Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Shadow IT

News Danger of overcentralization Recommended Links Hillary Clinton email scandal Bureaucratic avoidance of responsibility  Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition
Bureaucracies Bureaucratic ritualism Bureaucratic Inertia   Bureaucratic Collectivism Number of Servers per Sysadmin
Parkinson Law The Peter Principle The Power Elite   Corporate bullshit as a communication method Unix flavors
Admin Horror Stories Tips History   Humor Etc

Contents


Introduction

Shadow IT can be defined as software and hardware solutions as well as associated manpower used in organization that are neither approved not supported by the formal IT organization. Typically this is a reaction on excessive centralization and bureaucratization of IT, endemic for large corporations.  It is also can be used for "double books" kind os schemen like for example in case of Hillary Clinton email scandal. In the latter case the key goal was to avoid accountability and disclosure of her emisl while in the position of the Secterary of State of Obama administration:

 

In the past few years, it's gone from being considered a problem to being consider something more or less tolerated because over-centralized  (and/or outsourced ) IT organizations is essentially unable to solve user problems. Helpdesk tickets are travelling two or more days in a bureaucratic maze before assigning to a specialist who can resolve them, laptops are unable to install patches and take 10 minutes to boot; Bluetooth stop working two years ago and nobody care why. Servers can be down for a week.  Sounds familiar. It is ;-)

At the same time IT management is unwilling to acknowledge that the strategy to save cost via over-centralization is dead-ended and quickly reaches the stage of unintended consequences or as they are often called "centralization blowback". So, as we mentioned above, shadow IT naturally develops and mature as a reaction to excessive bureaucratization of central IT typical for large corporations. As well as loss of flexibility of IT (fossilization) resulting in the inability of IT to serve user needs. When a simple helpdesk ticket travels to central helpdesk and then is lingering somewhere for two days and then is assigned to clueless outsourcer, the user community quickly adapt, creates its own experts (out of the most knowledgeable users who run complex home networks, are involved with home automation or robotics) and knowledge centers and start ignoring official IT functions and services.

The term "blowback" is richer then the term of "unintended consequences" and includes the elements of hidden revolt or at least active counteraction to the policies of central IT. (The Full Wiki) :

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the blowback typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them. Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences — reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence—the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.

Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace; and banana republic juntas who kill American reporters.

This is the situation when, unfortunately,  implicitly sending central IT to hell became politically correct in regional offices. But as everything it is important to remember Talleyrand advice to young diplomats "first and foremost, not too much zeal" ;-). 

Forms of Shadow IT

Shadow IT has several forms:

All-in-all rise of "Shadow IT" signify both loss of control and loss of influence that IT organizations experienced during the last decade. It is the most pronounced when due to over-centralization the quality of service became unacceptably low (despite Potemkin villages of official reporting with their excellent and completely fake "incident resolution time" metrics)

Major symptoms of the loss of flexibility and alienation of users

There are several major symptom of this loss of flexibility and alienation from user needs:

Like with any counterculture there are risks in using shadow IT. It you overstep your boundaries you can lose your job. But if everybody is suffering from the same problem attempt to find a solution outside normal IT channel usually is not punished severely. Typically such cases are just swiped under the rag. Often solution initiated as part of "shadow IT' later find its way into mainstream. In this sense it serves as internal innovation incubator.

Countermeasures to the removal of administrative privileges on laptops

Reagan citing old Russian proverb "Trust but verify" was right not only about international relations, but also about best policy for the user laptops. "Trust but verify" compliance is a better approach then "scan and block".

Removal of administrative privileges is essentially declaration from the central IT that the user lost the trust. And it rises the classic question "Who are the judges ?" Why often incompetent (in comparison with staff of engineering and research departments often having Ph.Ds among members) and detached from reality central IT staff should impose without consultation and consent from business departments measures that undermines productivity in those departments? After all central IT is a parasitic organization that spends money earned by business units. Why business units can't be consulted what that need and want and treated like children, who are just told what to do and what don't?

That's why users without administrator privileges on his/her laptops often rebel. Sometimes there is no direct removal, but severe restrictions are imposed via Active Directory (AD fascism). Restrictions that make doing useful work for certain tasks within the framework imposed by organization next to impossible. Again, this typically is not a problem in accounting department (which actually can squeeze overzealous IT jerks pretty easily ;-) but in research units and labs who have creative people able to smash those restrictions, and who understand some part of IT much better then central IT (especially people involved with such things like genome sequencing, molecular modeling, etc where community is generally extremely computer literate.)

At this point it is the central IT which is a loser as people are much more creative and often invent elegant tricks to bypass restrictions imposed by IT infrastructure and create more usable alternative. In other words shadow IT exists because the business unit(s) perceive that IT is not meeting their needs and using official tools is either unsuitably cumbersome and slow or is detrimental to the success of business.

The key performance indicator for IT is availability. But users satisfaction is equally important and disgruntled users represent much bigger danger to IT infrastructure. The danger that stupid and/or overzealous members of security group that invert those measure fail to understand... In other words instead of improving security such measures are undermining it.

Countermeasures by "deprived" members

Let's discuss countermeasures that "deprived" members of corporate units (and that typically includes some It members, for example Unix administrators) can use to restore status quo. There are several avenue for undermining this decision.

  1. Pressure on "power hungry". Typically such measures are introduced during new hardware deployment. As environment is not perfect especially during new laptop deployment period you can always claim that existing arrangement does not allow you to performs some important part of your job. Logging a couple of tickets and putting a negative evaluation for unresolved ticket can help to speed the sobering of "drunk with power" members of IT team, but this is a razor sharp weapon and should be used with extreme caution and only as a reaction to a real screw-ups. You just no longer need to swipe them under the floor. And you need to find and cultivate allies. There is strength in numbers.
  2. Switch to alternative hardware.
    1. Private tablets, Ultrabooks or Macbooks. They are not the expensive and can be used in additional to company granted laptop or in tandem with company granted laptop. Typically company policy is fuzzy about ultrabooks and, especially, tablets that user owns. Here Microsoft Surface Pro can be very handy in bypassing the "IT standards". You probably need to buy your own 4G internet access card and that can eliminate restrictions imposed by company proxy. Freedom has its price :-).
    2. Using some old laptop or desktop connected along with "standard" laptop via Linksys or similar internet gateway with the address translation and ability to emulate Mac address of your standard laptop. For this solution you should be somewhat knowledge in networking or have a friend who does. Of course nmap and similar tools will discover this substitution but usually this is pretty safe method that gives you both the possibility of using standard laptop and "alternative" laptop. You probably need to use additional non-routable address space for those two connections. For example if organization is using 10 network you can use 192.168 network on the segment that Linksys provides. Used Linksys gateway is approximately $10 on eBay so this is not a big expense.
    3. Some unused server can be used as you "surrogate desktop". If old, decommissioned hardware often is not discarded immediately and you are either in It of have a good contacts that can help you in this area this is a good avoidance maneuver. Windows server is not and as an alternative desktop. Linux is mainly suitable for those who have previous Unix experience. If you in IT but not very close to emperor (for example is in Unix group) and as such was selected for repressions, you have multiple opportunities in this area.
  3. Switch to alternative OSes. Current laptops are so over specified that they can curry multiple OSes.
    1. Dual boot. This is the simplest possibility, if you can do without company specific services (for example use you Blackberry for email). Both Linux and some older version of Windows can be installed. Using virtual machine is another. Guerilla installation of Windows 2003 server are also pretty nice countermeasure. Often you can create some fancy justification for such a "private" server and by definition is not controlled by the same group as desktop. So you get more degrees of freedom.
    2. Use a virtual machine. If company allow using VM players you externally are given a free pass for this solution. Microsoft also provides the ability to install VM with Windows 7. You just need to justify this which is not that difficult as many applications after transition has difficulties.
  4. Using "in the cloud" servers or services. Using alternative email is very common among company employees as using official email for private messages is one of the stupidest thing that you can do in the corporate environment.

Those points are of course raw and incomplete. But stupidity of official policy is the gasoline that fuels "shadow IT renaissance" and inventions of those who are affected. Creatively bypassing of those restrictions is a banner of real IT professional. Pleas note that this often puts company data on far less protected then a regular corporate PC environment. Excessive zeal in security often backfire in a very interesting ways.

In many instances, corporate IT policies and standardization efforts are simply stupid in the very exact meaning of this word. They are often created by a clueless bureaucrat that does not understand (and don't want to) understand the situation "in the trenches". That means that even parts of official IT staff can be engaged in "shadow IT" activities.

Creating shadow Web services

The existence of Shadow IT implies a failure on the part of IT to provide the services to meet the users need. As such this problem is a typical sign of the rotting of IT organizations ("fish rots from the head") -- a widespread phenomenon due to promotion of incompetent manages, outsourcing and other related phenomenon. IT is no longer young and losing IQ this is just one of the ailment of the old age.

Deployment of unreliable, slow, resource hungry systems like Lotus Notes, Lotus Sametime, Documentum and to a certain extent SAP/R3 (which often has very slow response that defeats the purpose and benefits of the centralization) also stimulate search for alternatives.

Like any counterculture creating your own Web services entails certain risks including security risks but it would be simplistic just to condemn it like many writers do. For example

The existence of Shadow IT within an organization is symptomatic of a lack of alignment between business units and IT and, possibly, even senior management and IT. Shadow IT is, at best, a shortsighted strategy that may work well for a given business unit, but be detrimental for the organization overall.

(see The Dangers that Lurk Behind Shadow IT — Datamation.com).  One precondition for creation of shadow Web services is the ability to run virtual mashine on you laptop desktop. Or on remote sites, availability of some local Linux expertise

Often Shadow IT is associated with Unix culture and open source software. Linux essentially started as countercultural phenomenon and only recently got corporate respectability. Firewall on Linux box can easily configured to exclude any outsiders. In with special non-routable network used  the service is not visible outside the particular site and it represents much lesser security risks.

Any modern desktop is extremely capable and powerful server in disguise, often superior to the "real" server from HP or Dell that is five years old.  If ti allow "dual boot" configuration you already has all the necessary infrastructure.

Also on remote sites there is always possibility to get "departmental" desktop and use it as departmental server. In case central IT goes nuts this is one path that might be considered. Using Internet ISPs and places like Amazon cloud is another possibility, but here the problem is that your data migrates outside of It infrastructure. This is a definite security risk and this way you might violate some corporate policy.  

Creation of shadow IT file servers

If using corporate file servers is too painful or the became too slow one extra laptop of desktop in the group can fill the void. A simple linux box with Samba is a decent and quick solution.

Creating of alternative email infrastructure

To a certain extent alternative email infrastructure existed as long as Web connectivity exist. Hotmail, Gmail and other Web-based mail applications automatically mean alternative email infrastructure. That only question if how widely it is used (it definitely should be used for all private emails). The fact that it is impossible to synchronize with corporate Blackberry or other smart phone works against shadow email infrastructure but many people have their own smart phones those days in additional to a corporate one.

Conclusions

Shadow IT is a reaction of users to the problem of fossilization and loss of efficiently and competence of over centralized IT organizations. As such it is just a symptom of the disease. In perverted world of corporate IT it is often serves to increase productivity and as such has the right for existence.

It is naive to think that an official edict can stop shadow IT from emerging in a typical large, bureaucratized IT organization with its multiple sites, multiple datacenters and multiple jerks, authoritarians ("kiss up, kick down" type), and psychopaths (especially dangerous are female psychopaths) at the top and middle levels of IT management.

Budgets cuts also stimulate looking for alternatives for officially supported IT products but not to the extent that bureaucratization and stagnation of "official" IT organizations.


Top updates

Softpanorama Switchboard
Softpanorama Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News

[Jul 23, 2016] Hillary Clinton: Electing a Foreign Spy for President?

petras.lahaine.org
Many of Clinton's leading critics, among them two dozen former CIA agents, have presented a myth that Hillary's main offence is her 'carelessness in handling official documents and her deliberate deceptions and lies to the government.

These critics have trivialized, personalized and moralized what is really deliberate, highly politicized state behavior. Mme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not 'careless in managing an insecure mail server'. If Clinton was engaged in political liaison with foreign officials she deliberately used a private email server to avoid political detection by security elements within the US government. She lied to the US government on the use and destruction of official state documents because the documents were political exchanges between a traitor and its host

The 22 top secret reports on 'Special Access Programs' which Clinton handled via her private computer provided foreign governments with the names and dates of US operatives and proxies; allowed for counterresponses inflicting losses of billions of dollars in program damages and possibly lost lives.

The Inspector General Report (IGP) deals only with the surface misdeeds. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has gone a step further in identifying the political linkages, but faces enormous obstacles from Hilary's domestic allies in pursuing a criminal investigation. The FBI, whose director is a political appointee, has suffered a series of defeats in its attempts to investigate and prosecute spying to Israel, including the AIPAC espionage case of Rosen and Weismann and in their long held opposition to the release of the notorious US-Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard. The power of the Zionists within the government halted their investigation of a dozen Israeli spies captured in the US right after the attacks of September 11,
2001.

Clinton's choice of conducting secret private communications, despite several years of State Department warnings to abide by their strict security regulations, is an indication of her Zionist power base, and not a mere reflection of her personal hubris or individual arrogance.

Clinton has circulated more vital top-secret documents and classified material than Jonathan Pollard.

[Jul 20, 2016] FBI Agents Silenced on Hillary Probe

Notable quotes:
"... FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify. ..."
Jul 13, 2016 | www.newsmax.com

FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify.

Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.

"This is very, very unusual. I've never signed one, never circulated one to others," one unnamed retired FBI chief tells the Post. "I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange," an anonymous FBI agent said.

The Post additionally reports some FBI agents are disappointed that Director James Comey decided against recommending that charges be brought against Clinton for her mishandling of classified information.

"FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting" just hours before the release of a House report on the Benghazi, Libya terror attack in 2012, one unnamed source tells the Post.

Another Justice Department source tells the newspaper he was "furious" with Comey, deriding him for having "managed to piss off right and left."

[Jul 19, 2016] Hillary Clinton had right to delete personal emails, says US justice department

Guardian presstitutes are ready to defend even indefensible Hillary Clinton behaviour.
Notable quotes:
"... I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything. ..."
"... In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc. ..."
www.theguardian.com
makaio , 2015-09-12 04:26:16
This is disheartening and outrageous, with State and Justice skirting around the issues, and as one commenter said, covering for Hillary in a partisan way.

The departments have been largely silent on rules and legalities, and now they've evolved to tiptoeing. Pathetic.

The comparison of government server deletions versus private server deletions and wipes is inapt. Government employees and service members -- the millions who aren't as special as Hillary with private off-site servers for their work -- surely can delete any emails they choose, work or personal. But backup records are controlled by government IT departments, who ideally are following records-keeping regulations.

Not so with the queen's server and email setup. She's deplorable, as is this State and Justice mockery.

If the President continues to stand for this, I have no interest in voting. I haven't pulled him into my disgust with this topic until now ... Justice is full of crap.

Berkeley2013 , 2015-09-12 04:37:05
Many things are intriguing about this scandal.

1. The media covers it but not in a comprehensive or responsible way. The NY Times barely touches it. Same with The Economist. The Post pushes it to those vacuous bloggers, DM and CC. The New Yorker is hiding under a rock.

2. You would expect all to write "Calls to Action" of some kind.

3. Some kind of legal clarifications is order--several, actually. All the Title 18 items need to be clarified for the public. Do they apply?

4. Damage analysis. What possible damage could have been done?

5. Role of the administration? How did this situation last for four years?

6. Are the deleted e-mails going to surface?

7. Cost. Why should public pay for the legal and administrative chaos of a rogue SoS?

Berkeley2013 flatulenceodor67 , 2015-09-12 04:52:35
All these issues lead to more questions. In this case, who authorized the use? Who knew? Who responded to the existence of this rogue communications network? Who maintained? Which if any clearances did they have? Did they share any of what they knew with others? And this is just the most basic of this whole tsunami of needless problems. Just this avenue leads to millions of dollars of investigative hours. Many millions...
flatulenceodor67 ShinjiNoShinji , 2015-09-12 05:04:29
Well one federal Judge thinks so...
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/08/21/federal-judge-says-hillary-clinton-violated-government-policy-in-using-personal-server-while-secretary-of-state /
Berkeley2013 , 2015-09-12 05:03:58
The Guardian is being quite irresponsible here. You need to quote/date your sources and supply links to the full documents. Which case? When? Who? It looks to me as though you are just grabbing an article by a disreputable Metro DC publication that I am not going to dignify by naming.

Also, assuming that something like this story is accurate, why would DOJ do this?

Am not sure why you add a click-bait article to this complex topic--you should just stick with the tabloid, sports, Hollywood junk articles that fill your virtual space these days.

tropic2 makaio , 2015-09-12 07:11:52
She simply used a classified government email system, or more likely, approved hardcopy classified draft messages for a member of her staff to send with her approval.

No, she didn't use a government email system (classified or not). She used a private email system, completely outside the government.

And no, she didn't set up her own server for the purpose of having hard copies of message drafts. So far, she has suggested a range of different reasons:

- To have just one device for both her official and personal communications....which is a lie: she had two devices.

- She was "not thinking very much about it"... which is a lie: she had a private server installed in her house, a domain registered under a former aide's name, and key staffers conducting official government business on that server. And she paid $5000 to a former IT aide to set up the system. Report

makaio tropic2 , 2015-09-12 16:17:10
This conversation is pretty muddled.

In short, she wrongly used a private server and personal email address for the majority of her official work, which of course is not permissible for classified information, and questionable at best for unclassified content. And she has wrongly lied to the American public in response to related questions.

But just because she used her private account does not mean she did not have a largely inactive .gov address. And she also likely had a government address on a classified government system, which she or her staff likely used when receiving or sending marked classified information.

ga gamba , 2015-09-12 06:55:31
Of course she had the right to delete to personal emails - keep in mind that had she used a gov't-provided account like almost all other State Department employees she would have had to follow the rules governing personal use of tax payer-provided equipment and services.

Ms Clinton certainly did not have the right to process classified information on a personal computer system. That's illegal. You'd think the top executive would know such things.

zbrowne , 2015-09-12 07:34:35
I think that the moment she mixed personal and work related or classified information, she loses the right to claim that any of the emails were personal. Hence, all emails become connected to her work as SOS, and none of the emails can be deleted. None of her emails can be treated as personal anymore, they have now become government property. She had no right to delete anything.
Socraticus , 2015-09-12 07:39:55
In Hillary's case, I suspect "personal emails" is a euphemism for ANY correspondence she does not want exposed in official governmental records, including that which could be used against her politically in the future, i.e. backroom deals, dubious policies, nefarious schemes, etc.
Thirdparty Socraticus , 2015-09-12 07:59:31
How very cynical of you! If ever there was an opening for a 'Mr. Clean' named Joe Biden, this is it. Hillary is plummeting in the polls. Biden is not in the race, yet he polls 20%. After his appearance on Colbert on Thursday evening, I think that if he were to declare, his support would double, at least. At 40%, he would be ahead of Hillary. In addition to being thoroughly unethical, Hillary is not liked even by those who work with her.
ID9630461 , 2015-09-12 09:20:58
For many, Hillary's very existence is a crime, so no amount of exoneration by the Justice Dept... or indeed anyone else.... will change anything. The relentless attacks will continue, and many of us will continue to see them as a clear indication of how vulnerable the Republicans feel about their own Presidential prospects, with a campaign that's in complete disarray, and a front runner who seems determined to systematically alienate every single one of the demographic groups that the GOP had hoped to court this time around. Frankly, I'd be worried too if I were a Republican! Report
Tom Voloshen ID9630461 , 2015-09-12 10:04:36
The Justice Department run by a political democratic appointee says Hillary has "rights" I wonder.....Fast and Furious, NSA spying, Waco, refusal to disseminate information after numerous court orders as directed under freedom of information act etc etc.. So you say we we should stand behind whatever the justice department says....LOL. Seems they are even more guilt of lying and cover ups then she is.
Tom Voloshen , 2015-09-12 09:43:42
For almost all of us when using the company's equipment our emails become the property of the company. All mail on a company server is backed up for a period of time and it is the responsibility of the user to insure critical Emails are saved or archived properly to prevent them from being deleted thru periodic routine house keeping by the IT department. Being that all emails become company property and subject to review at any time by the company it seems quite obvious this was unacceptable to the Clinton's and could lead to problems similar to the Nixon fiasco on which Hillary cut her teeth just out of school. She as arrogant as she is decided she could ignore the the rules and keep all her communications to herself. She thinks if she says she did no wrong long enough people will give up. They usually do. While that still won't make her right it certainly makes her someone not to be trusted.
wavigaru , 2015-09-12 13:35:57
Here is the deal folks.... This person wants to be president and have the responsibilities that go along with the office. If she can't even be competent with the little data she was entrusted why should she be given more responsibility? Because she is a woman?

