Which means you found nothing.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

We did not see those things here.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Only facts matter? Go back through his statement. It's filled with speculation. This is one disgraceful and partisan speech that calls into question the professionalism of the Head of the FBI.

When you worked in military intelligence, was intent a factor. If you mishandled classified info, would they let you keep your job and clearance if they determined you were extremely careless, but did not intend harm?

 

[Oldstyle]

Clinton's tech taking the 5th pretty much seals the deal. He's not testifying because he knows he was party to breaking the law. If he broke the law setting up the servers and then scrubbing what Clinton wanted scrubbed...then it's hard to see how Hillary isn't also guilty. As I said before...I'd like to see Comey's rationale for not bringing charges against Clinton.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Hillary is bad, but the opposition has no one to put against her. Her opponent is a Democrat who the democrats will have nothing to do with. Give us a credible choice.

He wants us to keep our guns and lower taxes that's why many Democrats won't consider him. Some have and will though, you're simply full of shit.

You really think he gives a phuck about whether you keep guns or pay lower taxes? Really? He has nothing to do with your world. He's never lived in it. He's just running because after 50 years of stealing money, filing bankruptcy and committing fraud, the only thing left is power on a grand scale.

 

[BlueGin]

Wait, did he really say this? Because I'm sure he stated that he found other emails that were recovered by Analysts. Not that she kept them from anyone. I know facts dont matter to you but seriously....Did he say the above? I dont think so...I could be wrong tho

With all due respect, Closed...the narrative that Hillary Clinton DIDN"T attempt to keep the emails on her two servers based in her home from Congressional scrutiny is laughable! When Congress asked for all things pertaining to Benghazi, Clinton didn't give them anything from her two private servers. Then when Congressional investigators discovered that she was working through a private network rather than the State Department one that she was required to work through...she deleted tens of thousands of emails from those servers. How Comey reached the conclusion that no crime was committed here, I'd love to hear, quite frankly!

You can laugh, find it incredible or slap any label you like on it. I'm asking if Comey actually said what is quoted there because I havent seen that posted ANYWHERE. But again, I could be wrong and I will admit to it if I am.

Does the truth matter? Or just the adjectives you use to describe the truth?

You want to lecture about truth in a string where you're defending Hillary Clinton's honesty, Closed? Talk about cleaning the Stygian Stables!

Oh I'm not defending her honesty. I'm asking if Comey actually said what Easy is claiming?

Since no one has answered directly I can only assume that Easy was lying. So Comey didnt say that she failed to turn over anything or that it was intended to deceive anyone.

Thats pretty important

No , in fact Comey DID concede that 30K emails were never turned over and that several devices were cleaned in a way as to make those emails unrecoverable even by FBI techs who are among the best in the world at that sort of thing. Meaning you REALLY have to go out of your way to delete things to a level that the FBI can't recover them.

Which was done by her lawyers BTW.

 

[Tresha91203]

As he stated:
- She failed to TURN OVER all work-related e-mails...this is a violation of the FOIA and The Federal Records Act.

Wait, did he really say this? Because I'm sure he stated that he found other emails that were recovered by Analysts. Not that she kept them from anyone. I know facts dont matter to you but seriously....Did he say the above? I dont think so...I could be wrong tho

If she had turned them over, they would not have been found by analysts.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

As he stated:
- She failed to TURN OVER all work-related e-mails...this is a violation of the FOIA and The Federal Records Act.

Wait, did he really say this? Because I'm sure he stated that he found other emails that were recovered by Analysts. Not that she kept them from anyone. I know facts dont matter to you but seriously....Did he say the above? I dont think so...I could be wrong tho

Are you really claiming that Clinton didn't try to keep those emails from Congressional investigators? Come on, Closed...nobody is that naive. You know as well as I do that Clinton deliberately hid what was on those two servers from Congress. It's the reason she worked through them in the first place. She wanted to conduct business without Congressional oversight. Forget about not protecting top secret material! Clinton's real crime here was that she deliberately skirted legislation that was put in place to stop government corruption.

Actually, her REAL motive was to avoid FOIA laws. Can't have "the little people" knowing what she was doing.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hillary is bad, but the opposition has no one to put against her. Her opponent is a Democrat who the democrats will have nothing to do with. Give us a credible choice.

He wants us to keep our guns and lower taxes that's why many Democrats won't consider him. Some have and will though, you're simply full of shit.

You really think he gives a phuck about whether you keep guns or pay lower taxes? Really? He has nothing to do with your world. He's never lived in it. He's just running because after 50 years of stealing money, filing bankruptcy and committing fraud, the only thing left is power on a grand scale.

Like Hillary is involved in my world? LOL, you're a goddamn hack. Yeah, I'll take my chances with Trump, especially after the turd leaves the White House.

 

[Oldstyle]

As he stated:
- She failed to TURN OVER all work-related e-mails...this is a violation of the FOIA and The Federal Records Act.

