Why no investigation...Stryzok the texting loving lawyer...protected Hillary from criminal charges!

[healthmyths]

FBI agent Peter Strzok not only evidenced his support of Hillary via his texts, but it was his doing that
prevented Hillary from being criminally indicted.

Stryzok's key edit, which appeared to limit Clinton's legal exposure, included changing the language to describe the former Secretary of State's actions from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
This is a key legal distinction because, under the federal criminal statute 18 USC 793, the legal standard is gross negligence.
FBI agent Peter Strzok was told of possible breach into Clinton's server but didn't follow up, sources say

Peter Stryzok SAVED Hillary from severe problems by changing the phrase.
How did he come to the conclusion it was "extremely careless" and not "grossly negligent"?

From the extremely biased Politicfact.org who even they have to rate Hillary's claim of "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state". as "FALSE"!

It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

But over the course of a year, Clinton and her staff have painted a picture of an email setup where absolutely zero classified information slipped through the cracks, case closed.

We rate this statement False.
Says she "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state.
FBI tears holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

So will there be an investigation of BIASED Stryzok's changing the wording ?

 

[MACAULAY]

Yes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

 

[bripat9643]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

No, they really don't.

 

[bripat9643]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

No, they really don't.

Yeah, they really do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

No, they really don't.

Yeah, they really do.

No, they don't - as every prosecutor in the country would tell you.

Hell, anyone who's been to law school for a semester could explain it.

 

[bripat9643]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

No, they really don't.

Yeah, they really do.

No, they don't - as every prosecutor in the country would tell you.

Hell, anyone who's been to law school for a semester could explain it.

every prosecutor in the country wouldn't tell you that. Only the leftwing douchebag prosecutors would say it. Plenty of prosecutors said she should have been indicted, and that she would have been convicted.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

No, they really don't.

Yeah, they really do.

No, they don't - as every prosecutor in the country would tell you.

Hell, anyone who's been to law school for a semester could explain it.

every prosecutor in the country wouldn't tell you that. Only the leftwing douchebag prosecutors would say it. Plenty of prosecutors said she should have been indicted, and that she would have been convicted.

"Plenty"?

Name one actual prosecutor (not a pundit) who said that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

A guy on a nulcear submarine, for one.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

A guy on a nulcear submarine, for one.

No, fuckwit.

The "guy on the submarine" was charged with intentionally taking pictures of the inside of a classified submarine, and then intentionally trying to cover his tracks afterwards.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

A guy on a nulcear submarine, for one.

No, fuckwit.

The "guy on the submarine" was charged with intentionally taking pictures of the inside of a classified submarine, and then intentionally trying to cover his tracks afterwards.

Hilary intentionally setup a private server and intentionally deposited classified documents on it.

What's the difference?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

A guy on a nulcear submarine, for one.

No, fuckwit.

The "guy on the submarine" was charged with intentionally taking pictures of the inside of a classified submarine, and then intentionally trying to cover his tracks afterwards.

Hilary intentionally setup a private server and intentionally deposited classified documents on it.

What's the difference?

Setting up a private server isn't a crime.

What evidence do you have that Hilary Clinton "intentionally" deposited any classified documents on to her server?

 

[JBond]

We do know a bunch of her classified emails ended up on a pedophiles computer.

 

[otto105]

We do know a bunch of her classified emails ended up on a pedophiles computer.

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

 

[healthmyths]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

What should be investigated is that Hillary did the following which Stryzok changed from ""grossly negligent"? " which would then be under Statute 18 USC 793 a federal crime.
And the investigation should be why was it changed to "extremely careless"?
Grossly negligent is using an unsecured server to send/receive top secret confidential emails.
Some of which were found on Weiner's computer...an unauthorized civilian.

HAROLD T. MARTIN, III
x-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
Ex-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-d018-d829-a37b-db7c98c70000

So if this X-NSA contractor is now facing criminal charges for violating Statute 18 USC 793 why did Stryzok change the wording to "extremely careless"...unless it was political bias!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FBI agent Peter Strzok not only evidenced his support of Hillary via his texts, but it was his doing that
prevented Hillary from being criminally indicted.

Stryzok's key edit, which appeared to limit Clinton's legal exposure, included changing the language to describe the former Secretary of State's actions from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
This is a key legal distinction because, under the federal criminal statute 18 USC 793, the legal standard is gross negligence.
FBI agent Peter Strzok was told of possible breach into Clinton's server but didn't follow up, sources say

Peter Stryzok SAVED Hillary from severe problems by changing the phrase.
How did he come to the conclusion it was "extremely careless" and not "grossly negligent"?

From the extremely biased Politicfact.org who even they have to rate Hillary's claim of "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state". as "FALSE"!

It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

But over the course of a year, Clinton and her staff have painted a picture of an email setup where absolutely zero classified information slipped through the cracks, case closed.

We rate this statement False.
Says she "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state.
FBI tears holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

So will there be an investigation of BIASED Stryzok's changing the wording ?

No, there will be no investigation. Trump could burn down the entire Democrat Party but it would pull the country down, so they'll all walk. Strzok, Page, Comey, Farkas Clinton all walk

 

[AntonToo]

FBI agent Peter Strzok not only evidenced his support of Hillary via his texts, but it was his doing that
prevented Hillary from being criminally indicted.

Stryzok's key edit, which appeared to limit Clinton's legal exposure, included changing the language to describe the former Secretary of State's actions from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
This is a key legal distinction because, under the federal criminal statute 18 USC 793, the legal standard is gross negligence.
FBI agent Peter Strzok was told of possible breach into Clinton's server but didn't follow up, sources say

Peter Stryzok SAVED Hillary from severe problems by changing the phrase.
How did he come to the conclusion it was "extremely careless" and not "grossly negligent"?

From the extremely biased Politicfact.org who even they have to rate Hillary's claim of "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state". as "FALSE"!

It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

But over the course of a year, Clinton and her staff have painted a picture of an email setup where absolutely zero classified information slipped through the cracks, case closed.

We rate this statement False.
Says she "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state.
FBI tears holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

So will there be an investigation of BIASED Stryzok's changing the wording ?

No, there will be no investigation. Trump could burn down the entire Democrat Party but it would pull the country down, so they'll all walk. Strzok, Page, Comey, Farkas Clinton all walk

Maybe they'll walk because THEY AREN'T GUILTY OF BREAKING THE LAW? Nuh crazy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

What should be investigated is that Hillary did the following which Stryzok changed from ""grossly negligent"? " which would then be under Statute 18 USC 793 a federal crime.
And the investigation should be why was it changed to "extremely careless"?
Grossly negligent is using an unsecured server to send/receive top secret confidential emails.
Some of which were found on Weiner's computer...an unauthorized civilian.

HAROLD T. MARTIN, III
x-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
Ex-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-d018-d829-a37b-db7c98c70000

So if this X-NSA contractor is now facing criminal charges for violating Statute 18 USC 793 why did Stryzok change the wording to "extremely careless"...unless it was political bias!

Crimes aren't defined by the words used in press conferences.

Since I've already explained this, and you've chosen to remain willfully blind, I don't have high hopes. But I'll try again.

The only mention of the words "gross negligence" in 18 USC 793 is in section (f).

In other words, 18 USC 793(f) is the only statute on unauthorized release of classified information that doesn't require a finding of intent.

The only problem for you guys is that 18 USC 793(f) is understood by everyone to basically be unconstitutional. That's why no one has ever been charged for violating it, absent the intent to do so. Your example above is a perfect example - there's no doubt that Harold Martin intended to steal the top secret information that the FBI found in his house.