Why are we rewarding incompetence? Obama was re-elected despite the incredibly low labor usage, declining wage growth, and skyrocketing health care costs. He made it his mission to provide "affordable" care with the ACA, yet my rates doubled up to $500/month (compare this with my ever decreasing car insurance rates… only $25/month from Insurance Panda now). Yet we voted him in for 8 years? And we want to elect Hillary?

I am sorry but when you do a poor job at any job they don't promote you unless they just want to go out of business. Also what this woman did was a crime. Nixon was impeached for less, Edward Snowden did the same thing and is in hiding in Russia and the Government won't let him come home, and General Petraeus was forced to resign from his position in the CIA yet this woman is not facing any charges so far and is running for the highest office in the land. What is wrong with this picture?

chiefwiley andthensome , 2015-09-12 15:35:38
Read the entire section under 5 FAM 443.5. Nothing in the system is considered "personal" and there is no expectation of privacy expected or granted. Cherry picking or rephrasing a rule that anybody can read in two minutes is also no way to go about your day.
Every email has a sender and a receiver. Usually multiple servers are involved. Every email in the system is recorded at numerous points, even if deleted at the source or destination. A day or two with a talented engineer and a high speed search engine would recover just about all of it. No warrant would be required for anything with a government connection. -- only the will to do it or an order from the appropriate judge.
DracoFerret , 2015-09-12 14:53:31
a corrupt woman with such poor judgment and a Tory attitude toward the working class should not be president. No wonder Sanders is rising in the polls.

Let her go back to Arkansas

makaio Thebirdsareback , 2015-09-12 16:41:21
To Clinton's supporters ... here's a nice summary of everything she's done wrong on this subject, most of it intentional with no respect for most anyone.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2937114-155/lowry-how-hillary-can-really-come

makaio nolashea , 2015-09-12 21:16:25
She has purposely circumvented maintaining public records, dragged her feet in providing records as required, and botched public attempts to claim her actions have been aboveboard ... because they haven't been.

However legal or illegal, unbelievable gullibility is needed to assert she's done nothing wrong.

She's trying to play us, people of all political beliefs. And despite notable executive and media support, she's largely failing, as both public responses and her reactions have demonstrated.

Woodenarrow123 , 2015-09-12 17:46:59
Another biased article that fails to include the context of the allegations (that Clinton had the right to delete emails) and consequently it provides a misleading impression.

This is NO vindication for Hillary Clinton - it is a defence filing in a case where the Judge Emmet Sullivan has already decided at an earlier hearing that Clinton has violated Government Policy with regard to the handling of emails.

As a result of his decision he ordered the State Department to tell the FBI to go through all the emails (that are recovered - assuming they can be recovered), both business and personal, on her home brew server to see if Hillary deleted any emails she should have handed over to him as part of the FOI case.

Now Clinton's people are up in arms - Why? Is it because she deleted embarrassing emails regarding Benghazi? Is it because the FBI (having been instructed by a Federal Judge) might end up reading emails relating to dodgy dealings at the Clinton Foundation?

In the deeply Politicised US Civil Service both the State Department and the Justice Department are objecting to the Judge's decision and are attempting to limit the inquiry.

For those that naively (or perhaps because they support Hillary) believe this is simply a political attack by GOP opponents - It is worth remembering the FBI investigation was launch by the Inspector General and decision to have ALL emails examined was made by a member of the Judiciary (appointed ironically by Bill Clinton).

Both parties cited above are independent of the GOP.

Also for the record Hillary did NOT delete the emails at the time - She deleted them some 18 months after leaving office (according to her lawyer some time after October last year) and AFTER several investigations had been launched.

If Hillary Clinton deleted info relating to matters under investigation after an investigation was launched (destroying evidence) then that is a felony offence.

Hillary understood the seriousness of the question when asked did she wipe the server - That is why she replied along these lines: With a cloth or something.

Again this is no vindication of Clinton - Instead it is a lame defence to a serious charge to a Federal Judge who has already decided in the matter.

pattbaa , 2015-09-12 20:10:23
What do you Brits know about the "Fast and Furious" scandal in the Dept. of Justice ? ; to have a perspective of how outrageous this was , consider this hypothetical situation.

In Manhattan , a narcotics squad interdicts a gang of drug dealers , a "shoot-out" erupts, and one of the squad members is murdered. The firearm that was used to commit the murder is seized , and an investigation reveals the "Source" of the murder weapon was-- the Office of the District Attorney on New York County!! ( Manhattan)

The D- A's Office was supplying drug criminals with firearms?; would never happen you might say. But that's EXACTLY what happened in the "Fast and Furious" scandal when Eric Holder was Attorney-General; the ATF division of the U. S. Dept. of Justice was selling firearms to members of Mexican drug cartels , and a Border Agent was murdered by a weapon supplied by the ATF division of the Justice Dept.

So much for the Dept. of Justice under the current President. The present A-G , Loretta Lynch , is loyal to the President and the Democratic Party , but not loyal to "Justice". Report

sour_mash pattbaa , 2015-09-12 22:03:02
What do you know about Fast and Furious? Here is a good read for anyone that cares about facts or details:

http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal /

Ladislav Din , 2015-09-12 22:06:29
Hillary in her own words:

"I believe in an open, transparent government that is accountable to the people. Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting misconduct or error. ... To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes _ they are essential elements of our democracy."

-- Hillary Clinton, May 2008 in response to Sunshine Week survey of presidential candidates.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clinton-tells-sunshine-week-shes-committed-to-restoring-open-government-56932142.html

John Bluebeard , 2015-09-13 02:11:34
When are these extreme right wing terrorists like NPR going to stop saying that Clinton IS NOT exactly telling the truth? http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/11/439456567/fact-check-hillary-clintons-email-defense-is-a-mixed-bag

Perhaps it is time to cut off all gov't funding of NPR. We all know the obvious truth-- Clinton has told the truth. Report

Carl Stewart John Bluebeard , 2015-09-13 15:51:45
Well, it is refreshing to see someone with a sense of humor about this. Thanks, Mr Bluebeard
A_Cappella , 2015-09-13 14:44:10
Hillary just needs to lie the U.S. into a very costly war in terms of American and indigenous deaths, trillions of dollars and significant more destabilization in the Mideast.

That will mollify the Republicans.

CitizenCarrier , 2015-09-15 00:22:50
The State Department guidelines for emails had prohibited use of a private server since 2005.

Yet she still keeps saying that what she did was allowed.

Hillary's State Department fired U.S. Ambassador Scott Gration (Kenya) in part for using private emails to evade agency rules.

Hillary said the emails she deleted included private ones between her and her husband. Her husband's spokesman, within days, announced surprise at that, since Bill Clinton has only sent two emails in his entire life...and not to Hillary.

She is a liar. And a felon in violation of the Espionage Act.

[Jul 14, 2016] Gaius Publius: Picking Up James Comeys Pieces - What He Did, What He Should Have Done Why

Notable quotes:
"... Wheeler thinks Comey is covering for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, his boss, whose reputation for impartiality was damaged by her recent tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Wheeler writes, "By overstepping the proper role of the FBI here, Comey surely gave Lynch cover - now she can back his decision without looking like Bill Clinton convinced her to do so on the tarmac." ..."
"... That's the money line right there. Just as back in the 50's, all of this is based on simplistic moralistic arguments concerning intent to harm the state. HRC virtually embodies the modern state, and thus, her intent cannot and will not ever ..."
"... I agree absolutely. And I would add that the "state" now a days is far more of an ideological monolith than 60 or even 40 years ago. Any "serious" person in the upper echelons of the US governing class believes in the all security state, and whatever is necessary to maintain it. ..."
"... If Daniel Ellsberg had done today what he did in the '70's, he would be in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison, and there would be NONE in the high reaches of the US governing class opposed to this outcome. ..."
"... Or by Exxon and JP Morgan so they could get even more details on how to make a fortune off our tragic foreign policy. http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-pitched-iraq-business-opportunity-us-corporations-2121999 ..."
"... The government tries to stuff this hero/traitor dichotomy up our butts but Manning, Sterling, and Drake are human rights defenders. Manning defended our right to information freedom. Sterling defended our human right to peace by denouncing illegal war propaganda. Drake defended our human right to privacy from illegal NSA surveillance. ..."
"... Chelsea Manning's trial was a classic case for Francis Boyle's civil resistance framework. The issue was not only information freedom but denunciation of war crimes. Under federal law and the Army Field Manual, disobedience was Manning's legal duty. But we heard this drumbeat of he wouldn't dare, he wouldn't dare… The implication was, he'd be punished more harshly for explicitly complying with the federal law of war crimes. ..."
"... Human rights defenders like Sakharov, Sharansky, and Slepak helped reform the USSR out of existence. Manning, Sterling, Drake, and the ones who come after them will do the same for all of us Americans trapped in the USA. ..."
"... I like the way you think. Those who defend human rights by pointing fingers at the state for its transgressions are considered traitors, while those who embody the state, yet violate its laws are exonerated. Isn't that pretty close to placing the state above the law – a police state? ..."
"... Yeah depending on to whom she was trading our government secrets for, it doesn't really matter that it was (for example) through intermediaries like Blumenthal in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and not out of loyalty to a foreign country. There is still the potential that she did things that constituted espionage. ..."
"... Hillary's email debacle and subsequent lack of prosecution is an important milestone on the road to widespread recognition that America has become a third world banana republic. This has undermined belief in the system, credibility of government, and ultimately the global empire. ..."
"... Four months after Clinton left the State Dept, she was still keeping her emails at home, in violation of a requirement to turn them over for official archiving. Had it not been for Guccifer, she would never have turned them over. ..."
"... The commenter is looking at Comey's unusual public statement through the lens of DOJ group-think makes it seem driven by "the need for absolute transparency." This is how they pass the buck in that organization. Comey's statement makes perfect sense inside the DOJ - his assertion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges only makes sense to a careerist to whom pleasing their superiors is the only "sensible" and "reasonable" behavior, and to whom actual justice is a mere abstraction. ..."
"... Apparently at the DOJ, as with Antonin Scalia*, the law is not about right and wrong, innocence or guilt. Its about CYA and protecting the prerogatives of the state. ..."
"... Read Bill Moushey's 10-part "Win at All Costs" series on the federal conviction mill, and you would not even want an "AUSA" living in your neighborhood, for fear of being swept up in their mindless criminal dragnet. ..."
"... As a prosecutor of 32 years successful legal practice, let me just say: "You're wrong." The only mens rea ..."
"... This sort of violation is the easiest thing in the world to prove to a judge or jury, and I've personally taken scores of unanimous jury verdicts involving General Intent crimes. Petraeus was easily convicted of this violation, and many men and women have been cashiered and/or imprisoned for it, especially by the Obama Justice Department. No Ken Starr crusade required - the evidence is beyond dispute ..."
"... My brother is in the service with a security clearance and they are all furious. They said what she did is illegal and if anyone else did it they would be prosecuted . ..."
"... The Clintons are grifters and it would not surprise me if most of those deleted emails involved starting wars in other countries, TPP and scamming for the foundation. The claim she was too stupid to know what she was doing was wrong is ludicrous. If she wins the presidency we need a congress full of tea partiers so she cannot enact anything. ..."
"... The retired LTG who was vetted by Trump for veep also said if it was him, he would be doing jail time for what Hill did. I'm sure that's why Trump would love to have this guy as an attack dog on the campaign trail. ..."
"... I have a cousin who is a commander in the Navy with Southern Command who nearly never talks publicly about "politics" or much that is in the media. He speaks with his near family and very close friends, but widely or on any sort of social media, no way. He is irate about Clinton not being prosecuted. He sees this as an issue of justice and national security and is very public about his views. I asked him why he was willing to be so public with his views in this instance and he explained it is based on the seriousness of the crimes and the undermining of all he believes he is serving for. ..."
"... I used to be a USAFA nuclear launch officer. One of my fellow officers (unthinkingly) brought a crew bag into the classified vault where we were processing a rev change (a periodic change to procedures, methods and/or targets). One of the sheets from the old rev slipped into his crew bag. He took the crew bag into the (occupied) squadron office where it sat for several hours. The destruction inventory came up short. The sheet was found in the officer's crew bag. Consequences were brutal. He was immediately relieved of duty. I never saw him again. The entire squadron was given a mandatory security refresher and told that the consequences for being *involved* in such negligence would, at the least, result in a dishonorable discharge and quite likely would involve an extended stay in Leavenworth, KS. Involvement could include just being in the line of sight of unauthorized containers such as a crew bag. ..."
"... I think this is a basic feature of a totalitarian or fascist state. Make a lot of laws and then enforce only the ones that serve your ends. Whether it's the Espionage Act or a traffic violation, it's then up to the state to decide who they want to punish. Now every time I hear the phrase "rule of law", I think of this. I don't know if we were ever "a nation of laws, not a nation of men", but we can safely say now that we are officially not. ..."
"... To wit, Either Comey, loyal Republican that he is, wants to see Trump elected president and figures that the best thing he can do in that respect is to issue a scathing non-indictment of Clinton, thereby wounding but not killing her candidacy ..."
"... I would argue that the very fact that Comey issued a public opinion on prosecution (completely outside the FBI remit) should be clear evidence of bias and invalidate their investigation and his statements on the basis they were prejudiced. A clever counsel could, in fact, use this as a defence if HRC is indeed tried. Comey, like Lynch, should have been recused. There is bias written all over this entire debacle. ..."
"... The true smoking gun will be the Clinton Foundation, variously described by others as a fraud, a giant slush fund,or a private criminal hedge fund. Just the optics of the pay-for-play circumstances of arms deals, corporate takeovers, mineral concessions, etc. should be more than sufficient to empanel a Grand Jury. Less than $1billion of the $4billion raised for Haiti's earthquake relief effort was ever spent. Where's the rest? Remember the commercials? Poppy Bush and Bill sitting side by side pleading for money. ..."
"... This article doesn't explain why a punishment such as the one given to Petraeus was not considered by Comey or the DOJ. Petraeus was an elite insider who was not a spy and did not threaten the state, yet he still received a minor punishment so as not to delegitimatize the legal system and in order to give at least a minimal impression of fairness. Since Comey said it was possible - and most experts say very possible - that foreign governments read Hillary's emails, she may have caused significant damage to the US national interest over four years. Therefore even a loyal elite could expect to be at least fined for such gross negligence. Why wouldn't a fine and a reprimand and/or temporary loss of security clearance be normal even for a loyal DC insider? This suggests that the power of the Clinton Machine and its real-world ability to deliver retribution was the deciding factor in the lack of any suggestion of indictment. Comey surely wants to keep his job. ..."
"... The article also fails to deal with the fact that Comey mistakenly claimed that only one person had ever been prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. This is clearly not the case, and you list some of those prosecuted. There have also been several other convictions, including US vs. McGuinness in 1992 (see Andrew C. McCarthy, "Military Prosecutions Show That A Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton" National Review (7/7/2016), CIA director John Deutch in 1997 (pardoned by Bill Clinton), James Hitselberger (who carried classified documents off his naval base in 1997 and simply kept them), and Jason Brezler, a Marine Major who sent classified information about a dangerous Afghan mayor in order to warn a colleague in 2014 (he is now appealing his conviction based on Comey's criteria). Also please see Jared Beck, "Why Hillary Clinton's Emails Matter: A Legal Analysis" (6/6/2016): Beck lists 4 convictions under 793(f) alone. Also see Beck's "Comey's Volley, Or The Indictment That Wasn't" (7/11/2016). You also need to deal with the question of why Comey ignored the obvious fact that Hillary willfully and knowingly broke State Department rules in setting up the private server and therefore knew she was endangering security. The fact that Comey gave a false number of prosecutions under s. 793 and avoided mention of willful, knowing acts by Hillary suggests his decision to oppose indictment was a political decision, not a legal decision. ..."
"... Let's say Comey and Lynch get together and agree that Clinton should be indicted. That's fine, but what, they ask, are the chances be of having a fair trial in a reasonable timeframe (i.e. before a Clinton inauguration made one meaningless)? What are the chances of it not turning into a highly politicized media circus? The answer of course is zero. ..."
"... Jill Stein and Gary Johnson take more support from Clinton than Trump. Many Millennials or 35 and under will either go with Stein or Johnson. It may be enough to keep her out of the White House. ..."
"... I will point out that regardless of the motives we impute to Comey his presentation on July 5 did real damage to HRC. She has lost ground in the polls taken since then and the GOP has resurrected this issue as a cudgel. Not sure if that makes people around here feel better or not. ..."
"... Comey (in his mind) fatally wounded Hillary Clinton without exposing himself as a coverup merchant. He is wrong of course but he definitely resides in a fool's bubble. Comey handed enough specifics of evidence to enable a wholesale demolition any credibility HRC had left. The dogs of war are out baying for her blood as a result. ..."
"... My guess is that Comeys antics will drive the detestation of HRC harder and deeper to point where she will have little margin with Trump. ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on July 13, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. This post is detailed and carefully argued, so get a cup of coffee. If you want a companion piece as to why Comey's arguments for letting Clinton off the hook were indefensible, the best one-stop shopping is 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had . Please send this post and that link to Clinton defenders.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . Originally published at at Down With Tyranny . GP article here

It's going to be a while before the jury of informed comment returns a verdict regarding James Comey's pre-emptive declaration of "no prosecution" for Hillary Clinton. But let's see what a first look gets us. I want to start with a couple of points made by Marcy Wheeler, then amplify them from other sources. The questions at issue are:

Some of these questions we can answer now. Others will have to wait until the people who specialize in this material discuss it more fully, which could take a while.

Comey Had No Business Making a Prosecutorial Decision

We can start with something we're sure of. From Marcy Wheeler, in a piece called " Does Jim Comey Think Thomas Drake Exhibited Disloyalty to the United States? " we find this initial point (bolding in original):

Before we get into his argument, consider a more basic point: It is not Jim Comey's job to make prosecutorial decisions . Someone else - whichever US Attorney oversaw the prosecutors on this case, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, or Loretta Lynch - makes that decision. [H]e has no business making this decision, and even less business making it public in the way he did (the latter of which points former DOJ public affairs director Matthew Miller was bitching about).

Alex Emmons, writing at The Intercept , agrees:

FBI Director Comey Preempts Justice Department By Advising No Charges for Hillary Clinton

FBI Director James Comey took the unprecedented step of publicly preempting a Justice Department prosecution when he declared at a press conference Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server.

The FBI's job is to investigate crimes; it is Justice Department prosecutors who are supposed to decide whether or not to move forward. But in a case that had enormous political implications, Comey decided the FBI would act on its own.