Wait, did he really say this? Because I'm sure he stated that he found other emails that were recovered by Analysts. Not that she kept them from anyone. I know facts dont matter to you but seriously....Did he say the above? I dont think so...I could be wrong tho

Are you really claiming that Clinton didn't try to keep those emails from Congressional investigators? Come on, Closed...nobody is that naive. You know as well as I do that Clinton deliberately hid what was on those two servers from Congress. It's the reason she worked through them in the first place. She wanted to conduct business without Congressional oversight. Forget about not protecting top secret material! Clinton's real crime here was that she deliberately skirted legislation that was put in place to stop government corruption.

Actually, her REAL motive was to avoid FOIA laws. Can't have "the little people" knowing what she was doing.

That's the thing that's most disturbing about what Clinton did...she actively sought to conduct official State Department business "off the Federal grid"...communicating through servers that she didn't acknowledge to Congress existed. Pair that behavior with her families long history of enriching themselves through influence peddling and you've got something taking place that all Americans should be having a problem with....namely a public official or the husband of a public official taking obscenely large "speaking fees" from the power elite here in the US and around the rest of the world and not wanting Congress or American citizens to know what kind of back and forth took place before those "speaking fees" were paid. Quite frankly...an incredible level of sleaziness has taken place here.

 

[NoNukes]

Hillary is bad, but the opposition has no one to put against her. Her opponent is a Democrat who the democrats will have nothing to do with. Give us a credible choice.

Still not sure that Trump will be the nominee, the Convention surprise is still a 25% chance in my book.

They can win the White House with a credible choice.

They also have a chance to win with Trump. Methinks you get a serious "won't say it to a pollster, but will say it in the voting booth" thing with Trump.

The opposite is also true. People might say they are for Trump until they get into the booth. Interesting election though. My wife and I are thinking about coming over for it.

I think the "vote trump, say otherwise" trend is greater than they opposite. Remember the left is the current champion of punishing "wrongthink, not the Right. They took that from us a few decades ago and ran with it.

I would say that "wrong think" still goes both ways. It goes with the personality and not the political leaning.

 

[martybegan]

Still not sure that Trump will be the nominee, the Convention surprise is still a 25% chance in my book.

They can win the White House with a credible choice.

They also have a chance to win with Trump. Methinks you get a serious "won't say it to a pollster, but will say it in the voting booth" thing with Trump.

The opposite is also true. People might say they are for Trump until they get into the booth. Interesting election though. My wife and I are thinking about coming over for it.

I think the "vote trump, say otherwise" trend is greater than they opposite. Remember the left is the current champion of punishing "wrongthink, not the Right. They took that from us a few decades ago and ran with it.

I would say that "wrong think" still goes both ways. It goes with the personality and not the political leaning.

Not as much as it used to. Libertarian leanings run far stronger on the right these days, and your classical liberals on the left are finding even themselves under attack by the "special snowflakes" and their older enablers.

Right now your evangelicals are far more interested in others leaving them the hell alone than going out and trying to change others via government action. The pendulum has swung away from them for the time being.

 

[paperview]

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

You've got to read this statement. The most partisan and misleading smear I have ever read that's supposed to be an unbiased report from the Head of the FBI.

Peppered through are statements like this:

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

Bore markings??????????? What the fuck is "bore markings". When I was in the service, I worked in military intelligence.

There was no "bore markings". Things were stamped top secret, secret and confidential. And today's classified emails have what's called "water markings", like in this passport:

It's either marked or it's not. No such thing as "bore markings". The government isn't shy about marking classified info.

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found.

Which means you found nothing.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

We did not see those things here.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Only facts matter? Go back through his statement. It's filled with speculation. This is one disgraceful and partisan speech that calls into question the professionalism of the Head of the FBI.

You might find this article (albeit a biased opinion piece) interesting:


"It is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

Some, Comey included, will argue that this distinction makes no difference, but it certainly does, especially when judging whether or not Hillary Clinton lied. In this case, it’s important to listen carefully to what Comey said, which is that a “very small number” (whatever that means) “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

There are several problems with this, most fundamental among them being that Comey’s press conference should have lasted 30 seconds, and not included what amounted to 15 minutes of unanswered, unexamined testimony against Hillary Clinton. No one can cross-examine Comey and ask him what “a very small number” means, nor can we know which “markings” he’s referring to.

For example, one of the emails that Hillary-haters declared a smoking gun was one which bore the word “confidential” in the subject line, but which referred to attorney-client privilege, not government classification. Was there a “very small number” of these?

Another email released more recently contained the designation “(c)” for “confidential,” which is what’s called a “portion marking.” They call it that because the notation appears just before the portion of the document that is classified, in this case at the very bottom of the first page. However, according to the “Marking Classified National Security Information” training manual, this email was not marked as classified, at least not properly:

Identify the overall classification of the document. This will be equal to the highest classification level of any one portion found in the document. In this example, the highest classification is “Secret,” found in paragraph 2.
• Conspicuously place the overall classification at the top and bottom of the page.
• If the document contains more than one page, place the overall marking at the top and
bottom of the outside of the front cover, on the title page, on the first page, and on the
outside of the back cover (if any).
• Mark other internal pages either with the overall classification or with a marking
indicating the highest classification level of information contained on that page.

