4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Monopoly has more squares...
Besides, she has both get out of jail free cards.
Besides, she has both get out of jail free cards.
Justice Dept grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server...
- Thread starter Busybody
- Start date
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
You surrendered because your threads were getting no traffic without me...
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
I'll never learn.
M
miles
Guest
Funny, but the game is fixed.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Mostly you seem to be into screaming at the walls until an orderly brings you your medication and kicks you off the internet.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Meanwhile, in Foundation news:
http://www.worldtribune.com/the-cli...-shootout-report-addresses-unasked-questions/
http://www.worldtribune.com/the-cli...-shootout-report-addresses-unasked-questions/
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
M
miles
Guest
If the Clintons are innocent of 99% of everything they're accused of they're still lying sacks of shit.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Will Hillary Clinton be indicted over her private email server?
POSTED AT 1:21 PM ON MARCH 9, 2016 BY JOHN SEXTON
Hillary Clinton’s homebrew server has been in the news for a year at this point. With the FBI set to wrap up their investigation of potential security violations in the next two months, is it possibly Clinton herself could face an indictment?
There are really two parts to this question. First, is there any evidence that Clinton or someone working for her violated the law. Second, even if such evidence exists is it likely that the FBI will recommend prosecuting the front-runner for the Democratic nomination?
With regard to the first question, only the FBI knows for certain whether there is any evidence of wrong doing, but it’s already not difficult to see where Clinton might be in trouble and where she probably is not. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote a piece yesterday arguing that Hillary Clinton was unlikely to face any charges in connection with the server. The first two-thirds of her argument seems to track with other reports, i.e. Clinton’s behavior isn’t as bad as General Petraeus because she didn’t lie to the FBI. However, the last third of Marcus’ argument seems less convincing:
Section 793(f) covers a person with access to “national defense” information who through “gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust.” The government has used the “gross negligence” provision to prosecute a Marine sergeant who accidentally put classified documents in his gym bag, then hid them in his garage rather than returning them, and an Air Force sergeant who put classified material in a Dumpster so he could get home early.
The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.
Actually, what Clinton did is not all that dissimilar from accidentally throwing classified material in a gym bag and then hiding it in a garage. In this case, she may not have intended to have any classified information on her server but it did wind up there and once it did she failed to return that material to the government until, thanks to inquiries from Congress, the State Department came looking for it more than a year later.
As for throwing classified material in a dumpster, here’s the story from the 2000 article Marcus links:
Air Force Sgt. Arthur J. Gaffney Jr. was charged in 1983 with gross negligence for taking home classified information that he was supposed to have destroyed at work. On several occasions, he threw the classified material in a Dumpster outside his home, where it was discovered by neighborhood children. His guilty plea was upheld by a court of military review.
Throwing classified material in a dumpster was found to be negligent but not because Chinese spies climbed into the dumpster and fished the material out. Similarly, Clinton could be found grossly negligent of setting up the server (similarly, she has said, for her own convenience) whether or not the server was actually hacked. But returning to that 2000 Post story there is also this nugget on who is likely to face prosecution for mishandling classified material [emphasis added]:
“There’s no accountability,” agreed Melvin A. Goodman, a former senior CIA analyst and professor of international security at the National War College. “What Deutch did, that was pretty gross. Important people seem to get away with more than lesser people.”
And that brings us to the second question. Even if a case can be made for gross negligence, will the FBI apply the law fairly given that Hillary is leading in the race for the Democratic nomination and the wife of a former President, etc? The answer is still unclear but there is at least some concern that current FBI Director Comey is a little too independent to suit the Obama administration. A story published Wednesday at The Hill is titled, “Comey’s FBI makes waves.”
The split over Clinton’s email server is the most politically charged issue facing the FBI, with nothing less than the race for the White House potentially at stake.
Obama has publicly defended Clinton, saying that while she “made a mistake” with her email setup, it was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
But the FBI director has bristled at that statement, saying the president would not have any knowledge of the investigation. Comey, meanwhile, told lawmakers last week that he is “very close, personally,” to the probe.
The article goes on to say that Comey’s reputation is one of speaking truth to power. So it seems within the realm of possibility that, if he believes prosecution of Clinton or her aides is warranted, Comey will pursue it regardless of consequences.
As anyone who has been following this story knows by now, any recommendation made by the FBI still has to be taken up by the DOJ. Former State Department Inspector General Howard J. Krongard told the New York Post in January that is very unlikely to happen:
Still, “It will never get to an indictment,” Krongard said.
For one, he says, any criminal referral to the Justice Department from the FBI “will have to go through four loyal Democrat women” — Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division; Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.
Even if they accept the referral, he says, the case quickly and quietly will be plea-bargained down to misdemeanors punishable by fines in a deal similar to the one Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, secured for Gen. David Petraeus. In other words, a big slap on the wrist.