"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," he said. Prosecutors could technically still file criminal charges, but it would require them to publicly disagree with their own investigators.

Matthew Miller, a former spokesman for the Justice Department under Eric Holder, also agrees, and is quoted by both Wheeler and Emmons. Emmons account (my emphasis):

Matthew Miller, who was a spokesman for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey's press conference an " absolutely unprecedented, appalling, and a flagrant violation of Justice Department regulations. " He told The Intercept : "The thing that's so damaging about this is that the Department of Justice is supposed to reach conclusions and put them in court filings . There's a certain amount of due process there."

Legal experts could not recall another time that the FBI had made its recommendation so publicly.

"It's not unusual for the FBI to take a strong positions on whether charges should be brought in a case," said University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. " The unusual part is publicizing it ."

Which leaves us with a mystery. Why did Comey do this?

It Looks Like Comey Said "No Prosecution" So Loretta Lynch Wouldn't Have To

Wheeler thinks Comey is covering for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, his boss, whose reputation for impartiality was damaged by her recent tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Wheeler writes, "By overstepping the proper role of the FBI here, Comey surely gave Lynch cover - now she can back his decision without looking like Bill Clinton convinced her to do so on the tarmac."

Emmons largely agrees:

Given the extraordinary circumstances, Vladeck called it "both unusual and completely unsurprising that Comey went out of his way to make this statement."

He added: "It's certainly preemptive on Comey's part."

Attorney General Loretta Lynch was widely criticized for meeting with former President Bill Clinton last week while his wife was still under investigation

You read that right: "unusual and completely un surprising." For Emmons and Vladeck it appears to be a case of insiders going out of their way, far out of their way in fact, to cover for insiders. Given how unprecedented Comey's speech was, I think we have to accept this hypothesis until others weigh in with more likely alternatives. This seems perfectly plausible to me. I can think of another motives for Comey's actions, but they don't exclude this one.

Should Clinton Be Prosecuted Despite Loretta Lynch's Refusal to Do So?

So far, we've been able to answer the first question, should Comey have made the call not to prosecute? The answer is clearly no. But that only gets us started. As to the prosecution itself - should she be prosecuted and why? - we're in more complicated territory, which I hope to make clear.

(Note, by the way, that in my heading just above, I'm transferring responsibility for the refusal to prosecute from Comey back to the Justice Department, where it belongs . I suggest in thinking about this that you do the same. Comey notwithstanding, it's Lynch who has the authority, and Lynch who is refusing to prosecute.)

About prosecution, there are many laws that Clinton appears to have broken. In fact, there may develop a minor cottage industry that lists them. Comey himself identified some transgressions during his post-announcement speech (my emphasis below):

[S]even e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

Note that this confirms, by the way, the fact that Special Access Program (SAP) information - one of the highest, most sensitive levels of secret the government possesses - was indeed housed on the server. Brian Pagliano, in doing any number of maintenance chores at the Clinton IT home-headquarters, could have read it, as could anyone helping him. Risking SAP information will be a tripwire for many in the intelligence community, who are likely to regard its mishandling as unforgivable. This is one of those areas where we'll know more over time as specialists weigh in. (The political response of the intel community, if any, could also be interesting, in a "drama of retaliation" way. This may not occur, but it's one of the possibilities.)

Next Comey adds:

In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" e-mails). None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government-or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

In other words, despite Ms. Clinton's allegations that nothing she sent or received was "marked classified at the time" - her statements were incorrect. (Note that the extent of this violation is in doubt, however; i.e., the exact number of these "properly classified" emails and their contents was not revealed. Below, as you'll read, Comey admits that the number of these emails is "very small." Wikileaks disagrees .)

Finally:

Separately, 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 .

The last is important. Some material is "born classified," a phrase you've likely encountered if you've been following this story. If an admiral in World War II, for example, doodles a possible plan of attack against an enemy fleet, that doodle contains classified information, whether marked as such or not. And more, the duty to guard this information goes beyond not divulging it. It must be carefully protected in a non-negligent way.

Hillary Clinton and the Espionage Act

So should Clinton have been prosecuted? The duty to protect important government information is codified, among other places, in the Espionage Act, Title 18 of the criminal code, Sections 792 and following. I earlier wrote about Clinton's vulnerability to this act, specifically Title 18, Section 793, here: " Three Data Points Regarding Clinton's Email Server and the Law ". There I made two points: first, that the information covered by the act doesn't require a formal "classified" designation to be relevant; and second, that "intent" (meaning intent to disclose) is not necessary to trigger the law's penalties. "Gross negligence" in handling the information is sufficient to trigger prosecution. Part of this section reads :

(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 .

To get the gist of this language as it applies to Clinton, just read the part bolded above. Cut down, it says:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document … relating to the national defense … or 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 … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

If your consideration is whether Clinton violated the letter of the law, that's pretty straight-forward. Storing the information listed by Comey in his non-indictment indictment of Clinton on her unsecured server (and sent, for a time, by unencrypted transmission) puts Clinton at clear risk of prosecution for violating the Espionage Act. And again, the bar isn't "intent" to risk or violate national security information. The bar is "gross negligence" in its handling, a phrase that's almost a dictionary synonym for what Comey meant when he accused Clinton and her colleagues of being "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information."

Thus she's very likely vulnerable under the letter of the law. Yet unlike others she will not be tried (a word that means "tested"), much less punished, for violating it. Her lack of prosecution, when others have been vigorously pursued in court for similar acts or less, explains much of what exercises her critics. To understand their frustration and anger, let's look at those who have been prosecuted under the Act for negligence or worse. Then let's look at the critical element that separates their situations from Clinton's. (It's not just her elevated status.)

The Espionage Act Under Obama

It turns out that the Espionage Act has become a popular tool of punishment under the Obama administration, which has broadened its application from use against actual espionage to use against unfriendly leakers and whistle-blowers :

Under the Obama administration , seven Espionage Act prosecutions have been related not to traditional espionage but to either withholding information or communicating with members of the media. Out of a total eleven prosecutions under the Espionage Act against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media, seven have occurred since Obama took office. [89] "Leaks related to national security can put people at risk," the President said at a news conference in 2013. "They can put men and women in uniform that I've sent into the battlefield at risk. I don't think the American people would expect me, as commander in chief, not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed." [90]

As Glenn Greenwald (among many others) has recently noted :

Secrecy is a virtual religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive manner – at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been widely noted , the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined . Secrecy in DC is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said in 2010 , "Everything's secret. I mean, I got an email saying 'Merry Christmas.' It carried a top secret NSA classification marking."

People who leak to media outlets for the selfless purpose of informing the public – Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Drake, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden – face decades in prison. Those who leak for more ignoble and self-serving ends – such as enabling hagiography ( Leon Panetta , David Petreaus ) or ingratiating oneself to one's mistress (Petraeus) – face career destruction, though they are usually spared if they are sufficiently Important-in-DC . For low-level, powerless Nobodies-in-DC, even the mere mishandling of classified information without any intent to leak but merely to, say, work from home – has resulted in criminal prosecution , career destruction and the permanent loss of security clearance.

Even when no leakage or other damage was contemplated or occurred, the Espionage Act was applied against violators. Here's what happened to Naval Reserve Engineer Brian Nishimura (link via Greenwald above):

A Naval reservist was sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.

A federal attorney announced Wednesday that Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials.

Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended.

An FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.

How was his case handled? He was obviously prosecuted, as the lead paragraph tells us. Then:

He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine , and was ordered to surrender his security clearance . He is barred from seeking a future security clearance .

This is a Navy engineer who took home downloaded briefings and records. We're not told under what act he was prosecuted, but we don't need to be told, just that doing what he did was a crime. The Espionage Act is perfectly suited to that crime, if the prosecutors wished to use it.

Here's a bit from the FBI's description of Nishimura's case:

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. … 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

Sounds like what Clinton did to a T. Should she be prosecuted? Loretta Lynch, speaking through James Comey, doesn't think so. To understand why not, let's look at three more notorious and more vigorously prosecuted cases: Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake and Chelsea Manning. Those cases not only reveal why Clinton, in the eyes of many, should be prosecuted; they reveal why she wasn't.

Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake and Chelsea Manning

This gets to the heart of the problem related to when and why to prosecute. There's first a question of what should happen and what does happen. Then there's a question of intent, as in, what intent if any is the target of the law , and what intent is the target of prosecutors who apply the law. These are not the same.

Greenwald doesn't think Clinton should be prosecuted, since in isolation her crime, as he sees it, doesn't merit it. What Clinton did was attempt to shield all of her communications to the extent she could, an act that in his mind doesn't deserve jail time, despite the letter of the law. I would add that we're talking about applying the Espionage Act after all, and Clinton in no way committed or intended to commit espionage.

But that kind of sensible thinking isn't what does happen. What does happen is that under Obama, certain people are prosecuted and sentenced very harshly. Greenwald again (bolded emphasis mine):

But this case does not exist in isolation. It exists in a political climate where secrecy is regarded as the highest end, where people have their lives destroyed for the most trivial – or, worse, the most well-intentioned – violations of secrecy laws, even in the absence of any evidence of harm or malignant intent . And these are injustices that Hillary Clinton and most of her stalwart Democratic followers have never once opposed – but rather enthusiastically cheered. In 2011, Army Private Chelsea Manning was charged with multiple felonies and faced decades in prison for leaking documents that she firmly believed the public had the right to see; unlike the documents Clinton recklessly mishandled, none of those was Top Secret . Nonetheless, this is what then-Secretary Clinton said in justifying her prosecution…

Clinton's justification for Manning's prosecution is this (emphasis Greenwald's):

"I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so. "

Seems damning in retrospect, especially the emphasized portion. For Clinton, "necessary steps" to protect "sensitive" information that's "flying through cyberspace" means the following :

In 2010, Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning , the United States Army Private First Class accused of the largest leak of state secrets in U.S. history, was charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice , which incorporates parts of the Espionage Act 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) . At the time, critics worried that the broad language of the Act could make news organizations, and anyone who reported, printed or disseminated information from WikiLeaks, subject to prosecution, although former prosecutors pushed back, citing Supreme Court precedent expanding First Amendment protections. [103] On July 30, 2013, following a judge-only trial by court-martial lasting eight weeks, Army judge Colonel Denise Lind convicted Manning on six counts of violating the Espionage Act, among other infractions. [98]

And the punishment was this:

Manning was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years' imprisonment , with the possibility of parole in the eighth year, and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army. [2]

That harsh punishment doesn't count the torture she endured while in pre-trial detention. The fate that befell Chelsea Manning was (and is) draconian. Again, in retrospect Clinton's words at the time are damning.

Let's look at two more cases, starting with Jeffrey Sterling . As you read, see if you can see the thread that ties these three cases together:

Jeffrey Alexander Sterling , a former CIA agent was indicted under the [Espionage] Act in January 2011 for alleged unauthorized disclosure of national defense information to James Risen , a New York Times reporter, in 2003 regarding his book State of War . The indictment described his motive as revenge for the CIA's refusal to allow him to publish his memoirs and its refusal to settle his racial discrimination lawsuit against the Agency. Others have described him as telling Risen about a backfired CIA plot against Iran in the 1990s. [91]

But the evidence of wrong-doing was almost non-existent, flimsily circumstantial , and the conviction relied heavily on the jury's reaction to the government's presentation of motive.

The government's case consisted mostly of records of emails and phone calls between Sterling and Risen that began in 2001 and continued into 2005. The emails were very short, just a line or so, and did not reference any CIA programs. The phone calls were mostly short too, some just a few seconds, and the government did not introduce recordings or transcripts of any of them .

Sterling was represented by two lawyers, Edward MacMahon Jr. and Barry Pollack. In his opening statement, MacMahon pointed to the lack of hard evidence against his client.

"Mr. Trump is a fine lawyer," MacMahon said . " If he had an email with details of these programs or a phone call, you would have heard it , and you're not going to hear it in this case .… Mr. Trump told you that [Sterling] spoke to Risen. Did you hear where, when, or anything about what happened? No. That's because there isn't any such evidence of it whatsoever .… You don't see a written communication to Mr. Risen from Mr. Sterling about the program at all, no evidence they even met in person ."

Nevertheless, despite this lack of real evidence:

[T]he jury convicted Sterling, based on what the judge, Leonie Brinkema, described at the sentencing as "very powerful circumstantial evidence." She added, "In a perfect world, you'd only have direct evidence, but many times that's not the case in a criminal case." …

A few minutes before three in the afternoon, Judge Brinkema said that Sterling would go to prison for three and a half years. This was far below the sentencing guidelines - and was seen as a rebuke of the prosecution's portrayal of Sterling as a traitor who had to be locked away for a long time. But that wasn't much comfort for Sterling or his wife, because he would nonetheless be locked away. After the hearing ended, Sterling walked to the front row of seats to console his sobbing wife. You could hear her wails in the courtroom.

His lawyers requested that he be allowed to serve his sentence in his home state of Missouri, so that his wife and other family members could easily visit him. Earlier this week, Sterling reported to the prison that was selected for him. It is in Colorado.

We still don't know for sure that Sterling was the person who leaked information to reporter James Risen. Nothing showing that they worked together was presented in court. Nothing. Yet the prosecutor did a good job of painting Sterling as "a traitor" motivated by "anger, bitterness, selfishness," adding, "The defendant struck back at the CIA because he thought he had been treated unfairly. He had sued the agency for discrimination and demanded that they pay him $200,000 to settle his claim. When the agency refused, he struck back with the only weapon he had: secrets, the agency's secrets."

On that basis and almost no evidence, the jury convicted.

Finally, in the case of Thomas Drake, mentioned above by both Wheeler and Greenwald, this happened:

In April 2010, Thomas Andrews Drake , an official with the National Security Agency (NSA), was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) for alleged willful retention of national defense information. The case arose from investigations into his communications with Siobhan Gorman of the Baltimore Sun and Diane Roark of the House Intelligence Committee as part of his attempt to blow the whistle on several issues including the NSA's Trailblazer project. [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] Considering the prosecution of Drake, investigative journalist Jane Mayer wrote that "Because reporters often retain unauthorized defense documents, Drake's conviction would establish a legal precedent making it possible to prosecute journalists as spies." [97]

What sets Drake, Sterling and Manning apart from Clinton in the way their violations of the Espionage Act are treated? It's not just her elite status.

Why Is Clinton's Case Different?

Clinton may well have been let off because the Justice Department thought prosecution was just the wrong thing to do. Given all the arcane rules of classification, and the fact that Clinton, put plainly, is not a spy, Comey and Lynch may well have decided that prosecution was pointless. Espionage, after all, was never her intent, and getting Hillary Clinton convicted on espionage charges may have looked to them like a very heavy lift. Yet espionage was never the intent of Sterling, Drake or Manning, yet they had the proverbial book thrown at them, and more. (Read the rest of the article on Sterling to see how his prosecution nearly destroyed his life, literally.)

The government's behavior in these four cases isn't clarified when comparing motives, at least not initially. It could be argued that the motives of Sterling, Drake and Manning were entirely beneficial, since whistle-blowers intend to perform a societal good, whereas Clinton's motives were more self-centered, less morally defensible, and possibly illegal - at the very least, she was attempting to move all of her communication beyond the reach of FOIA records requests. (We'll have to wait to see if she may have had other motives, such as shielding the Clinton Foundation from embarrassing scrutiny, or worse. I keep seeing mention of a separate investigation into that.)

Which brings us to the the matter of intent - not the intent contemplated by the law (intent to steal or to otherwise mishandle government secrets), but the intent contemplated by the prosecutors in applying the law. Look again at the Sterling conviction and what the prosecution relied on to get it. The man was painted by his prosecutors as, in effect, evil - a man whose goal was to harm the government, a betrayer, a traitor, motivated by anger, bitterness, selfishness, a man taking revenge. Though most stark in Sterling's prosecution (and in Manning's torture), you see this thread in all three whistle-blower cases.

What separates these cases from Clinton's is the desire of the government to punish "evil deeds," attempts to harm the country as the prosecutors defined harm , then secondarily to use the Espionage Act as a tool of that punishment, wielded in such a heavy way as to frighten others. Note that this initial filter - looking for who has done the kind of harm deserving of punishment, as opposed to looking for who violated the law - precedes the prosecution itself. What doesn't precede the prosecution - certainly not in Clinton's case - is an even-handed application of the law.

Yes, this is selective prosecution, but it's much more than elites protecting elites, though it's that as well. It's also and primarily using the prosecutorial weight of the established state to mercilessly crush the perceived enemies of that state, while protecting its friends from that weight should they also stray under the law's dark umbrella.

In other words, the key to determining who will be prosecuted is indeed intent, but not intent to violate the law. What's being prosecuted is intent to violate the state as the state perceives it.

So we return where we started, to Marcy Wheeler, who calls the real crime of Sterling and Drake "disloyalty" and not a violation of the Espionage Act itself. Wheeler (my emphasis):

I can only imagine Comey came to his improper public prosecutorial opinion via one of two mental tricks. Either he - again, not the prosecutor - decided the only crime at issue was mishandling classified information (elsewhere in his statement he describes having no evidence that thousands of work emails were withheld from DOJ with ill intent , which dismisses another possible crime), and from there he decided either that it'd be a lot harder to prosecute Hillary Clinton (or David Petraeus) than it would be someone DOJ spent years maligning like Sterling or Drake. Or maybe he decided that there are no indications that Hillary is disloyal to the US.

Understand, though: with Sterling and Drake, DOJ decided they were disloyal to the US, and then used their alleged mishandling of classified information as proof that they were disloyal to the US (Drake ultimately plead to Exceeding Authorized Use of a Computer).

Ultimately, it involves arbitrary decisions about who is disloyal to the US , and from that a determination that the crime of mishandling classified information occurred.

This entirely ignores the political dimension, which I'll take up at another time. But it perfectly characterizes, as I see it, the legal one.

Too Big to Jail, Too Innocent to Flail, or Both

Should Clinton have been prosecuted at all? It depends on whether you wish to apply the law (many do), to apply what others consider common sense, or to rebalance the scale of unequal prosecution. And if the latter, rebalance in which direction? Should Clinton go to jail, or should Manning, among others, go free? I would personally be fine if Clinton never saw a courtroom and prisoners like Manning were freed. For the overall good of the nation, I would take that trade. Others, I'm sure, would choose differently.

Returning to why Clinton wasn't prosecuted - was it just that Clinton is too important, too protected, to prosecute? "Too big to jail" in other words? Too high to be brought down by something as low as the law? After all, starting with Nixon, the circle of those who can never be punished for their crimes has grown constantly more inclusive. (I almost wrote "for their non-violent crimes," but then I remembered the torturing George W. Bush.) That's certainly a possible explanation, even a likely one, given our recent failure to prosecute even a straight-up thief like former Goldman Sachs chief, ex-governor and Democratic Party fundraiser Jon Corzine.

But we live in a punishing, prosecutorial state as well, one that treats its enemies as harshly as it treats its friends gently, especially its inner circle friends. It's this second aspect, not just who is too big to jail, but who is too high-minded and innocent to torture and flail - too "loyal" to be treated, in other words, like Sterling and Manning - that must be considered before we can understand the unequal application of these laws. Clinton, for all her faults in James Comey's eyes, was no Chelsea Manning.

As Wheeler says in her closing, this is "another way of saying our classification system is largely a way to arbitrarily label people you dislike disloyal." On reflection, it's hard to disagree.

ColdWarVet , July 13, 2016 at 7:36 am

In other words, the key to determining who will be prosecuted is indeed intent, but not intent to violate the law. What's being prosecuted is intent to violate the state as the state [itself] perceives it.