You can argue whether the designation in this email even fits the definition of “marked classified,” but this certainly casts doubt on the claim that Hillary lied. If a “very small number” of emails were supposed to be marked with a giant stamp at the top of each page, but they weren’t, that’s at worst an honest mistake. I would argue that such emails would definitely not qualify as “marked classified,” and I suspect Comey would have to concede that, since he very studiously avoided saying that.

...
<snip>
Finally, there’s the subject of that distinction between information that’s “classified” and information that’s “marked classified,” which isn’t the basis of the claim that Hillary lied, but is another great reason for James Comey to shut the hell up. In fact, he pretty much said so himself when he told reporters that the handling of classified information at the State Department was “not the focus of our investigation.”

The FBI, and other security agencies within the government, are not partners with the State Department, they’re antagonists. Anyone who has done even a little bit of national security reporting will tell you that these agencies are absolute in their belief in secrecy, and would classify the menu board on their favorite lunch truck if they could, but this tendency is especially onerous to diplomats, who require a much greater level of flexibility in what they can discuss than other government officials. When Comey slams State as having a “lax culture” around secrecy, he’s delivering his opinion as a rival, not the unbiased assessment of an objective observer.

If James Comey had wanted to present a case against Hillary Clinton, he should have indicted her. Instead, he failed to charge her because he had no case, yet was still permitted to present a case against her. It is the media’s duty to correct that injustice, to rebut Comey’s misleading speculation with facts. Let’s see how that goes.

Update: So, it turns out the “very small number” was two, and one of them was the exact example I gave, and the other was the same as that one. From NYT:

While he did not identify any, he was evidently referring to two emails that one of Mrs. Clinton’s close aides, Monica R. Hanley, sent to prepare her for telephone calls with foreign leaders, according to a State Department official familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

One email, dated Aug. 2, 2012, noted that Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations, was stepping down as special envoy trying to mediate the war in Syria. A second one, sent in April 2012, discussed Mrs. Clinton’s call to the newly inaugurated president of Malawi.


Each was marked with a small notation, “(C),” indicating it contained information classified as “confidential.”


Furthermore, according to the State Department, even those two were marked in error."

Here’s Why Hillary Clinton Isn’t a Liar and James Comey Needs to Shut the Entire Hell Up

 

[NoNukes]

They can win the White House with a credible choice.

They also have a chance to win with Trump. Methinks you get a serious "won't say it to a pollster, but will say it in the voting booth" thing with Trump.

The opposite is also true. People might say they are for Trump until they get into the booth. Interesting election though. My wife and I are thinking about coming over for it.

I think the "vote trump, say otherwise" trend is greater than they opposite. Remember the left is the current champion of punishing "wrongthink, not the Right. They took that from us a few decades ago and ran with it.

I would say that "wrong think" still goes both ways. It goes with the personality and not the political leaning.

Not as much as it used to. Libertarian leanings run far stronger on the right these days, and your classical liberals on the left are finding even themselves under attack by the "special snowflakes" and their older enablers.

Right now your evangelicals are far more interested in others leaving them the hell alone than going out and trying to change others via government action. The pendulum has swung away from them for the time being.

One cannot paint all Liberals or all Conservatives with one broad brush.

 

[Freewill]

What is interesting is they are saying that other cases that were very similiar, not sure where Comey was looking, in each case the person who put classified information on their hard drives admitted to doing so. So the defense for Mrs. Tuzla is that because she either lied about not knowing or she is too stupid to know. Wow just wow. That should be quite a benefit to those accused of the same sort of activity.

But in general, if you do something wrong, never admit to it, you might skate.

 

[jon_berzerk]

he is going to say

"we are the clintons

wtf you going to do about it

nothin thats what so STFU "

and the repubs will

 

[martybegan]

They also have a chance to win with Trump. Methinks you get a serious "won't say it to a pollster, but will say it in the voting booth" thing with Trump.

The opposite is also true. People might say they are for Trump until they get into the booth. Interesting election though. My wife and I are thinking about coming over for it.

I think the "vote trump, say otherwise" trend is greater than they opposite. Remember the left is the current champion of punishing "wrongthink, not the Right. They took that from us a few decades ago and ran with it.

I would say that "wrong think" still goes both ways. It goes with the personality and not the political leaning.

Not as much as it used to. Libertarian leanings run far stronger on the right these days, and your classical liberals on the left are finding even themselves under attack by the "special snowflakes" and their older enablers.

Right now your evangelicals are far more interested in others leaving them the hell alone than going out and trying to change others via government action. The pendulum has swung away from them for the time being.

One cannot paint all Liberals or all Conservatives with one broad brush.

I wasn't. I was denoting specific types on both sides.

 

[easyt65]

Bottom line, if nothing else:

- Hillary gave false statements under oath. That's Perjury.

- Comey has personally prosecuted several people for less.

- Comey over-stepped his bounds when he stated, "No reasonable prosecutor would indict'
--- His job was to report the findings, not make such recommendations.

--- 2 Former Attorney Generals disagreed with him

.....at the least, as both of them declared, Hillary should have been charged with Perjury.

Time to chalk it up as another chapter in Obama's Lawless Administration

 

[Weatherman2020]