Realistically then, the trail ends for Hillary at the DOJ. Even if FBI Director Comey speaks truth to power in this case, by suggesting there is evidence of gross negligence, Clinton will likely get the kind of special treatment reserved for important people.
POSTED AT 1:21 PM ON MARCH 9, 2016 BY JOHN SEXTON
Hillary Clinton’s homebrew server has been in the news for a year at this point. With the FBI set to wrap up their investigation of potential security violations in the next two months, is it possibly Clinton herself could face an indictment?
There are really two parts to this question. First, is there any evidence that Clinton or someone working for her violated the law. Second, even if such evidence exists is it likely that the FBI will recommend prosecuting the front-runner for the Democratic nomination?
With regard to the first question, only the FBI knows for certain whether there is any evidence of wrong doing, but it’s already not difficult to see where Clinton might be in trouble and where she probably is not. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote a piece yesterday arguing that Hillary Clinton was unlikely to face any charges in connection with the server. The first two-thirds of her argument seems to track with other reports, i.e. Clinton’s behavior isn’t as bad as General Petraeus because she didn’t lie to the FBI. However, the last third of Marcus’ argument seems less convincing:
Section 793(f) covers a person with access to “national defense” information who through “gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust.” The government has used the “gross negligence” provision to prosecute a Marine sergeant who accidentally put classified documents in his gym bag, then hid them in his garage rather than returning them, and an Air Force sergeant who put classified material in a Dumpster so he could get home early.
The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.
Actually, what Clinton did is not all that dissimilar from accidentally throwing classified material in a gym bag and then hiding it in a garage. In this case, she may not have intended to have any classified information on her server but it did wind up there and once it did she failed to return that material to the government until, thanks to inquiries from Congress, the State Department came looking for it more than a year later.
As for throwing classified material in a dumpster, here’s the story from the 2000 article Marcus links:
Air Force Sgt. Arthur J. Gaffney Jr. was charged in 1983 with gross negligence for taking home classified information that he was supposed to have destroyed at work. On several occasions, he threw the classified material in a Dumpster outside his home, where it was discovered by neighborhood children. His guilty plea was upheld by a court of military review.
Throwing classified material in a dumpster was found to be negligent but not because Chinese spies climbed into the dumpster and fished the material out. Similarly, Clinton could be found grossly negligent of setting up the server (similarly, she has said, for her own convenience) whether or not the server was actually hacked. But returning to that 2000 Post story there is also this nugget on who is likely to face prosecution for mishandling classified material [emphasis added]:
“There’s no accountability,” agreed Melvin A. Goodman, a former senior CIA analyst and professor of international security at the National War College. “What Deutch did, that was pretty gross. Important people seem to get away with more than lesser people.”
And that brings us to the second question. Even if a case can be made for gross negligence, will the FBI apply the law fairly given that Hillary is leading in the race for the Democratic nomination and the wife of a former President, etc? The answer is still unclear but there is at least some concern that current FBI Director Comey is a little too independent to suit the Obama administration. A story published Wednesday at The Hill is titled, “Comey’s FBI makes waves.”
The split over Clinton’s email server is the most politically charged issue facing the FBI, with nothing less than the race for the White House potentially at stake.
Obama has publicly defended Clinton, saying that while she “made a mistake” with her email setup, it was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
But the FBI director has bristled at that statement, saying the president would not have any knowledge of the investigation. Comey, meanwhile, told lawmakers last week that he is “very close, personally,” to the probe.
The article goes on to say that Comey’s reputation is one of speaking truth to power. So it seems within the realm of possibility that, if he believes prosecution of Clinton or her aides is warranted, Comey will pursue it regardless of consequences.
As anyone who has been following this story knows by now, any recommendation made by the FBI still has to be taken up by the DOJ. Former State Department Inspector General Howard J. Krongard told the New York Post in January that is very unlikely to happen:
Still, “It will never get to an indictment,” Krongard said.
For one, he says, any criminal referral to the Justice Department from the FBI “will have to go through four loyal Democrat women” — Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division; Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.
Even if they accept the referral, he says, the case quickly and quietly will be plea-bargained down to misdemeanors punishable by fines in a deal similar to the one Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, secured for Gen. David Petraeus. In other words, a big slap on the wrist.
Realistically then, the trail ends for Hillary at the DOJ. Even if FBI Director Comey speaks truth to power in this case, by suggesting there is evidence of gross negligence, Clinton will likely get the kind of special treatment reserved for important people.
M
miles
Guest
The author took several hundred words to tell us something everybody in the world already knew.
Clinton is going to walk. There isn't a chance in hell she'll be indicted by Obama's DOJ. That would require integrity.
Clinton is going to walk. There isn't a chance in hell she'll be indicted by Obama's DOJ. That would require integrity.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
well, we KNOW what this means
RIGHT?
Dem lawmakers raise doubts on IGs' Clinton email review
By JOSH GERSTEIN 03/10/16 02:57 PM EST
Seven Democratic lawmakers are complaining publicly that the review of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email practices by two internal government watchdogs has been unduly politicized.