That's the money line right there. Just as back in the 50's, all of this is based on simplistic moralistic arguments concerning intent to harm the state. HRC virtually embodies the modern state, and thus, her intent cannot and will not ever be questioned. Game over.

fresno dan , July 13, 2016 at 1:40 pm

ColdWarVet
July 13, 2016 at 7:36 am

I agree absolutely. And I would add that the "state" now a days is far more of an ideological monolith than 60 or even 40 years ago. Any "serious" person in the upper echelons of the US governing class believes in the all security state, and whatever is necessary to maintain it.

If Daniel Ellsberg had done today what he did in the '70's, he would be in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison, and there would be NONE in the high reaches of the US governing class opposed to this outcome.

We live in a more EFFECTIVELY one party state than the Soviets or Red Chinese ever mustered…

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , July 13, 2016 at 4:36 pm

"L'etat, c'est moi."
We recall what happened after that statement.

Vatch , July 13, 2016 at 5:14 pm

Unfortunately, there was quite a lag. The phrase is attributed to Louis XIV, who died in 1715. Nearly 3/4 of a century elapsed before the events of 1789.

Stupid Git , July 13, 2016 at 2:04 pm

Or by Exxon and JP Morgan so they could get even more details on how to make a fortune off our tragic foreign policy. http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-pitched-iraq-business-opportunity-us-corporations-2121999

Turd in the Punchbowl , July 13, 2016 at 7:47 am

Two submerged legal protections show why the government is trying so hard to fend off human rights law. The authorities here are freedom of information in accordance with Article 19, and human rights defenders, who have protections under state and federal common law as customary international law. The US is legally committed to bring domestic law into compliance with human rights law, which is the supreme law of the land.

The government tries to stuff this hero/traitor dichotomy up our butts but Manning, Sterling, and Drake are human rights defenders. Manning defended our right to information freedom. Sterling defended our human right to peace by denouncing illegal war propaganda. Drake defended our human right to privacy from illegal NSA surveillance.

Chelsea Manning's trial was a classic case for Francis Boyle's civil resistance framework. The issue was not only information freedom but denunciation of war crimes. Under federal law and the Army Field Manual, disobedience was Manning's legal duty. But we heard this drumbeat of he wouldn't dare, he wouldn't dare… The implication was, he'd be punished more harshly for explicitly complying with the federal law of war crimes.

The government goes through increasingly ridiculous bad-faith contortions to escape this body of law. International forums are making a laughingstock of this government, shredding its pretensions to legitimacy. The last step is for human rights defenders to go over the head of this government to the world and argue the necessity of exposing this criminal state.

Human rights defenders like Sakharov, Sharansky, and Slepak helped reform the USSR out of existence. Manning, Sterling, Drake, and the ones who come after them will do the same for all of us Americans trapped in the USA.

steelhead23 , July 13, 2016 at 2:52 pm

I like the way you think. Those who defend human rights by pointing fingers at the state for its transgressions are considered traitors, while those who embody the state, yet violate its laws are exonerated. Isn't that pretty close to placing the state above the law – a police state?

Romancing the Loan , July 13, 2016 at 8:30 am

Yeah depending on to whom she was trading our government secrets for, it doesn't really matter that it was (for example) through intermediaries like Blumenthal in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and not out of loyalty to a foreign country. There is still the potential that she did things that constituted espionage.

jgordon , July 13, 2016 at 8:33 am

Hillary's email debacle and subsequent lack of prosecution is an important milestone on the road to widespread recognition that America has become a third world banana republic. This has undermined belief in the system, credibility of government, and ultimately the global empire.

It's like the elites took out a payday loan; they get to play their little games and protect their corrupt friends for now–and in the future their creditors, the American people, will extract their pound of flesh (via the guillotine). Somewhere in that process the empire will collapse. Now if only we can avoid a nuclear Armageddon (ie by supporting Trump from here on out) I'd say that is a win-win for everyone in the world despite how bad it looks in the short term.

Jim Haygood , July 13, 2016 at 9:20 am

Fresh shark jumping by the Clintons:

In the filing Tuesday [in a Judicial Watch FOIA case], longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall even offered the politically awkward contention that a general effort by Clinton to thwart FOIA would not be enough to give the Judicial Watch legal authority to proceed with its case.

Kendall argued that a 1980 Supreme Court case that discussed the possibility of recovering records sought under FOIA but no longer in agency control "requires a close temporal connection between an official's removal of records and a specific FOIA request."

"That standard cannot be satisfied here. Judicial Watch's FOIA request was submitted nearly four months after Secretary Clinton left the State Department, and there is no evidence that Secretary Clinton or anyone else at the Department knew that Judicial Watch would submit the request, let alone intended to circumvent it," Kendall wrote, along with attorneys Katherine Turner and Amy Zaharia.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-block-deposition-email-225418#ixzz4EIJGUuUY

Four months after Clinton left the State Dept, she was still keeping her emails at home, in violation of a requirement to turn them over for official archiving. Had it not been for Guccifer, she would never have turned them over.

It would be not be surprising at this point for Hillary to Arkancide "Bill," and then plead for the court's mercy because she is a widow.

Tallichet , July 13, 2016 at 8:42 am

Speaking as a former AUSA with years of experience making prosecution decisions in complex fraud cases, some of those decisions in agreement with recommendations made by the investigating agency (FBI and others), some in the teeth of opposition from the investigating agency, the only unusual aspect of the handling of the email affair I observed was DOJ's decision to make public, through Comey's speech, the reasoning behind the declination. Reasoning underlying prosecution decisions is, as a rule, never made public. Making the reasoning public was likely a nod to the highly politicized nature of the investigation and the need for absolute transparency.

As for the assertion that the decision was made by the wrong person or department, FBI/Comey not Lynch the prosecutor, Lynch made it clear beyond dispute that she would defer to the fact finder's recommendation when it was made. That decision was itself a prosecution decision made by Lynch, was within her authority and again, given the highly politicized nature of the investigation, was an obviously sensible decision, given her position as a cabinet member in a Democratic administration.

Yves Smith Post author , July 13, 2016 at 12:08 pm

As a state prosecutor said via e-mail:

The remark that this was "an obviously sensible decision, given her position as a cabinet member in a Democratic administration," is also the kind of crap that I've gotten in the past from AUSA's, who are one of the most intellectually (and ethically) captive groups I've ever dealt with. Everything that they do is for "show" value within the DOJ. If I bring up the public's interest in justice, they look at me like I'm some kind of nut. The commenter is correct that Lynch's actions make perfect sense within the rules of DOJ Kabuki theater. They very much like decisions to be made by somebody else.

The commenter is looking at Comey's unusual public statement through the lens of DOJ group-think makes it seem driven by "the need for absolute transparency." This is how they pass the buck in that organization. Comey's statement makes perfect sense inside the DOJ - his assertion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges only makes sense to a careerist to whom pleasing their superiors is the only "sensible" and "reasonable" behavior, and to whom actual justice is a mere abstraction.

Ironically, it is the precarious nature of legal employment as recently discussed on NC that has caused this sort of organizational behavior to be the norm in the profession any more, and it's prevalence is why I'm getting out.

fresno dan , July 13, 2016 at 1:45 pm

Yves Smith
July 13, 2016 at 12:08 pm
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU !!!! for your rebuttal of that evil BULLSH*T

YankeeFrank , July 13, 2016 at 2:35 pm

This brings to mind the mantra "there's justice… and then there's the law". Though when I've heard that said it was not as a defense of how little the latter mirrors the former but a criticism. Apparently at the DOJ, as with Antonin Scalia*, the law is not about right and wrong, innocence or guilt. Its about CYA and protecting the prerogatives of the state.

Jim Haygood , July 13, 2016 at 2:52 pm

Read Bill Moushey's 10-part "Win at All Costs" series on the federal conviction mill, and you would not even want an "AUSA" living in your neighborhood, for fear of being swept up in their mindless criminal dragnet.

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/Win_At_All_Cost/Win_at_all_costs.htm

Federal prosecutors are like the poseur who knocks out an opponent with no arms, then claims to be Heavyweight Champion of the World.

They don't know what a fair adversary proceeding is anymore, since federal sentencing guidelines (1984) and other changes tilted the whole table in their favor.

When 95% of federal criminal cases are plea-bargained under extreme duress for the defendant, prosecutors don't need any skill whatsoever to put fresh pelts on the wall.

run75441 , July 13, 2016 at 10:32 pm

Yves:

I am going to disagree this time.

What Tallichet is saying is indeed true. He is not making it up. The burden is upon the government to prove intent or "mens rea" evil mind. No reasonable prosecutor would take up another Ken Starr crusade for years to come to prove something which can not be proven. If you are young and maybe want a crusade (Starr did) then maybe you take it up to make a name for yourself.

I have enough court time to know when a battle can be won and not won. Spent enough money doing it.

Sluggeaux , July 14, 2016 at 12:29 am

As a prosecutor of 32 years successful legal practice, let me just say: "You're wrong." The only mens rea required to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1924 is General Criminal Intent, not Specific Intent. There is no legal requirement that a person accused of Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents intend to break the law or damage the interests of the United States. The only requirement is that the accused person knowingly remove the materials and intentionally retain them at an unauthorized location.

This sort of violation is the easiest thing in the world to prove to a judge or jury, and I've personally taken scores of unanimous jury verdicts involving General Intent crimes. Petraeus was easily convicted of this violation, and many men and women have been cashiered and/or imprisoned for it, especially by the Obama Justice Department. No Ken Starr crusade required - the evidence is beyond dispute.

However, the difference is that I've been at my work for 32 years, and I've never had the slightest intention of walking through the revolving door of representing the very people who it was my duty to prosecute.

Tallichet , July 14, 2016 at 7:46 am

Your ability to generalize with such breadth and detail about a very large, diverse group of individuals is impressive. My experience as a state prosecutor, Federal prosecutor, defense attorney and thoughtful human being has taught me that such generalizations cannot be relied upon. I have interacted with many police and investigators from a multitude of agencies ranging from small town Texas pds to FBI and have found that some of them were tall, others short, some blue eyed, others brown eyed some smart others not so smart, some honest, others not. I have found the same diversity in other groups I have come to know through experience … judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, women, men, blonds, brunettes … the list is really endless. Are you able to similarly generalize with such breadth and detail about groups within our society other than AUSAs?

art guerrilla , July 14, 2016 at 12:58 pm

i dont know shit about 'the law', and NO LONGER CARE because it is a totaaly corrupted institution which serves the interests of the 1%…
my personal morals are a superset of 'the law', only mine are evenhanded, not corrupt…

oh, you sound like quite the douche, hoping we have an opportunity to meet at a necktie party when the hard rain comes… lawyers will be escorted to the front of the line…

m , July 13, 2016 at 8:47 am

My brother is in the service with a security clearance and they are all furious. They said what she did is illegal and if anyone else did it they would be prosecuted .

The Clintons are grifters and it would not surprise me if most of those deleted emails involved starting wars in other countries, TPP and scamming for the foundation. The claim she was too stupid to know what she was doing was wrong is ludicrous. If she wins the presidency we need a congress full of tea partiers so she cannot enact anything.

jgordon , July 13, 2016 at 9:32 am

I'd definitely be interested in reading more about how the email scandal is sowing distrust and discord in the national security state. Please share more about how people on the inside are feeling; it's always reassuring to get confirmation that not all of these people are vile and mendacious crooks.

EndOfTheWorld , July 13, 2016 at 9:56 am

The retired LTG who was vetted by Trump for veep also said if it was him, he would be doing jail time for what Hill did. I'm sure that's why Trump would love to have this guy as an attack dog on the campaign trail.

savebyirony , July 13, 2016 at 2:06 pm

I have a cousin who is a commander in the Navy with Southern Command who nearly never talks publicly about "politics" or much that is in the media. He speaks with his near family and very close friends, but widely or on any sort of social media, no way. He is irate about Clinton not being prosecuted. He sees this as an issue of justice and national security and is very public about his views. I asked him why he was willing to be so public with his views in this instance and he explained it is based on the seriousness of the crimes and the undermining of all he believes he is serving for.

Papa Bear , July 13, 2016 at 2:57 pm

I used to be a USAFA nuclear launch officer. One of my fellow officers (unthinkingly) brought a crew bag into the classified vault where we were processing a rev change (a periodic change to procedures, methods and/or targets). One of the sheets from the old rev slipped into his crew bag. He took the crew bag into the (occupied) squadron office where it sat for several hours. The destruction inventory came up short. The sheet was found in the officer's crew bag.

Consequences were brutal. He was immediately relieved of duty. I never saw him again. The entire squadron was given a mandatory security refresher and told that the consequences for being *involved* in such negligence would, at the least, result in a dishonorable discharge and quite likely would involve an extended stay in Leavenworth, KS. Involvement could include just being in the line of sight of unauthorized containers such as a crew bag.

Ping , July 14, 2016 at 12:45 pm

It's glaring that HRC sold the office and that is why a private server and hiding emails was essential.

Puleeze can we stop being insulted that she didn't know, wasn't technically sophistocated ……!
She went to GREAT Lenghts at considerable inconvenience to set up and operate seperate system…..

Think of the opportunities to shape policy and approve/disapprove State Department transactions around Clinton Foundation contributors!!

Allowing this obvious glaring conflict of interest to exist in the first place was incredible and an example of how corrupt and far down things have fallen.

Where are the Clinton Foundation emails……??? Intent is a no brainer…

Robert , July 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm

I think this is a basic feature of a totalitarian or fascist state. Make a lot of laws and then enforce only the ones that serve your ends. Whether it's the Espionage Act or a traffic violation, it's then up to the state to decide who they want to punish. Now every time I hear the phrase "rule of law", I think of this. I don't know if we were ever "a nation of laws, not a nation of men", but we can safely say now that we are officially not.

George Laird , July 13, 2016 at 8:53 am

Comey made the decision most everyone with skin in the game that's not a Sander's supporter wanted him to make. And in that regard there is one ultimate explanation that Trumps all others as it were. Though this can be parsed in two ways, to his credit Comey manages to cover both with his public statement.

To wit, Either Comey, loyal Republican that he is, wants to see Trump elected president and figures that the best thing he can do in that respect is to issue a scathing non-indictment of Clinton, thereby wounding but not killing her candidacy – in full knowledge that polling has consistently shown Trump would likely fare much less well against Sanders, or perhaps another democrat who might replace Clinton; or, loyal republican that he is, Comey believes Trump would be even more of a disaster for the Republican party than he already is if he were actually elected president – thus Comey elicits sympathy for Clinton, casting himself as part of the vast right wing conspiracy against her by airing his belief in her culpability, yet he spares her political viability and himself the possibility of political retribution from her side down the line.

Win-win for Comey. Brilliant! At one stroke he's made the case to both Clinton and Trump that he would be the perfect nominee to fill Scalia's slot on SCOTUS.

local to oakland , July 13, 2016 at 11:27 am

Nice analysis. My first thought when I read Comey's statement was that he had delivered a huge passive aggressive fu to some person or persons who had told him what result they wanted. This was perfect if the goal was to make sure the issue didn't go away politically for Clinton. Much more effective than delivering a pro indictment message that would be ignored quietly.

sid_finster , July 13, 2016 at 12:54 pm

Come on! Team D will not nominate Bernie under any circumstances.

If HRC were to die today, Team D would shove Biden into the nomination or trot out Kerry or even Al Gore if they must, but Bernie is a threat that must be dealt with.

Epistrophy , July 13, 2016 at 8:54 am

I would argue that the very fact that Comey issued a public opinion on prosecution (completely outside the FBI remit) should be clear evidence of bias and invalidate their investigation and his statements on the basis they were prejudiced. A clever counsel could, in fact, use this as a defence if HRC is indeed tried. Comey, like Lynch, should have been recused. There is bias written all over this entire debacle.

apber , July 13, 2016 at 9:02 am

The true smoking gun will be the Clinton Foundation, variously described by others as a fraud, a giant slush fund,or a private criminal hedge fund. Just the optics of the pay-for-play circumstances of arms deals, corporate takeovers, mineral concessions, etc. should be more than sufficient to empanel a Grand Jury. Less than $1billion of the $4billion raised for Haiti's earthquake relief effort was ever spent. Where's the rest? Remember the commercials? Poppy Bush and Bill sitting side by side pleading for money.

Teejay , July 13, 2016 at 9:25 am

My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse or will,
The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won:
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

Oh Captain! My Captain!

One more sabre to the torso of democracy. How many more can we ThePeople endure and survive?

a different chris , July 13, 2016 at 9:31 am

>looking for who has done the kind of harm deserving of punishment, as opposed to looking for who violated the law - precedes the prosecution itself.

This is a global takeaway from this article. I always hated the second "civil" prosecution of OJ Simpson almost as much as I hated OJ himself – the ability to keep bringing somebody "bad" to trial until something sticks is exactly what double-jeopardy is supposed to prevent.

Harry Shearer , July 13, 2016 at 11:01 am

Having covered the second OJ trial, I can say only this in its defense: the two trials asked juries to rule on two different questions. The first trial asked the jury whether the state had proved its case against Simpson beyond a reasonable doubt. The second asked the jury who was responsible for the killings of Brown and Goldman. Both juries, imho, answered correctly.

Dou Gen , July 13, 2016 at 9:45 am

This article doesn't explain why a punishment such as the one given to Petraeus was not considered by Comey or the DOJ. Petraeus was an elite insider who was not a spy and did not threaten the state, yet he still received a minor punishment so as not to delegitimatize the legal system and in order to give at least a minimal impression of fairness. Since Comey said it was possible - and most experts say very possible - that foreign governments read Hillary's emails, she may have caused significant damage to the US national interest over four years. Therefore even a loyal elite could expect to be at least fined for such gross negligence. Why wouldn't a fine and a reprimand and/or temporary loss of security clearance be normal even for a loyal DC insider? This suggests that the power of the Clinton Machine and its real-world ability to deliver retribution was the deciding factor in the lack of any suggestion of indictment. Comey surely wants to keep his job.

The article also fails to deal with the fact that Comey mistakenly claimed that only one person had ever been prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act. This is clearly not the case, and you list some of those prosecuted. There have also been several other convictions, including US vs. McGuinness in 1992 (see Andrew C. McCarthy, "Military Prosecutions Show That A Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton" National Review (7/7/2016), CIA director John Deutch in 1997 (pardoned by Bill Clinton), James Hitselberger (who carried classified documents off his naval base in 1997 and simply kept them), and Jason Brezler, a Marine Major who sent classified information about a dangerous Afghan mayor in order to warn a colleague in 2014 (he is now appealing his conviction based on Comey's criteria). Also please see Jared Beck, "Why Hillary Clinton's Emails Matter: A Legal Analysis" (6/6/2016): Beck lists 4 convictions under 793(f) alone. Also see Beck's "Comey's Volley, Or The Indictment That Wasn't" (7/11/2016). You also need to deal with the question of why Comey ignored the obvious fact that Hillary willfully and knowingly broke State Department rules in setting up the private server and therefore knew she was endangering security. The fact that Comey gave a false number of prosecutions under s. 793 and avoided mention of willful, knowing acts by Hillary suggests his decision to oppose indictment was a political decision, not a legal decision.

The article also fails to deal with the theory that Comey, taking into account various evidence, such as his talks with DOJ attorneys and the fact that Lynch agreed to meet Bill Clinton, decided that that there was no possibility that the Democrat-staffed DOJ would indict Hillary. Therefore Comey decided to make the best of a difficult situation by giving a two-part speech that first laid out reasons why Hillary could be indicted and then explained that it was not "reasonable" to indict her. "Reasonable" is of course a legal term, but it also covers a variety of meanings, including political motives. Do you reject this theory, or were you just unaware of it?

run75441 , July 13, 2016 at 10:45 pm

Seriously? Go back and see what Petraeus did and admitted to and what Clinton did and did not admit to and then analyze what you said. You have not proven intent in Clinton's case. You have a specious argument going on here.

Yves Smith Post author , July 14, 2016 at 6:12 am

Stop this. You are just plain wrong. You are not an attorney and you are out of your depth. Go read the link I provided in my into and the rebuttal to your comment above.

TedWa , July 13, 2016 at 10:00 am

I don't know why everyone seems to be ignoring that she destroyed evidence, 30,000 e-mails, when she knew the investigation was zeroing in on her. Her claim that they were ALL about personal matters is totally suspect considering how much the Foundation received during that period and the global events that transpired.

fresno dan , July 13, 2016 at 2:05 pm

One small point that drives me insane

Say the 30,000 emails were private. Taking a very liberal assumption that she only spent 10 minutes ((read and respone – just 10 minutes – I really am bending over backwards)) on each, that means "private" email time took 5,000 hours. In 4 years, a government employee officially is suppose to put in 8, 348 hours. So more than half the time was spent on private emails???

Now, for those who say that maybe some of these emails were done after hours….I say why weren't they ALL done after hours? – On her own home private computer???
WHAT was so damn urgent about those yoga pants???? (or does Goldman Sachs demand instant gratification???)
I mean, the Secretary of State has time from her O SO BUSY schedule for all this private emailing….?????

HMMMM…what president said he was SO, SO, SO busy he never would have time for a hummer in the oval office?????

EndOfTheWorld , July 13, 2016 at 10:17 am

Alex Jones (yes, I admit to being a fan, albeit less than totally devoted -and I can't stand his heavy metal bumper music) has contracted to have airplanes towing "Hillary For Prison" banners over both the repug and dem conventions. I'm interested in seeing: (1) if these planes are even allowed in the air space by the relevant authorities, and (2) if they do fly, will there be any press coverage whatsoever. Jones already had his first contractor cancel, but his second aerial contractor apparently intends to go through with it.

Optimader , July 13, 2016 at 10:25 am

He and the banner company both know a TFR will apply, so he is a douchebag
https://www.nbaa.org/ops/airspace/alerts/notams/temporary-flight-restrictions.php

EndOfTheWorld , July 13, 2016 at 10:29 am

Optimader, TFR applies to prez and veep--the airplane guy has stated they won't be able to fly on the last day of the dem convention, when Obama and/or Biden will be there. The other days should be OK, in his opinion.

EndOfTheWorld , July 13, 2016 at 1:03 pm

OK, just today the FAA announce TFR for 10 nautical miles around both convention sites. Just the feds shutting down freedom of speech for your protection.

optimader , July 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm

its an inevitability, no surprises here

https://www.faa.gov/news/media/080806_DNC_Flight_Advisory.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/120730_Published_RNC_Flight_Advisory.pdf

In the grand scheme probably ok by me. Someone could drop a Cessna Caravan filled with **** and make a real mess of it. Some employees might get killed….

Optimader , July 13, 2016 at 10:20 am

Yes, well I hope that was all theraputic for GP, dont really need any more than the bold print.

-HRC admits what she was doing;(parsing modivation is not relevant)
-She knowingly has (is?) engaged in a series of illegal activities; (Everyone at the SofS dept down to secretaries were explicitly classroom trained how to appropriately handle anything that is gov info (including *.gov) and signed off on it. Those records exist
-Her employees knowingly engaged with her in illegal activities (conspiracy, all premeditated);
-HRC has serially lied about her activities, under oath or not, a pattern of knowingly trying to hide criminal behaviour;
-Everyone involved who took an oath of office violated said oath;
-The last one arguably applies to Comey as well. Comey concedes that his investigation confirmed the nuts and bolts of what HRC and her conspirators did yet he has attempted to intervene in the legal process in an unprecedented and illegal manner; (it doesnt matter what he thinks, descretion on prosecution is above his pay grade)
-If Comey's interview with HRC was infact not peformed under oath, you can probably take that deerpath into the woods on Comey as well; (is that normal procedure with a perp, no less when it is well established criminal activity has and probably still IS occurring – as a minimum she is still trying to coverup felonies allegations).

This I confirmed in less than one beer floating in a pool.

Steven Greenberg , July 13, 2016 at 10:25 am

Another big difference is whether or not the higher ups have a social relation with the accused. If they have never even met the accused, they have no personal feelings about ruining the life of the accused and the lives of the relatives of the accused. If they have socialized with the accused and are in the same social class as the accused, they can believe the accused is such a nice person that the accused does not deserve severe punishment.

Mikus Aurelius , July 13, 2016 at 10:39 am

One of the amazing sub-texts to all of this is the secrecy that covers what should be public information. After all, Hillary did use a very public server to do her "business" as SoS. It should be understood that such information as she had on it (in spite of her obvious goal of keeping it secret from the Department, a really ludicrous attempt, given the spying ability of today's governments and hackers) was public information to be seen by the citizens of this country, since she was, and will be as President, a public EMPLOYEE…

posa , July 13, 2016 at 12:46 pm

This is a case of straight-forward, audacious corruption of the US judicial system.

Comey claims that a "reasonable" prosecutor would not indict Clinton; and in the next breath insists that a "reasonable" prosecutor would savagely indict anyone else who committed the same acts as Clinton. And furthermore that the "intent" defense would never stand.

What more needs to be said?

The Clintons operate with full immunity. Always have, always will.

Benedict@Large , July 13, 2016 at 12:51 pm

Let's say Comey and Lynch get together and agree that Clinton should be indicted. That's fine, but what, they ask, are the chances be of having a fair trial in a reasonable timeframe (i.e. before a Clinton inauguration made one meaningless)? What are the chances of it not turning into a highly politicized media circus? The answer of course is zero.

The (perhaps not so) obvious solution to this would be to turn it over to the House, where the matter would be handled via impeachment. Instead of being halted by inauguration, and indictment would be triggered by one, and of course, impeachment by its very definition is meant to be a political (and media) event.

Sure, it would be messy, but how would a criminal indictment be any less so. Hell, Clinton could even pardon herself with a criminal indictment, so impeachment isn't merely an option, it is the only option that would even have a chance of functioning as it was supposed to.

So that's what (I believe) Comey and Lynch agreed upon. Send it to the House, and let the political process handle it.

AnEducatedFool , July 13, 2016 at 3:24 pm

Lynch did not agree to turn it over to the House. We will find out what she receives if Clinton makes it to the White House. I expect her to either remain as AG or go into lobbying with a hefty pay raise.

I also do not think that Clinton will win the White House. Republicans control important battle ground states and they will either help Trump steal the election if necessary or prevent Clinton from stealing the election if she is behind. Clinton only beat Sanders by rigging the electronic voting machines. I do not expect her to get away with that in states controlled by Republican governors.

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson take more support from Clinton than Trump. Many Millennials or 35 and under will either go with Stein or Johnson. It may be enough to keep her out of the White House.

Trump can win because he is a brilliant marketer (or at least maintaining and enhancing his own brand) and it appears that he is more under control. Clinton's negatives will only increase as the House investigates Clinton for perjury followed by the debates where Trump will tear apart Clinton's record whenever they attempt to attack Trump on Trump U, Molestation, or outsourcing. The latter is a cakewalk. The Clinton's crafted the rules that Trump used. He was playing the game and they wrote the rules. How on Earth do they think that Trump will allow that line of attack to stick to him.

I really go side tracked. Clinton passed on information to her husband and son in law. Her son in law received information about Greece as his hedge fund was entering the Greek market. She passed along information for private gain which is corruption but since this information was classified it was also espionage just not between states.

john , July 13, 2016 at 1:05 pm

KING HENRY V
We judge no less. Uncle of Exeter,
Enlarge the man committed yesterday,
That rail'd against our person: we consider
it was excess of wine that set him on;
And on his more advice we pardon him.
SCROOP
That's mercy, but too much security:
Let him be punish'd, sovereign, lest example
Breed, by his sufferance, more of such a kind.
KING HENRY V
O, let us yet be merciful.
CAMBRIDGE
So may your highness, and yet punish too.
GREY
Sir,
You show great mercy, if you give him life,
After the taste of much correction.
And then there was Hillary:
"I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so." But Comey is no Henry and there is no Exeter to remove Hillary from the room

Heliopause , July 13, 2016 at 2:55 pm

I will point out that regardless of the motives we impute to Comey his presentation on July 5 did real damage to HRC. She has lost ground in the polls taken since then and the GOP has resurrected this issue as a cudgel. Not sure if that makes people around here feel better or not.

philnc , July 13, 2016 at 3:54 pm

Yeah. So a shoutout to the state prosecutor quoted by Yves, I'm with you bro (or sis). My own brief experience representing the state in the middle of the "Age of Reagan" provided similar experiences with how things work, although I didn't see a lot of differences at the state and local level. Looking back, especially on the whole drug war thing, none of us had any excuse for going along. Props to Yves' correspondent for at least trying. Too many of us didn't. On their future plans: take it from this ex-lawyer who walked away under his own power while still in good standing, leaving the law was the best thing I ever did for myself and my family. Godspeed to you.

Full Stop , July 13, 2016 at 5:13 pm

I am angry that powerful people don't get indicted for crimes while regular folk do. But I am equally furious that HRC is the one getting busted based on a fishing expedition born out of the politicized Benghazi affair. If Benghazi had been about looking into whether or not the CIA was routing weapons to rebels in Syria, then I might be sympathetic. But no, this was about the fact that the administration didn't use the right language in describing the attacks and may have alluded to the incident being caused by a video and was not quick enough to pin the blame on Al Qaida, even though their saying these things out loud would not have changed anything. In other words, a tragic event happened that was like countless tragic events that happens under any administration's watch and the GOP started a fishing trip.

We all know that if we want to bring down any president we just need to start a scandal and then spawn fishing trips. With the countless interactions a president and their staff has it is almost certain that they will be caught doing something wrong. Perhaps they will go to a campaign event while on an official government trip. Should they have skipped the event even though it would have been very convenient? How many people, from work, have used office phones to call up the mechanic and arrange for a time to take the car in? We all do it and we are all vulnerable. And we all know that if we chose to create a massive fishing expedition aimed at Trump we could find loads of dirt much more serious than what is confronting HRC.

So in light of the context, do we really want to bring HRC down when we know this was the aim of the GOP all along and we all know that they are sitting on equally reprehensive acts that are going unpunished? And do we really think this will change things? As if, by punishing HRC we will somehow make it the norm to bust powerful people for their crimes. To me, that is the crux. If I believed for half a second that this would somehow set a new standard and that the Justice Department and the FBI and SEC and so on would actually start prosecuting powerful people for the crimes we know they are committing then I would say yes, she should be indicted. Lock her up. Lock them all up! Or, compare her crime to what others really are doing. Lying to get us into wars. CEOs who break the law to earn billions and get off with a small fine in comparison. How many politicians knowingly allow our banks to launder money for drug cartels and do nothing while actively throwing the book at low-level users and dealers? It's rampant. And yet we are hung up on the fact that HRC sent classified emails on an unsecure server. Emails that probably shouldn't have been classified. Content of classified emails that should be scrutinized more than their classification status. How about the fact that we don't question the actions being discussed in those emails because they would be supported by GOP politicians anyway and they do not want those acts to be the focus of any investigation? Instead, we pretend that the mode of her communication is some kind of grave issue and we are willing to prevent her from being president over the guy who willfully scams people and admits to paying off politicians. We have all been played by the GOP's scandal machine.

KnotRP , July 13, 2016 at 5:13 pm

Why does everyone presume Clinton would not assist or otherwise allow information to land in the hands of foreigners?
Seems like the unstated presumption of the article is that she wouldn't sell out the US to a foreigner under any circumstances…..is that a good bet? Depends on what you mean by *is*?

KnotRP , July 13, 2016 at 5:42 pm

Answering my own hypothetical, I think the presumption is that the SoS gets to pick who is a friend, and who is an enemy, of the US. So there is discretion inherent in the job.

But how does oversight of that critical government function work, when Clinton has expended a remarkable amount of effort over a long period of time to directly undermine FOIA request & government records requirements? This is what I find appalling - that she had the time and motivation to scrub out the normal government records necessary to determine whether she is conducting official government business on behalf of the US, or not. Especially in the "if you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?" war on terror era she gets a free pass issued when normal non-governmental officials living private lives are having every email they've ever sent vacuumed up for evaluation relative to the national good.

Double standard doesn't begin to describe it.

FortyYearsInThe UniversitySystem , July 13, 2016 at 6:00 pm

A thought: I am never convinced that any situation of political importance is all on the individual. I am not convinced of any unitary theories of command and control. In short, it ain't Hilly or Billy but the outfit they clearly work for: the inheritors of the Rhodes dream of Anglo-Saxon ownership of the entire world, which is to say, the CFR. If not for the power of the CFR (which really means the combined power of the oligarchs represented by the CFR) neither of these two CFR aparatchiks would possess any immunity whatsoever. In the words of Captain Bryant in Bladerunner they would just be "little people". So it seems almost to me that fretting about which stooge gets off this time is missing the point because there is always another stooge lined up for the job in case this one gets picked off. Always.

WorldBLee , July 13, 2016 at 9:31 pm

Another question rarely addressed in these musings on the Clinton case is the accusation that her motivation for using her own server was to be able to keep any emails she wanted out of FOIA requests–which due to her deletion of many emails before their delivery to the government seems to have been accomplished successfully, at least so far. Whether she committed "espionage" or not, it's widely acknowledged that she was doing dealmaking with the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary of State. Granted, there may not be hard evidence to prove this link but the circumstantial evidence in terms of donations to the CF and arms deals involving those countries is extremely damning.

uncle tungsten , July 14, 2016 at 1:08 am

Great story and love the comments. I can see why Bernie Sanders should be endorsing Clinton in a tactical sense. I will hazard an explanation.

Comey (in his mind) fatally wounded Hillary Clinton without exposing himself as a coverup merchant. He is wrong of course but he definitely resides in a fool's bubble. Comey handed enough specifics of evidence to enable a wholesale demolition any credibility HRC had left. The dogs of war are out baying for her blood as a result.

Bernie Sanders has moved so close as to tactically shut out any third person chance to get the nomination should the dogs of war take her down. My guess is that Comeys antics will drive the detestation of HRC harder and deeper to point where she will have little margin with Trump. Consider that Bernie Sanders is clearly seen to be a solid Democrat supporter (and reformer), he did not traipse off after the hapless Greens as he has millions more support than they can muster, he did not maul HRC viciously (its not in his character) through the campaign, he brings vast numbers of new voters to the game to fulfill the adage that Democrats win when voter turnout is high.

He is most likely the only Democrat who could pull off a last minute switch as nominee with any prospect of trouncing Trump. It is a long shot of course but starting a revolution and seeing it through is a long game necessitating tactics that include persistence against heavy odds, shock, surprise and tactical positioning in both political space and ethical behavior. I know many are seriously p!ssed with him but what else is there than catch the momentum and resources that can position a win now or in three years.

Hill_Frog , July 14, 2016 at 6:52 am

Would an indictment of Clinton over her handling of sensitive information via email forced the identification and indictment of those who exchanged that information with her?

John Bennett , July 14, 2016 at 11:18 am

I was in the Foreign Service for about 30 years. Early in my career, I left classified material on my desk twice and got caught. It didn't happen again. Fear did its job.
That may not work with senior people who think they are too important. They need to be protected with effective help or replaced. It really is that simple.

[Jul 14, 2016] Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration for using unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business

This is from comments
Notable quotes:
"... I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt. ..."
"... Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012 ..."
"... even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard ..."
"... 65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao ..."
"... neither do the rest but cannot admit it ..."
www.foxnews.com

Sanders supporters lash out following Clinton endorsement Fox News

GP Russell

* This is the topper, on the whole email server issue -

Interesting (and inconvenient) fact:

Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the resignation, in June of 2012, of US Ambassador to Kenya J. Scott Gration , (get this) after the Inspector General found that he was using an unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct official government business … sound familiar?!?

I guess the ' Queen ' is exempt.

Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) June 29, 2012

viablanca

@GP Russell well yeah, even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a living double standard

mryummie

65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao

viablanca

@mryummie neither do the rest but cannot admit it

[Jul 14, 2016] FBI investigation into Clinton email scandal damaged candidate's popularity – poll

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times/CBS survey released on Thursday found that 67 percent of voters believe Clinton is not honest or trustworthy – up from 62 percent last month. The new figure represents the highest percentage in this election cycle. ..."
"... Only 28 percent of voters said they view the Democratic candidate as honest and the number of people saying she is prepared for the job of president dropped from last month. However, half of those polled still believe she's qualified. ..."
RT America

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email scandal has damaged the Democratic candidate's approval ratings, according to a new poll. The survey found that a majority of voters believe she cannot be trusted.

The New York Times/CBS survey released on Thursday found that 67 percent of voters believe Clinton is not honest or trustworthy – up from 62 percent last month. The new figure represents the highest percentage in this election cycle.

Only 28 percent of voters said they view the Democratic candidate as honest and the number of people saying she is prepared for the job of president dropped from last month. However, half of those polled still believe she's qualified.

Most voters said they believe Clinton did something wrong when she set up a personal server and email address for work when she served as secretary of state. Forty-six percent believe the move was illegal, up from 41 percent last month.

Unsurprisingly, most of those critical of Clinton's email practices are associated with the GOP. Some 78 percent of Republicans believe what she did was illegal, while half of independents expressed the same sentiment.