In a letter Wednesday to Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough and State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, four Senators and three House members called on the watchdogs to ensure that ongoing inquiries into the matter must be "impartial, independent and diligent."
"Based on public reports and communications from your offices to Congress, we have serious questions about how this review is being conducted," the letter said.
"Already, this review has been too politicized....We are relying on you as independent inspectors general to perform your duties dispassionately and comprehensively."
The missive was signed by the ranking Democrats of four Senate panels, Dianne Feinstein of the Intelligence Committee, Patrick Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, Thomas Carper of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Ben Carper of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the ranking Democrats on three House panels, Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee, Eliot Engel of Foreign Affairs and Elijah Cummings of Oversight and Government Reform.
The letter points to a series of alleged errors or transgressions by the investigators, including misclassifying some of the Clinton emails, information shared with Republicans on the Hill but not Democrats, and a report in the Hill newspaper that a whistleblower accused State's IG of having an "'anti-Clinton' bias."
The lawmakers' letter also attaches a series of questions about those points. It also asks for details on whether either IG office may have been briefing journalists about the watchdogs' work.
The missive comes as State's inspector general is believed to be completing a report on how use of personal emails at State impacted the agency's recordkeeping practices. Clinton's presidential campaign has also stepped up its criticism of the IGs' work.
Douglas Welty, spokesman for the State inspector general’s office, said "partisan politics" have played no role in the investigation.
"We are now reviewing the email practices of the current and last four Secretaries of State, not just Secretary Clinton," Welty added. "Any suggestion that the office is biased against any particular Secretary is completely false."
The Intelligence Community Inspector General did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Congressional letter.
Both of the IGs in question are appointees of President Barack Obama.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...igs-clinton-email-review-220580#ixzz42XcUlO43
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
RIGHT?
Dem lawmakers raise doubts on IGs' Clinton email review
By JOSH GERSTEIN 03/10/16 02:57 PM EST
Seven Democratic lawmakers are complaining publicly that the review of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email practices by two internal government watchdogs has been unduly politicized.
In a letter Wednesday to Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough and State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, four Senators and three House members called on the watchdogs to ensure that ongoing inquiries into the matter must be "impartial, independent and diligent."
"Based on public reports and communications from your offices to Congress, we have serious questions about how this review is being conducted," the letter said.
"Already, this review has been too politicized....We are relying on you as independent inspectors general to perform your duties dispassionately and comprehensively."
The missive was signed by the ranking Democrats of four Senate panels, Dianne Feinstein of the Intelligence Committee, Patrick Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, Thomas Carper of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Ben Carper of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the ranking Democrats on three House panels, Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee, Eliot Engel of Foreign Affairs and Elijah Cummings of Oversight and Government Reform.
The letter points to a series of alleged errors or transgressions by the investigators, including misclassifying some of the Clinton emails, information shared with Republicans on the Hill but not Democrats, and a report in the Hill newspaper that a whistleblower accused State's IG of having an "'anti-Clinton' bias."
The lawmakers' letter also attaches a series of questions about those points. It also asks for details on whether either IG office may have been briefing journalists about the watchdogs' work.
The missive comes as State's inspector general is believed to be completing a report on how use of personal emails at State impacted the agency's recordkeeping practices. Clinton's presidential campaign has also stepped up its criticism of the IGs' work.
Douglas Welty, spokesman for the State inspector general’s office, said "partisan politics" have played no role in the investigation.
"We are now reviewing the email practices of the current and last four Secretaries of State, not just Secretary Clinton," Welty added. "Any suggestion that the office is biased against any particular Secretary is completely false."
The Intelligence Community Inspector General did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Congressional letter.
Both of the IGs in question are appointees of President Barack Obama.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...igs-clinton-email-review-220580#ixzz42XcUlO43
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Source: Clinton IT Specialist Providing Devastating Testimony On Clinton Mail Server…
Done for.
Via Fox News:
Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the email probe who struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department, has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up, according to an intelligence source close to the case who called him a “devastating witness.”
The source said Pagliano told the FBI who had access to the former secretary of state’s system – as well as when – and what devices were used, amounting to a roadmap for investigators.
“Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton’s] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized,” the intelligence source said.
Done for.
Via Fox News:
Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the email probe who struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department, has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up, according to an intelligence source close to the case who called him a “devastating witness.”
The source said Pagliano told the FBI who had access to the former secretary of state’s system – as well as when – and what devices were used, amounting to a roadmap for investigators.
“Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton’s] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized,” the intelligence source said.
M
miles
Guest
Bulllll-shee-it.
We've been hearing this dreck for months. They have bupkes.
Recommend her for indictment so the corrupt DOJ can start their slow walk through election day. She's going to walk and everyone knows it.
Her alleged indictment is yesterday's news.
Similar threads