[Jul 12, 2016] Sellout: Bernie Sanders decided to help a war hawk get elected

Notable quotes:
"... There goes Trump's narrative that Hillary is a bad negotiator. She got everything from Sanders and paid with non binding promises. I think I have some of those lying around, maybe Sanders would like to give me his house in exchange for them. ..."
"... It matters little that Sanders "thinks" he has pushed the Dems to the left with policy. Without a mechanism to ensure that party policy hammered out at a convention or in a closed-door session becomes legislation to be voted upon...it's totally worthless. ..."
"... Who cares? If he endorses Hillary - and forget about her so-called platform concessions - he'll be endorsing a thug, one who breaks any rule that gets in her way. And then Bernie will be a partner in her chicanery...But he will able to hang on to his war chest - and a nice "take" it is for a few months work. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary. And now, Sellout Sanders. I'm done being a Democrat in America. ..."
"... "This party is done," wrote actor and Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon after Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment. "[It has] warped into the party of the rich. No longer represents working people." ..."
"... Well I guess this was bound to happen. Sanders is just another politician ready to tow the line for the Democratic corporate establishment. Sad. ..."
"... Chris Hedges was right, Bernie is a traitor. He misled a lot of people into believing he was going to stand up for something different, now he is promoting the status quo, I'm pissed. ..."
"... I see Hillary as part of the problem not the solution. Sanders disappoints me. I didn't see him as part of the problem, but guess what he is now. ..."
"... Bernie was a joke from the moment he said " nobody cares about your damn emails." ..."
"... I did not think Sanders was so gullible to believe that Clinton will take action on anything in the democratic platform. From a mass movement demanding change to accepting a few non-binding policies at a democratic convention. I think Bernie lost his opportunity to make a difference when he refused to stand as an independent. Now people are stuck with Trump or Clinton which is not exactly a great choice. ..."
"... The Party Platform is meaningless and Sanders should know that. $hillary will do what ever she wants after the convention if she is nominated. The allegiance $hillary has is to Wall Street and a NEO-CON foreign policy. ..."
"... As much as I want to vote for HRC, the stench of neocon corporatism is too much, the thin layer of accumulated grime from years of ethical expediency too toxic, the opaque lack of transparency too dangerous, and the shifting sands of her amorphous policy too treacherous. ..."
"... As Jill Stein has said, "What We Fear from Donald Trump, We Have Already Seen from Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... I understand only about half of sanders supporters are willing to switch to clinton http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/bernie-or-bust-clinton/488276 / ..."
"... I'm afraid Bernie's endorsement of Clinton will not stop Trump. There is no room for a neo-liberal status quo candidate like Clinton in this race. The American economy is going to hell in a hand cart. 50 million Americans use food banks millions more are facing bankruptcy, joblessness and homelessness. They need a radical socialist candidate. Voting for more of the same for them is utterly pointless. Trump will beat Clinton. America needed Bernie if Trump was to be beaten. ..."
"... Pulling the party to the left is meaningless if the nominee is a neocon. It's just window dressing.(And Bernie, of course, definitely knows that.) ..."
www.theguardian.com
Comments from: Bernie Sanders set to endorse Clinton after Democratic platform negotiations by Dan Roberts in Washington and Lauren Gambino in New York

EnkiEridu

, 2016-07-12 01:26:22
Bernie was able to influence the Democratic Party platform, and his endorsement is part of the trade. I get it. I think its smart to close the deal on some gains.
localism -> EnkiEridu , 2016-07-12 01:53:52
not if it is helping a war hawk get elected.
Tommy Lobotomy -> EnkiEridu , 2016-07-12 02:44:20
Hillary Clinton said she was opposed to passage of the TPP trade agreement but 2 days ago her supporters made it part of her campaign platform. Hillary Clinton told Sanders some lies which it appears, unfortunately, that he believed. She is and will be forever a lying, corrupt, Wall Street-toadying warmonger.
ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-07-12 01:09:01
It is so funny to see so many people that once swore Bernie was the messiah now calling him a sellout. Hilarious. So much for a revolution. Usually during a revolution people dont give up so quickly.
raffine -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-07-12 01:12:03
There's a fair amount of blood-letting in every revolution. Mr Sanders is having his Robespierre moment.
ryanpatrick9192 -> raffine , 2016-07-12 01:17:51
Absolutely right. Every revolution has its roadblocks. However, Bernie supporters should realize that if Trump is elected the SC will move back to the right for 20+ years. This will kill their revolution for a long time to come. Bernie is doing the smart thing here and it is becoming really easy to see why Bernie lost. His supporters are not capable of seeing what the smart thing is.
raffine -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-07-12 01:21:55
Many of his supporters are young and new to politics. Hence, they lash out at him as a "sell out" for doing what every politician does: cut a deal.
funnynought , 2016-07-12 00:51:05
"people who got involved in the political process"

I first read that last phrase as "political princess" and had to go back to read what Bernie said. But either reading seems suitable.

I have a hard time picturing Bernie actually believes platforms mean anything. Maybe he's giving Hillary enough rope, as the saying goes? I'm sure he's conferred with his advisors. Hillary's leftward move is entirely illusory and temporary; once she quickly falls back into the neolib agenda, he'll have cause to bail, and there still might be time to take up Jill Stein on her ticket offer.

Boghaunter , 2016-07-12 00:47:44
Bernie is supposed to meet with Hillary tomorrow in Portsmouth, NH. I would like to be there, in front of the venue, cutting my Bernie campaign sign into little bitty bits....
Bernie's efforts will be for NOTHING once he endorses Hillary. Nothing.
PotholeKid , 2016-07-12 00:16:54
Make public those Wall street speech transcripts if you are serious about restoring credibility..All bets are off on any concessions a Clinton makes..
eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:05:45
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.

She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.

She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.

She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.

She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.

She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.

She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.

She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.

She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.

She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.

She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.

She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.

Boghaunter -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:38:56
Just put quotation marks around the first claim in each sentence above and you've nailed it!
eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:05:04
Why hasn't Clinton released the transcripts of her highly-paid Wall Street speeches?

Could it be that there's stuff in them that would shock and embarrass her infinitely gullible "progressive" supporters?

localism -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:17:33
Oh well Sanders could have picked on this one instead.
Hillary at the GMO Association
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1AkrQaWwMc
Mihai Filip , 2016-07-11 23:59:17
There goes Trump's narrative that Hillary is a bad negotiator. She got everything from Sanders and paid with non binding promises. I think I have some of those lying around, maybe Sanders would like to give me his house in exchange for them.
eastbayradical -> tonygh , 2016-07-12 00:02:05
"Sanders promised from the start to support whoever the DP nominated. He is keeping his promise, and it would be extremely dangerous for him to do otherwise."

No it wouldn't. He could simply say that he's reconsidered and apologize for the confusion.

localism -> tonygh , 2016-07-12 00:04:51
it is a sure way to destroy your reputation associating with these people. To suggest that a candidate that needs "keeping the pressure" on them well it is good for a laugh.
burjay , 2016-07-11 23:48:56
It matters little that Sanders "thinks" he has pushed the Dems to the left with policy. Without a mechanism to ensure that party policy hammered out at a convention or in a closed-door session becomes legislation to be voted upon...it's totally worthless. We have the same situation here in Canada with the NDP. It's why Mulcair came in 3rd. Who needs 2 liberal parties?
nbk46zh , 2016-07-11 23:42:28
60% of people disagree with FBI's recommendation not to charge Clinton according to Washington post and ABC poll. No mention of that in corporate guardian
nicacio , 2016-07-11 23:35:31
Who cares? If he endorses Hillary - and forget about her so-called platform concessions - he'll be endorsing a thug, one who breaks any rule that gets in her way. And then Bernie will be a partner in her chicanery...But he will able to hang on to his war chest - and a nice "take" it is for a few months work.
eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 23:06:20
If Sanders had had the email scandal or something comparable to it hanging over his head, does anyone think Clinton wouldn't have used it against him?
nnedjo -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 23:25:50
You must be joking! While aiming at Bernie, Hillary even accused his Vermont for arming criminals in New York.
It must be that you remember that, it was not a long time ago.
eastbayradical -> nnedjo , 2016-07-11 23:42:06
Yes, my point was that Clinton would have used the scandal and exaggerated it as much as possible to gain political points.
fedback , 2016-07-11 22:59:24
According to Washington Post, the republican party has strong anti TPP language in their party platform, the very same thing the democratic party voted down.
Oh, the irony. People who are against TPP find it in the republican party yet Bernie is about to endorse Clinton
eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 22:58:07
The spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank just the other day declared contemptuously that party platforms are "irrelevant."

You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's being larded with Sanders-friendly "policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's elected president.

With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless to the fight against the capitalist status quo; no, he has become a direct impediment to it.

Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.

We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive stooge the Dems put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.

In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are indistinguishable from Republicans, that systematically cede the political initiative to Republicans, that it is we who might as well be Republicans!

Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight kicks off in the streets against imperial war or austerity or police brutality or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're too busy doing nothing waiting for the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate liberals who'll save us from the Republicans.

It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten us over the past 25 years. Here's a list of signature policies supported and/or enacted by the last two Democratic Party presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama:

--Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
--The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
--The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in the 15 years after its passage)
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Patriots Acts 1 and 2
--Massive expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts to raise it
--Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
--A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and inflamed anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel not weakened or obliterated it
--Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
--The bail-out of Wall Street

guard35 -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-12 00:00:09
This is comprehensive list of what the Democrats are, and what Hillary Clinton is. I thought you were going to leave out drones, and Clinton's support for the military coup in Honduras over a democratically-elected president (partly due to President Zalaya's attempts to raise the Honduran minimum wage!), which resulted in five years (so far) of Honduras being the 'murder capital of the world', and its children the highest numbers of attempts to immigrate to the United States. This one fact alone -- her support for this coup, Zalaya kidnapped in his pajamas and taken to a U.S. military base, her and Bill's friend a high-priced consultant to the coup -- is one reason I know Clinton is not a democrat, not a believer in democracy.

I just posted my congratulations on getting the Democratic platform to a much better point than it would have been if Bernie Sanders had not hung in and appointed great people to the platform committee while holding them hostage while doing it. (While shaming the Clintonians for leaving out crucial anti-TPP, pro-minimum wage of $15, and no fracking stances on the platform.)

BUT I forgot until reading this post and being reminded, that each time I picture going to the polls and voting for Clinton I feel nauseated. I think I will vote for Jill Stein (who graciously and strategically offered to move out of her place on the Green ticket in favor of Sanders. I believe Bernie Sanders would have an equal chance to Clinton if he took her up on the offer. My sense of history and my self-respect makes me want to risk Trump.

(Berkeley Sheryll)

eastbayradical -> guard35 , 2016-07-12 00:46:06
Thanks Berkeley Sheryl.

Please don't vote for Clinton.

I'm going repost one paragraph of my initial comment that I think is its most important paragraph and which I believe is the best way in a few words to explain to "progressives" why they shouldn't vote for her.

Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another notch decisively to the right.

nnedjo , 2016-07-11 22:33:52

"We have made enormous strides," said Sanders in a statement issued after a meeting in Orlando that swung the party in his direction on the minimum wage, climate change and marijuana though failed to make headway on fracking and trade.

So Bernie's political revolution will end up with the legalization of ganja?
OK, I get it! Bernie is in fact a "Rastafarian Socialist", and not a Democratic Socialist as it was thought until now.:-)))
eastbayradical -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-07-11 23:17:43
People liked Sanders because on many matters he was unsparing in his condemnation of Wall Street's Warmongering Madame and the system she services.

It's hard to reconcile that with his namby-pamby "we can just get along" bullshit statement and pitch for the victims of the policies she supports to support Clinton Corp.

Ben Groetsch , 2016-07-11 21:52:08
Crooked Hillary. And now, Sellout Sanders. I'm done being a Democrat in America.
muttley79 -> Suga , 2016-07-11 22:17:05
Hillary Clinton is a right wing, neoliberal, warmongering, American exceptionalist.
nnedjo , 2016-07-11 21:39:56

Bernie Sanders set to endorse Clinton after Democratic platform negotiations

Yeah, as you can see here , everything is already prepared for their joint performance at tomorrow's rally in New Hampshire.
Interestingly, the UK rock band Status Quo had scheduled a concert in the same place for tomorrow, but at the last minute they canceled their performance with the message, "There is no need for us to come, Hillary and Bernie together are better 'Status Quo' than we are."

Just kidding, of course!:-)))

eastbayradical -> smalltownboy , 2016-07-11 23:30:01
"When they served together in the US Senate, Sanders and Clinton voted the same way 93% of the time."

Oh, not that "they're 93% alike" bullshit again.

That misleading factoid was put forward by Nate Silver (whose pro-Clinton bias is transparent) and picked up on and spread by Clinton supporters ad nauseaum.

It's based only on the two years in which Sanders and Clinton were in the Senate together and therefore doesn't, for example, take into account their opposing stances on the destruction of welfare, NAFTA, the Iraq War, the Libyan bombing campaign, TPP (which she now weakly claims to support), fracking, the Patriot Act, or TARP.

The 93% likeness is, in any case, an unscientific way of gleaning political similarity as many votes are basically formalities and not all are of equal significance.

That said, it's interesting to note that Clinton Corp. and her gullible liberal supporters like smalltownboy expend so much energy dishonestly claiming that she and Sanders are so much alike. Why is that? Could it be that tens of millions don't much like what Clinton actually stands for?

eastbayradical -> smalltownboy , 2016-07-11 23:37:39
Correction:

Once challenged from the left by Sanders, Clinton claimed to oppose TPP, but there's reason to believe her opposition is weak and if elected president she'll accept some superficial fix and proclaim her support for it. Pro-Clinton members of the platform committee have tipped her hand by voting down a plank opposing the TPP (a trade agreement that grants massive new powers to the capitalist class, the opposition to which smalltownboy dishonestly depicts as being about "nuances of free trade agreements).

Smalltownboy is a smart guy who isn't interested in engaging in an honest debate.

simulacra27 , 2016-07-11 21:17:02
So with Sanders falling into line we have a choice between tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. Nothing progressive about that and it goes to show just how sleazy and corrupted the political system has become.
localism -> simulacra27 , 2016-07-11 21:25:07
You can vote for Jill Stein who has been exposing the abusive relationship of lesser evilism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxOxgk37Mo
TyroneBHorneigh , 2016-07-11 21:08:41
". . .'though failed to make headway on fracking and trade."

***Vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. THEIR platform eviscerates both: fracking AND trade deals that only enrich the duopoly elites.

". . .particularly over trade, where the Sanders camp failed to insert outright opposition to Barack Obama's controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.

"This party is done," wrote actor and Sanders surrogate Susan Sarandon after Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment. "[It has] warped into the party of the rich. No longer represents working people."

See above, ***.

ndigocamel , 2016-07-11 20:32:54
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie. What a disappointment. Swinging the DNC platform in your direction is hardly what one could call a political revolution.

How can you seriously say you have pulled the platform significantly to the left regarding climate change when you have made no headway on fracking?

How can you say you have pulled the platform to the left regarding minimum wage when you cannot make headway on trade.

As for marijuana, you are doing nothing but acknowledging what is already taking place even without your meaningless platform.

Bernie, please do not take Jill Stein's offer to step aside for you. I want someone on the ballot for whom I can vote in good conscience.

Berned once, twice shy.

David Dougherty , 2016-07-11 20:24:16
Well I guess this was bound to happen. Sanders is just another politician ready to tow the line for the Democratic corporate establishment. Sad.
Maddog2020 , 2016-07-11 20:17:52
I can't vote for Hillary if she is pro-TPP.
This is what can happen under this trade pact. Foreign companies can sue the U.S. government outside of the U.S. courts.
This actually happened to Australia because of a law passed to reduce smoking.
In 20ll, the Aussies passed a plain packaging law banning tobacco packaging branding.
Two tobacco companies sued Australia. Then when the tobacco company lost, Phillip Morris, under a 1993 trade agreement, sued in international court.
Then Ukraine sued Australia, which does not sell tobacco to Australia. Tobacco companies covering legal costs.
A legal challenge against Uruguay followed, which didn't have the money to pay court costs.
Also against Togo, one of the poorest countries on earth.
Canada is suing the U.S. taxpayers for billions because the U.S. did not go through with the keystone pipeline.
HermeticSurveyor , 2016-07-11 20:09:57
Chris Hedges was right, Bernie is a traitor. He misled a lot of people into believing he was going to stand up for something different, now he is promoting the status quo, I'm pissed.
MonotonousLanguor , 2016-07-11 20:09:55
Supporters of Hillary Clinton successfully voted down amendments supporting a single payer healthcare system, a nationwide ban on fracking, as well as an amendment objecting to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and characterizing the settlements as illegal.

The losses stung progressives already dismayed by the committee's refusal to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal in the platform earlier that day, among other defeats. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/10/pro-fracking-pro-colonialism-anti-single-payer-dem-platform-disappoints

Matthew Hartman , 2016-07-11 19:53:38
Sanders focused on the substantive issues to a literal fault, and it's going to cost him one way or another.

Though I feel disapointed if he endorses Hillary, I really believe Sanders believes he's acting on behalf of the issues that affect regular people. Whether the platform planks actually benefit the people in reality is another story.

Even if Sanders endorses Hillary, it doesn't mean you're bound to do the same. You are a free agent, Sanders unfortunately is not when he signed onto the Democratic platform.

I know through disapointment it will be hard to feel respect towards Sanders. We should strive to see his potential endorsement as a means to an end for this election cycle, working within the constraints of being the loser. But we should also strive to see that this election cycle isn't the end to Bernie Sanders all together nor his message.

I would have liked to see Bernie go all the way to the convention. A lot of people signed up and crowd funded to join him in Philly. It may be that the pressure just got to be too overwhelming and he was crossing into territory that would actually destroy him going forward. Sometimes you lose the battle to win the war.

360view -> Matthew Hartman , 2016-07-11 22:55:37
He already materially lost the battle. However, It is a contested convention by definition going in. Hillary niether lost or won anything until November.

It is way too early for Sanders to concede until the convention. This would not represent the best interests of those he has fought for his whole career.

rocjoc43rd -> Long_Shanks , 2016-07-11 20:26:25
The guy has no spine. The platform means nothing. In the end he caved and became a good little soldier. And with him goes my one chance to vote for a Democrat. I guess I will go with Trump.

Trump says some stupid things and the Media flays him for it. Could he be as bad as he appears? Seems unlikely.

On the other hand, Hillary is a true politician. I listened to an interview she gave to Wolf Blitzer. She answered like a politician, she didn't say a single thing that could be used against her. That is problem with professional politicians they never really tell you what they really think. Who knows what she really plans to try to do if she gets there. Can we say that Obama has brought the hope and change that he claimed? The world seems more dangerous than ever. Hillary had a part in that. I can't say the same about Trump. He didn't get a vote in the Senate when they voted to authorized action in Iraq. Hillary did. Trump didn't run the State Department for four years as the world became a more dangerous place. Hillary did. Trump didn't leaked classified government secrets recklessly. Hillary did.

I see Hillary as part of the problem not the solution. Sanders disappoints me. I didn't see him as part of the problem, but guess what he is now.

casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 19:37:01
I trust Hillary. I have always trusted Hillary and I will vote for Hillary in November.
onestupidperson -> casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 19:50:44
I trust Bill. I trusted Bill. I always trusted him!!! I always voted for him!!! They are so good together!!!!
Kikinaskald -> casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 20:08:16
Lawrence Davidson wrote about her:

So, what is to be said about Hillary Clinton's personality? In an essay by Audrey Immelman, published in 2001 by the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics of St. Johns University in Minnesota, a discussion of Clinton's dominant traits is taken up. Here are some of the conclusions: Hillary Clinton is an aggressive and controlling personality; when she makes up her mind about something, she loses interest in other people's points of view; she is often impatient; she lacks empathy and can act harshly to those seen as standing in her way; she has boundary problems due to her excessive level of self-confidence – that is, when she "knows" she is right, she doesn't like the idea that there are limits that she has to abide by.

Kommentator -> casta1139diva , 2016-07-11 20:10:17
Is that you Bill?
CornsilkSW , 2016-07-11 19:35:16

Bernie Sanders has cleared the way for an endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, and declared a successful end to his campaign to pull their party to the left during weekend negotiations over the Democratic policy platform.

"We have made enormous strides," said Sanders in a statement issued after a meeting in Orlando that swung the party in his direction on the minimum wage, climate change and marijuana though failed to make headway on fracking and trade.

This "platform" they all stand up on during election years is just a stage to perform on for the crowd. Once the elections are over, the curtain comes down and they will be meeting their buddies from the business world to make the real legislation.

Anybody who believes this show is real is a fool.

Deeply disappointed in Sanders for using Revolution as a sales tactic and then supporting this public fraud. If he believes they will maintain their convictions for his ideals after an election, then he was a fool who didn't deserve the office.

johnjbeech , 2016-07-11 19:30:44
I'm a Republican reluctantly supporting Donald Trump. Had the Democrats nominated Senator Sanders I would have switch my allegiance. However, my disdain for Secretary Clinton means I'll vote for someone I don't like because I view the alternative as worse. How very sad.
amacd2 -> DogsLivesMatter , 2016-07-11 19:29:52
Dogs, Bernie did not say shit about the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire that is eating our environment, our children, our grand children, and our entire fragile little planet alive so that it can loot trillions via negative externality cost dumping.

It was said in the 19th century that "it took half the world to support the British Empire" --- but now it would take a dozen worlds to support this God damned Disguised Global Capitalist Empire only nominally HQed in, and merely 'posing' as, our former country.

"The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from dominant groups around the world to resolve problems of global capitalism and to
secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, "U.S." imperialism refers to the use by transnational elites of the U.S. state apparatus to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system. We are witness less to a "U.S." imperialism per se than to a global capitalist imperialism. We face an EMPIRE OF GLOBAL CAPITAL, headquartered, for evident historical reasons, in Washington."

Robinson, William. 2014 "Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity". Cambridge University Press.

Dmanny , 2016-07-11 18:45:57
Bernie was a joke from the moment he said " nobody cares about your damn emails."
johnjbeech -> Dmanny , 2016-07-11 19:52:30
Good point. I wondered why he timidly refrained from attacking her, too. Cost him the nomination - and the Presidency - in my view. Thing is, he's a genuinely decent man who unfortunately forgot he was in the fight of his life. Worse, he acted like there were Marquis of Queensberry Rules for politics. Worse, in forgetting the old saw about 'nice guys finish last' he let down what he lived his entire life for. And now, in endorsing her he brings the futility of his life full circle. Is what it is. Heavy sigh.
HenryHughes , 2016-07-11 18:32:12
Okay all you Sanders supporters, especially the ones who INSISTED that he was somehow different from other Democratic Party candidates. Will you persist in this nonsense now that you see your man endorse more Clintonism?

You remember Clintonism, right? What you've been decrying for so long? Your man is going to give it his blessing. That's how U.S. politics works. You get pulled in by yet another patsy, and then you get TRASHED if you refuse to support the inevitable "centrist" (read: vetted by capital) nominee.

Still liking it? No? Then why participate in the first place when you already know the outcome?

And besides, Sanders is a capitalist. Sure, he'd be a better capitalist leader than the others, since he'd try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of same. But come on, you know better than to believe he would make structural changes.

Withdraw your consent to this horror. Get real. Stop imagining that people who have been in government for decades, voting for militarism and other vile policies, will change anything. Sanders is another apologist for capital. Period.

libertate , 2016-07-11 18:28:08
Hilarious.

So the cadaverous Comrade Bernie, the warmed-over Marxist-socialist, will be endorsing the Liberatress of Libya , the warmongering , sociopathic , corporatist Wall Street tool , Reichsführer Clinton.

In other words, our credulous, "high-information" progressive friends have been had.

Again .

One might think that after being hoodwinked by the Peace Prize-winning charlatan Drone Ranger , twice, that an iota of skepticism might have penetrated the leftist fog wafting about between their ears, but alas, one would be wrong.

And so there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, until the next silver-tongued mountebank appears, promising them all more free shit courtesy of their fellow citizens.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

the ninth territory , 2016-07-11 18:27:49
He will continue to campaign through August! http://map.berniesanders.com
eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 18:21:22
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.

She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.

She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to do so.

She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the past 25 years.

She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.

She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.

She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25 years.

She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.

She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.

She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.

She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.

She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.

PaulJayone -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 18:24:15
I guess the same goes for Bernie now.
ButFactsAreSacred -> eastbayradical , 2016-07-11 19:11:32
But don't you realise that all these supposed defects make her an ideal President? It's the idealists who are the real threat to global stability and the survival of mankind.
eastbayradical -> ButFactsAreSacred , 2016-07-11 20:04:38
You are a joke.

You have no argument.

Cephalus44 , 2016-07-11 18:20:04
All these Bernie supporters saying they'll never vote Clinton...hehe say hello to President Trump...
localism -> Cephalus44 , 2016-07-11 18:24:20
hello trump
RecantedYank -> Cephalus44 , 2016-07-11 18:31:47
For myself, Clinton will never get my vote, nor Trump for that matter. And no, the argument that this is in effect a vote for Trump does not hold water. I am responsible ONLY for my vote, and can not be held responsible if there are enough idiots in the US elsewhere to be found to vote for either Clinton or Trump.
saneview , 2016-07-11 18:17:42
Some Sanders supporters appear to believe that Hillary Clinton is such a poor candidate that allowing Trump to be elected would be a palatable alternative.
Voring for any candidate involves a degree of compromise. It is effectively a deal between the subjective and the objective.
I have recently read a fair amount of biographical detail of Secretary Clinton, and also of Mr Trump. I see in Mrs Clinton a woman who has been driven by a notion of public service since an early age. She isn't beyond reproach and isn't a messiah. And yes, she accepted well-paid speaking engagements as well. I guess she likes having financial security.
In Mr Trump I see someone who inherited great wealth, who has textbook narcissistic personality disorder, who in unprincipled, who swindled the vulnerable out of their savings with a fraudulent "University" scheme, who takes terrible risks with the money of others, making skilful use of bankruptcy laws and junk bonds, who is a braggart, who flirts with white supremacists, who can take no consistent position. Trump has a thing for dictators and tyrants. He mocks the disabled. A draft-dodger himself, he seeks to ridicule a man who was captured (with three broken limbs) as insufficiently heroic for him.
Are you really prepared to assist this man to the Presidency, just to spite Hillary Clinton?
eastbayradical -> saneview , 2016-07-11 18:25:03
"I see in Mrs Clinton a woman who has been driven by a notion of public service since an early age."

You're referring back to when she supported the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, who ran on a platform explicitly opposed to the Civil Rights Movement? That's an interesting definition of public service.

"She isn't beyond reproach and isn't a messiah."

Wow, what a concession to reality.

"And yes, she accepted well-paid speaking engagements as well. I guess she likes having financial security."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

You Clinton supporters are sooooo terrible at defending her!

Lafcadio1944 , 2016-07-11 17:40:47
Yes, as expected, Bernie Sanders, the great "liberal" hope is not "liberal" at all. The entrenched power of Neoliberalism subsumes all in its view. There are no "liberals" or progressives in US politics. Elizabeth Warren is no different, when the chips are down and it is time to stand up for anything that might be mildly progressive they surrender - each and every one kneels before their masters and support warmongering and sycophantism to Wall Street.

People should understand from the Obama - every day war and every day more hungry children - presidency that hope is a vanishing commodity and those who offer it in the US are in fact worse than the ones who don't bother.

Forward123 , 2016-07-11 17:33:14
Frankly don't see what Sanders gets out of this . Putting aside the fear-mongering by the Clinton loyalists, Sanders points on :
- TPP
- unions and decline of middle class
- education
- money in politics
- minimum wage 15 usd
- fair and transparent elections
- end of trickle down pseudo economics by the baby boomers
-climate change-fracking

All these have been left unaddressed or with so much wiggle room for Clinton , that you know that she will pivot to the right just after the convention and stay there for the rest of her administration.

And he doesn't even know who the VP will be.

Clinton and her crowd will throw his/our ideas away like a used condom as soon as convenient.

Just like they are doing with Liz Warren .

Pity but we always new that Bernie was too principled to win this event.

RecantedYank -> eileen1 , 2016-07-11 17:41:25
At the moment, he is an a catch-22 situation.
If he endorses Clinton, be to honor the promise he made before getting access to the Dem primaries..because to honor your promises is the honourable thing to do...he disappoints those who say the issues at stake are too important to be sacrificed on that particular altar.
If he does not endorse Hillary, but goes for the proffered Green ticket, the Hillary camp will be shouting "see, you can't trust him!..or "he is so self-serving" ( I know that is ironic since Hillary is the epitome of the "Queen of self-serve"). We his followers are not bound by such restrictions though. We did not promise anything and are free to follow our consciences.
jackayarcher , 2016-07-11 16:36:55
First, Guardian readers should know that quarrels about the Democratic Party's platform are typically instigated by the candidate who loses the nomination, if his or her ego requires such a palliative to compensate for the loss. Sanders' ego is a good example. Platforms mean next to nothing in any meaningful political sense. They bind no one, least of all the president or members of Congress. Clinton gave Sanders a bit of space to argue that he had "won" something. She allowed him to insert aspirational goals ($15 an hr minimum wage), but not opposition to trade deals, which might cause some difficulty once she approves trade deals.

Next, the statement that Clinton "narrowly escaped prosecution" is a blatant falsehood. The FBI's investigation found no grounds to charge that she violated any applicable federal law. I suppose if one thinks a person is guilty until proven innocent (which is the usual attitude of the media, apparently including the Guardian, toward Clinton), then the FBI Director's opinion that she had violated no law might be considered a narrow escape. His statement that she had received/sent several classified emails, which was one of the major justifications for saying that she and hundreds of State Dept. officials were "extremely careless" in handling classified info, was itself false, which the FBI Director was forced to acknowledge less than 24 hrs after his reckless charge! Amazing. He also claimed that Clinton's use of a Blackberry "might have been hacked" -- there is no proof that it was. He said she should have used the Dept's secure server/communications system. That would be a salient criticism, except for the fact that throughout Clinton's four years as Secretary of State, the Dept's "secure" communications system was hacked by the Russians, the Chinese and for all we know, you Brits too. Puts Clinton's use of her Blackberry in a somewhat different light, wouldn't you agree? No?

Finally, you may not know that the FBI Director's making a public statement in the way he did was entirely unprecedented in our history. He effectively made the prosecutorial decision himself, when the legal responsibility is and always has been with his superiors. He also went on to make clearly false statements about Clinton, which he had to retract. Worse he, a Republican, made these seemingly damning statements about one of the two candidates for president in an election year. Talk about extreme carelessness! In other times he would be fired.

Can't the Guardian entrust writing such a report to someone who actually understands American politics?

Kevin P Brown -> jackayarcher , 2016-07-11 18:56:04
"You need to pay closer attention"

I have paid very close attention. It seems you are not. He refers to classified emails NOT owned by Clinton, she has no right to change classification on data she receives or forwards. The fact is that some of these emails were obviously copy pasted from a SAP system into her email system.

What you are confused about is actual marking in some of the emails.

When you take for example a CIA or NSA email off their system and run it via a private email account, Microsoft Outlook is not the type of system to allow the assignment of classification headers. there were some emails that retained in the text section header, this is just a side show issue, it does not change that she received and sent high classified emails. The OIG later pointed out his staff had to get special clearances just to read the emails she had on her system.

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received . Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

Peter Lee , 2016-07-11 16:06:03
What I don't understand is the absence of an automatic knee jerk rejection of Clinton. The US fought the Revolutionary War (1775) by rejecting royalty and primogeniture. Run forwards two hundred and forty years and what do they vote? Kennedy I, almost Kennedy II, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton I, now Clinton II? The US is not there yet, but it certainly looks like they're reverting to type. It's almost as if they hunger for Bill, but can't have him so will settle for Hillary instead.

In any case Elizabeth Warren was by far the most able, the most intelligent, and less divisive Democratic candidate.

BennCarey , 2016-07-11 16:05:35
It would be a very difficult choice to pick a 'most depressing headline' award at the moment but this one for me would be a clear winner.

I find it truly astonishing that the career criminal and soul for hire Clinton has got this far without the past, or the present, catching up with her. Nothing could give further indication of how hopelessly brainwashed we are that out of a population of 300 million people they are left with a 'choice' of these two grotesque, vacuous and narcissistic wall street prostitutes.

These political parties are different tentacles of the same monster and if you haven't worked that out by now or If you are under the impression that Hillary would be a positive vote for females then I would recommend you pulling your head out of the sand and do some thinking for yourself instead of being force fed your 'news' through the mainstream.

Please feel free to peruse the following website for an exhaustive library of information documenting the many crimes of the criminally insane and corrupt Clintons.

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders". - George Carlin

Shanajackson , 2016-07-11 15:59:54
I did not think Sanders was so gullible to believe that Clinton will take action on anything in the democratic platform. From a mass movement demanding change to accepting a few non-binding policies at a democratic convention. I think Bernie lost his opportunity to make a difference when he refused to stand as an independent. Now people are stuck with Trump or Clinton which is not exactly a great choice.
mikehowleydcu -> OhReallyFFS , 2016-07-11 17:34:51
Positively Hillary?

You really have no idea about the character or deeds of Hillary Clinton and her husband and what lays in story but heres a sample

Imprisoning of black people en mass
Private prison system - largest increase in the nations history
Wall mart
Against 15$ minimum wage until this year
Destroyed Libya
Massive scandals with Clinton foundation
Ardent supporters of settlements
Biggest arms sales in US history while Clinton was Secretary of state.
Biggest health reform flop
Mysterious deaths when people close to Clintons were investigated.
Belligerent policy towards Russia - That is the biggest danger of all.
Syria - arming of rebels

ttowse , 2016-07-11 15:48:20
Bernie, endorsing Clinton is unworthy of him. Go green and have a fat lady singing on stage when you do please. It will show the Democratic Party, the party that has become Republican Lite, that life as they know it is OVER.
Thank Obama for hiring Paulson from Wall Street and Tim Geitner, from the Fed, which together assured that Wall Street CEOs could keep their millions, and their jobs, after forcing taxpayers to bail their ass out. SHAME on the White Collar Criminals and the WALL STREET WHITEHOUSE they Own. They have destroyed the planet with their greed.

The revolution continues. March on Main Street formerly for Bernie Sunday July 24, 2016. Feel The Burn vote for Trump he is the poison pill that will hit them where they live and decimate the Republican Party.

MonotonousLanguor , 2016-07-11 15:43:29
The Party Platform is meaningless and Sanders should know that. $hillary will do what ever she wants after the convention if she is nominated. The allegiance $hillary has is to Wall Street and a NEO-CON foreign policy.

Sanders can endorse $hillary if he wants, but I voted for Sanders because of his platform. I did not vote for Sanders so he could endorse Clinton. I will be voting for a Third Party Candidate, if it is Clinton vs Trump. Oh and do not give me the Ralph Nader Guilt Trip. The Gorebot lost to Bush the Younger on his own. The Gorebot could not carry his own state.

MarkThomason , 2016-07-11 15:37:56
Platforms mean nothing. They are routinely ignored even before the Convention is over.

If that is all Bernie got, then he got nothing. And he did not even get all of that.

NarodnayaVolya , 2016-07-11 15:33:48
It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.

- Eugene Victor Debs.
Debs polled over a million votes while doing some hard time in a federal prison for sedition: he dared oppose american entry in World War One. That man stood up for what he believed in, and was willing to pay any price. Bernie -- who reportedly has a portrait of Debs hanging over his desk -- should hang his head in shame for his cowardice in selling out so cheaply

MonotonousLanguor -> NarodnayaVolya , 2016-07-11 15:46:49
Debs also said > The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.
Falanx , 2016-07-11 15:28:55
Bernie must know that a "plank" in the platform is nothing more than a sop. It is not binding.

Even the sops he got are chicken feed. The $15.00 minimum wage should have been a non negotiable default, not some trumpeted victory. The minimum wage in 1962 was worth $22.00 in today's dollars.

The vague "committment" on saving the environment would be laughable were its consequences not so tragic.

Trade Agreements (aka secret global corporate rule)? Zip
Single Payer Health Care? Zip
Free Higher Education? Zip
Expanded Social Security? Zip
Restraining Israel? Zip
De-militarization of police? Zip
Resumption of nuclear & arms control negotiations with Russia? Zip
Return to detente with Russia? Zip

The list of platform failures is about as long as the list of Hillary's corporate donors.

There were those (certainly not in the embedded press) who said from the start that Bernie was a stalking horse for Hillary -- an exercise in bait and switch.

If he was, he deserves an Oscar.

Hey! But we got weed!! Oh wow. Bong Hits. Yaaaaaay!!!!

Lester Smithson , 2016-07-11 15:21:47
As much as I want to vote for HRC, the stench of neocon corporatism is too much, the thin layer of accumulated grime from years of ethical expediency too toxic, the opaque lack of transparency too dangerous, and the shifting sands of her amorphous policy too treacherous.

A vote for HRC is: a vote for Palestinian kids growing up without a future; a vote for American kids subject to the Common Core; a vote for water polluted by fracking precipitates; a vote for drone strikes; a vote for kids locked up for a joint, a vote for lives ruined by corporate prisons, and a vote for bankers first, the people second.

Can't do it. Jill Stein. Let the chips fall where they do.

Americanwarcrimes , 2016-07-11 15:20:55
Is the lawsuit against Clinton still happening? Not for the deletion of 30,000 personal emails between herself and her husband, but for the campaign fraud and election fraud in Arizona? Or are we still pretending that America is a democracy and not the most corrupt and aggressive asylum in the history of mankind?
NarodnayaVolya -> Americanwarcrimes , 2016-07-11 15:27:37
This detailed legal dissection of last week's Comey hearing indicates there's plenty still to mine there, if Mr. Chump isn't merely shilling



5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had
What America Saw on July 7th in No Way Resembles Our Justice System

the fact remains that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different class and hue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/5-reasons-the-comey-hearing-was-the-worst-education_us_577ee999e4b05b4c02fbdcd5

JackGC , 2016-07-11 15:17:22
Sanders just became irrelevant for the rest of his life. Not accepting Stein's offer was a chance to change American politics and make three parties viable instaed of just two.

Big mistake.

Endorsing Clinton by claiming Trump must be defeated ONLY holds up IF Sanders supporters are needed to defeat him. That certainly isn't the case. Hillary will easily defeat Trump with or without them.

0-50 in November.

Bernie missed his chance. His whole campaign was a wasted effort. His supporters must feel like fools.

SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 2016-07-11 15:04:54
The main problem is that she puts things now in the agenda to pretend she's bridging the gap between her and progressives, but once she starts ''negotiating'' with Republicans, she'll drop practically everything she added because of Bernie and claim she had to do it to achieve a compromise.
So actually Progressives once again will get nothing, especially on economics....might get some scraps off the table on social issues, but that's it. They'll all do the usual song and dance about these ''huge achievements'' and sing along...
Same story....no real change....might get a war though cause she's gagging for one
NarodnayaVolya -> whyohwhy1 , 2016-07-11 15:15:58
this charade will probably continue only until she has Bernie's endorsement fully and irrevocably in the bag - and not a second longer. While she paid lip service momentarily to opposing TPP, her operatives have ensured that in no way will the party platform oppose it.

see robert reich's facebook posting from earlier today:

https://m.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1254212547924672

markwill1980 , 2016-07-11 14:48:45
Make Hillary's Bank Balance Great Again.
fedback , 2016-07-11 14:41:50
So Bernie wins for the potheads. Is that supposed to be a triumph for the progressives... He is about to endorse the queen of Wall Street and give her a free pass on TPP, the two pillars of his candidacy. This talk about pulling Clinton to the left is crap.
Americanwarcrimes -> Royal66 , 2016-07-11 15:24:45
Anything America does is a disaster for the wider world.
nanciel -> simpledino , 2016-07-11 19:40:19
As Jill Stein has said, "What We Fear from Donald Trump, We Have Already Seen from Hillary Clinton."

So rant away about how voting Green will allow Trump in...it's the failed Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that are really to blame for the rise of the reprehensible Donald Trump.

If they were worth anything, they would have the support of everyone.

If EVERYONE voted their conscience, the Greens would win by a landslide.

So you are the one who is deluded thinking that rewarding the unethical status quo with your vote will be good for the planet...the wars and environmental destruction will go on and on thanks to you and others like you .
Right? Right.

CahootsConspiracy
14h ago
9 10

Not sure what the goal of his endorsement would be at this point. Many if not most of his supporters already know whether or not they'll vote for Clinton in November, and it seems unlikely that him urging his supporters to vote for her will pick up many new converts.

siansim -> CahootsConspiracy , 2016-07-11 15:51:20
I understand only about half of sanders supporters are willing to switch to clinton http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/bernie-or-bust-clinton/488276 /

Toeparty
14h ago
29 30

I'm afraid Bernie's endorsement of Clinton will not stop Trump. There is no room for a neo-liberal status quo candidate like Clinton in this race. The American economy is going to hell in a hand cart. 50 million Americans use food banks millions more are facing bankruptcy, joblessness and homelessness. They need a radical socialist candidate. Voting for more of the same for them is utterly pointless. Trump will beat Clinton. America needed Bernie if Trump was to be beaten.

Greg Jones , 2016-07-11 14:05:42
Americans want the short lived rush of another Obama moment with the first woman President.But look at Obamas America,anything changed? Black protest riots across the Country as we speak.
WhitesandsOjibwe , 2016-07-11 14:04:23
They used to say when 'Billy' was running and Hillary was by his side, that we were getting 'two for the price of one, This time around, the bargain is two outdated, technologically incompetent, out-of-touch, power-hungry, money-grubbing globalists who have consistently lied to the American people. They have sold out the American people in their self-serving, addictive grasp for more power and more money.
SenseCir , 2016-07-11 14:02:50

the Sanders camp failed to insert outright opposition to Barack Obama's controversial Trans Pacific Partnership deal. [...] Clinton supporters blocked the proposed amendment

Hardly a surprise that Clinton is a slave of corporate interests. That's been the crowd she has surrounded herself with for decades.

newjerseyboi -> SenseCir , 2016-07-11 14:08:18
A slave? More like an enabler and promoter
CorruptIntenz -> newjerseyboi , 2016-07-11 14:13:10
Both are true.


WhitesandsOjibwe -> YorkerBouncer , 2016-07-11 14:08:20
A "sophisticated" person would understand the importance of handling very sensitive information. Clinton signed documents from the FBI, which acknowledged the importance of appropriately handling classified information, how then as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could possibly have thought having an unsecured private server was appropriate?

"I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment."

-Comey

And Trump is more dangerous, how?

zolotoy -> GreatLizard , 2016-07-11 15:24:29
But we know how Hillary feels about interventionism.
IRFANRAINY , 2016-07-11 14:01:50
If Sanders endorses Clinton then he has wasted his efforts entirely ! Killary is a war mongering Wall St stooge, who cannot be trustd one bit ! His progressive agenda should have joined hands with The Greens and stood for a new socialist agenda ! A v sad day !
bcarey , 2016-07-11 13:59:35
Looks like we're seeing the real Sanders now. So sad.... but he sounded okay, didn't he?

Pulling the party to the left is meaningless if the nominee is a neocon. It's just window dressing.(And Bernie, of course, definitely knows that.)

siansim -> Shelfunit , 2016-07-11 14:57:55
I wonder if conspiracy theorists also stated clinton perjured herself many times over the last year?

Tut tut

By the way...

"A second Stanford study comparing voting machines to pre-election polls shows extreme discrepancies in many states where electronic voting machines were utilized."

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/07/10/new-stanford-study-shows-serious-voting-discrepancies-favor-clinton /

Tommy Lobotomy , 2016-07-11 13:58:25
Even if Sanders endorses her, I -- a lifelong Democrat -- will not vote for her. She claims she opposes TPP and yesterday her delegates made passage of TPP part of her campaign platform. She's a lying, hypocritical, corrupt, Wall Street-toadying warmonger. No thank you. Sayonara Democratic Party. Prospect of Bill Clinton back in White House makes her candidacy doubly nauseous.

[Jul 12, 2016] 'What I did was allowed': fact-checking Clinton's statements on email inquiry

www.theguardian.com


"I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." – 12 March 2015, New York

Comey said that Clinton not only used multiple servers but also "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, undercutting her justification.

[Jul 12, 2016] GOP Seeks Criminal Inquiry of Hillary Clinton's Testimony to Congress

Notable quotes:
"... there might be enough to warrant opening an investigation. That alone could prove damaging to her campaign. ..."
www.nytimes.com

The Republican request, five days after the department closed a yearlong investigation into Mrs. Clinton's handling of classified information in the emails, threatens to shadow her through the campaign and perhaps even into the White House if she is elected.

In a letter Monday evening, House Republicans asked the Justice Department to determine whether Mrs. Clinton had "committed perjury and made false statements" during her appearance in October before a special House panel on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The letter was signed by Representatives Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who leads the Oversight Committee, and Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, who leads the Judiciary Committee.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the request. In a Twitter post, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, called the Republican request "another futile, partisan attempt to keep this issue alive now that the Justice Dept has declared it resolved."

Mrs. Clinton has said she regrets the decision to use a private email server for official communications as secretary of state, but she has defended the truthfulness of her public remarks.

Legal analysts said that while it appeared unlikely the F.B.I. would ultimately find enough evidence to prosecute Mrs. Clinton on charges of lying to Congress, there might be enough to warrant opening an investigation. That alone could prove damaging to her campaign.

[Jul 12, 2016] Hillary Clinton emails: State Department reopens investigation into 'mishandling' of 'classified' information

Notable quotes:
"... The real wild card that's yet to be played is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Jim Comey at the FBI seems to have given up a little too easily on Mrs. Clinton - perhaps because he knows something more damning is coming? ..."
independent.co.uk

According to the Associated Press, the internal investigation will not result in criminal charges. Many of Ms Clinton's top aides could have their security clearances revoked, which would all but dissolve their chances of being a part of the national security team should the former Secretary of State win the presidency.

... The probe by the department will focus on 22 emails found on Ms Clinton's emails that were considered to be "top secret".

... Mr Kirby would not identify the top aides under investigation, but the AP said the ones most likely to face scrutiny are Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin.


Marine

I quit being a dem after 45 yrs., when Bill Clinton stabbed workers in the back. I know I was not the only one to do so & change . politicians don't represent voters anymore, money has corrupt the whole system of government we have now. The TRADE BILLS signed benefited Wall Street & the 1%. It is them that that regulate the two party system when they should be regulating Wall Street & a brand new set of Campaign laws.

It is the 1% who tell us who to vote for, they choose the candidates offering large sums of money to both party's campaign funds. If only more voters could see the real evil in our system of government instead of just feeling it. The country is in decline like never before & worse then the 1928 crash.


Earthnotmoving2me

The insanity has reached epic proportions and it's all caused by our own government... The American people are being held hostage by psychopaths ... A large portion of the population can't seem to make the connection our government has turned into one of the most violent corrupt destructive evil forces working against humanity on earth...

wanderingone56

Awkward for Mrs. Clinton, I know, but State won't really do much more than provide a few awkward moments. (After all, would you really want to be the Statie who p!$$ed off your future boss?)

The real wild card that's yet to be played is the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Jim Comey at the FBI seems to have given up a little too easily on Mrs. Clinton - perhaps because he knows something more damning is coming?

Sal20111

Sounds a bit off. Hilary can become President, despite the carelessness that was basically hers, but her aides can't get sensitive cabinet positions - are the cabinet positions more sensitive than President? Reeks like a trade-off: no criminal charges but some punishment in terms of restricting your aides. Is Hilary already compromised before becoming President?

Enso

We already know George W Bush set up a private email server WHILE he was president and there were 88 accounts on the server. Karl Rove had one and did a range of things with it.

Just after Valerie Plame was outted by an anonymous source as a CIA field agent, just after her husband said something the administratin didn't like - that was when Karl Rove destroyed 22 MILLION emails.

mokopoloko

why wouldn t they be looking to pursue criminal charges if she is found guilty of wrongdoing.this woman is a liar and a criminal as was her slimeball of a husband.they are not fit to run as smalltown mayors nevermind the supposed leader of the free world.

anti-morons

But as we all know, America is no "free world" - it is a dump of corruption, bible-belt hate-mongering and fear-mongering, and the world's greatest threat to security and peace.
America is nothing other than a terrorist, rogue State.

SpinResistant

Michel Gove pulled exactly the same dodge with private emails as Hillary when he was Secrtary of State for Education, and he went on to become one of the most trusted politicians in the Conservative Party.

anti-morons

Trusted by whom precisely ?
Neither UK nor USA can be trusted - both are warmongering nations and responsible for the destabilisation of the whole of the Middle Eastern region, which has ultimately led to non-stop war, the murder of millions, and a continuing influx of millions of displaced persons into Europe.

Time to say NO to England's and America's murder machine !

It's not something the least but new or unique.

Muffin

Oh Hillary the wagons are circling. Who and why? I think we can guess.....

sinbad

Clinton has been chosen by the Wall St Gods to be the Queen of the World.
Nothing can change that, she has been chosen.

Tom North London

Correct. The world will be changed as necessary to make it compatible with Her.

ComberBryan

No charges for Hillary, so time to scapegoat some of the little people.

[Jul 12, 2016] DNI Clapper Denies Paul Ryan Request to Block Clinton From Classified Intel Briefings

www.nbcnews.com
Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan's request to block Hillary Clinton from receiving classified intelligence briefings was denied by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Monday.

In a letter to Ryan, Clapper wrote that he did "not intend to withhold briefings from any officially nominated, eligible candidate."

[Jul 12, 2016] FBI's Critique of Hillary Clinton Is a Ready-Made Attack Ad

www.nytimes.com

Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year.

... ... ...

To her charge that he is "reckless," Mr. Trump may now respond by citing Mr. Comey's rebuke: that Mrs. Clinton and her team "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

To her promises to defend the United States, Mr. Trump may now retort with Mr. Comey's warning that "it is possible that hostile actors gained access" to Mrs. Clinton's email account and the top secret information it contained.

And to her reproofs about his temperament and responsibility, Mr. Trump may now point to Mr. Comey's finding that "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes" on handling classified information - though Mr. Comey said that other factors, like Mrs. Clinton's intent, argued against criminal charges.


Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey's judgment about Mrs. Clinton's judgment.

She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department.

... ... ...

Her clearest selling point - that she, unlike Mr. Trump, can manage challenging relationships with allies and adversaries - has now been undercut because she personally mismanaged the safeguarding of national security information.

[Jul 11, 2016] FBI Findings Damage Many of Hillary Clinton's Claims

Jul 5, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources.

Another 36 chains were "secret," which is defined as including information that "could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security"; eight others had information classified at the lowest level, "confidential."

[Jul 11, 2016] Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prefer the elephant to the emails in the room

www.theguardian.com

... as Trump prepared to address a rival rally 170 miles away in Raleigh, it was clear that the Democrats were going to have to do more than this if they really expected the email scandal to go away for good.

"As FBI Director James Comey let Clinton off the hook for her 'extremely careless' actions, the fix was final," blasted Trump in a statement. "The Obama administration's anointed successor has had an indictment removed from her path, and will now be able to glide to the rigged Democrat nomination. As we move toward November, the question now becomes, 'what is Hillary hiding?'"

When the dust from the FBI investigation settles, the former secretary of state is likely to have to give a fuller account of her actions, now that the world knows just how agents assessed them.

[Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had

Notable quotes:
"... The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. ..."
"... We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. ..."
"... whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated ..."
"... criminal statutes had been violated ..."
"... So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it. ..."
"... Black's Law Dictionary ..."
"... First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space. ..."
"... Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? ..."
"... And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience." ..."
"... completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage ..."
"... simply by looking at their headers ..."
"... every other action ..."
"... Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016). ..."
www.huffingtonpost.com
1. According to Comey, Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors. Many people will miss this in the wash of punditry from non-attorneys in the mainstream media that has followed Comey's public remarks and Congressional testimony.

The issue for Comey wasn't that Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the federal felony statute Clinton violated (18 U.S.C. 793f) has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable applying it to Clinton. This is quite different from saying that no crime was committed; rather, Comey's position is that crimes were committed, but he has decided not to prosecute those crimes because (a) the statute he focused most on has only been used once in the last century (keeping in mind how relatively rare cases like these are in the first instance, and therefore how rarely we would naturally expect a statute like this to apply in any case), and (b) he personally believes that the statute in question might be unconstitutional because, as he put it, it might punish people for crimes they didn't specifically intend to commit (specifically, it requires only a finding of "gross negligence," which Comey conceded he could prove). Comey appears to have taken the extraordinary step of researching the legislative history of this particular criminal statute in order to render this latter assessment.

The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. Their job is to apply the laws as written, unless and until they are superseded by new legislation or struck down by the judicial branch. In Comey's case, this deep dive into the history books is even more puzzling as, prior to Attorney General Loretta Lynch unethically having a private meeting with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac, Comey wasn't even slated to be the final arbiter of whether Clinton was prosecuted or not. He would have been expected, in a case like this, to note to the Department of Justice's career prosecutors that the FBI had found evidence of multiple federal crimes, and then leave it to their prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not to pursue a prosecution. But more broadly, we must note that when Comey gave his public justification for not bringing charges ― a public justification in itself highly unusual, and suggestive of the possibility that Comey knew his inaction was extraordinary, and therefore felt the need to defend himself in equally extraordinary fashion ― he did not state the truth: that Clinton had committed multiple federal crimes per statutes presently on the books, and that the lack of a recommendation for prosecution was based not on the lack of a crime but the lack of prosecutorial will (or, as he might otherwise have put it, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion).

The danger here is that Americans will now believe many untrue things about the executive branch of their government. For instance, watching Comey's testimony one might believe that if the executive branch exercises its prosecutorial discretion and declines to prosecute crimes it determines have been committed, it means no crimes were committed. In fact, what it means (in a case like this) is that crimes were committed but will not be prosecuted. We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. She simply shouldn't, in the view of the FBI, be prosecuted for her crimes. Prosecutorial discretion of this sort is relatively common, and indeed should be much more common when it comes to criminal cases involving poor Americans; instead, we find it most commonly in law enforcement's treatment of Americans with substantial personal, financial, sociocultural, and legal resources.

Americans might also wrongly believe, watching Comey's testimony, that it is the job of executive-branch employees to determine which criminal statutes written by the legislative branch will be acknowledged. While one could argue that this task does fall to the head of the prosecuting authority in a given instance ― here, Attorney General Loretta Lynch; had an independent prosecutor been secured in this case, as should have happened, that person, instead ― one could not argue that James Comey's role in this scenario was to decide which on-the-books criminal statutes matter and which don't. Indeed, Comey himself said, during his announcement of the FBI's recommendation, that his role was to refer the case to the DOJ for a "prosecutive decision" ― in other words, the decision on whether to prosecute wasn't his. His job was only to determine whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated.

By this test, Comey didn't just not do the job he set out to do, he wildly and irresponsibly exceeded it, to the point where its original contours were unrecognizable. To be blunt: by obscuring, in his public remarks and advice to the DOJ, the fact that criminal statutes had been violated ― in favor of observing, more broadly, that there should be no prosecution ― he made it not just easy but a fait accompli for the media and workaday Americans to think that not only would no prosecution commence, but that indeed there had been no statutory violations.

Which there were.

Americans might also wrongly take at face value Comey's contention that the felony statute Clinton violated was unconstitutional ― on the grounds that it criminalizes behavior that does not include a specific intent to do wrong. This is, as every attorney knows, laughable. Every single day in America, prosecutors prosecute Americans ― usually but not exclusively poor people ― for crimes whose governing statutes lack the requirement of "specific intent." Ever heard of negligent homicide? That's a statute that doesn't require what lawyers call (depending on the jurisdiction) an "intentional" or "purposeful" mental state. Rather, it requires "negligence." Many other statutes require only a showing of "recklessness," which likewise is dramatically distinct from "purposeful" or "intentional" conduct. And an even larger number of statutes have a "knowing" mental state, which Comey well knows ― but the average American does not ― is a general- rather than specific-intent mental state (mens rea, in legal terms).

And the term "knowingly" is absolutely key to the misdemeanors Comey appears to concede Clinton committed, but has declined to charge her for.

To discuss what "knowingly" means in the law, I'll start with an example. When I practiced criminal law in New Hampshire, it was a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to "knowingly cause unprivileged physical contact with another person." The three key elements to this particular crime, which is known as Simple Assault, are "knowingly," "unprivileged," and "physical contact." If a prosecutor can prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could, at the discretion of a judge, find themselves locked in a cage for a year. "Physical contact" means just about exactly what you'd expect, as does "unprivileged" ― contact for which you have no claim of privilege, such as self-defense, defense of another, permission of the alleged victim, and so on. But what the heck does "knowingly" mean? Well, as any law student can tell you, it means that you were aware of the physical act you were engaged in, even if you didn't intend the consequences that act caused. For instance, say you're in the pit at a particularly raucous speed-metal concert, leaping about, as one does, in close proximity with many other people. Now let's say that after one of your leaps you land on a young woman's foot and break it. If charged with Simple Assault, your defense won't be as to your mental state, because you were "knowingly" leaping about, even if you intended no harm in doing so. Instead, your defense will probably be that the contact (which you also wouldn't contest) was "privileged," because the young lady had implicitly taken on, as had you, the risks of being in a pit in the middle of a speed-metal concert. See the difference between knowingly engaging in a physical act that has hurtful consequences, and "intending" or having as your "purpose" those consequences? Just so, I've seen juveniles prosecuted for Simple Assault for throwing food during an in-school cafeteria food fight; in that instance, no one was hurt, nor did anyone intend to hurt anybody, but "unprivileged physical contact" was "knowingly" made all the same (in this case, via the instrument of, say, a chicken nugget).

So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it.

What about the misdemeanor statute?

Well, there's now terrifying evidence available for public consumption to the effect that Director Comey doesn't understand the use of the word "knowingly" in the law ― indeed, understands it less than even a law student in his or her first semester would. Just over an hour (at 1:06) into the six-hour C-SPAN video of Comey's Congressional testimony, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) makes a brief but absolutely unimpeachable case that, using the term "knowingly" as I have here and as it is used in every courtroom in America, Secretary Clinton committed multiple federal misdemeanors inasmuch as she, per the relevant statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 1924), "became possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States....and knowingly removed such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location." Comey, misunderstanding the word "knowingly" in a way any law school student would scream at their TV over, states that the FBI would still, under that statutory language, need to prove specific intent to convict Clinton of a Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 violation. Lummis points out that Comey is dead wrong ― and she's right, he is wrong. Per the above, all Clinton had to be aware of is that (a) she was in possession of classified documents, and (b) she had removed them to an unauthorized location. Comey admits these two facts are true, and yet he won't prosecute because he's added a clause that's not in the statute. I can't emphasize this enough: Comey makes clear with his answers throughout his testimony that Clinton committed this federal misdemeanor, but equally makes clear that he didn't charge her with it because he didn't understand the statute. (At 1:53 in the video linked to above, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado goes back to the topic of Title 18 U.S.C. 1924, locking down that Comey is indeed deliberately adding language to that federal criminal statute that quite literally is not there.)

Yes, it's true. Watch the video for yourself, look up the word "knowingly" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll see that I'm right. This is scary stuff for an attorney like me, or really for any of us, to see on television ― a government attorney with less knowledge of criminal law than a first-year law student.

2. Comey has dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like. The result of this is that Americans will fundamentally misunderstand our adversarial system of justice.

Things like our Fourth and Fifth Amendment are part and parcel of our "adversarial" system of justice. We could have elected, as a nation, to have an "inquisitorial" system of justice ― as some countries in Europe, with far fewer protections for criminal defendants, do ― but we made the decision that the best truth-seeking mechanism is one in which two reflexively zealous advocates, a prosecutor and a defense attorney, push their cases to the utmost of their ability (within certain well-established ethical strictures).

James Comey, in his testimony before Congress, left the impression that his job as a prosecutor was to weigh his ability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt not as a prosecutor, but as a member of a prospective jury. That's not how things work in America; it certainly, and quite spectacularly, isn't how it works for poor black men. In fact, what American prosecutors are charged to do is imagine a situation in which (a) they present their case to a jury as zealously as humanly possible within the well-established ethical code of the American courtroom, (b) all facts and inferences are taken by that jury in the prosecution's favor, and then (c) whether, given all those conditions, there is a reasonable likelihood that all twelve jurors would vote for a conviction.

That is not the standard James Comey used to determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

What Comey did was something else altogether.

First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space.

The second thing Comey did was ask, "Am I guaranteed to win this case at trial?" Would that this slowed the roll of prosecutors when dealing with poor black men! Instead, as I discuss later on, prosecutors ― via the blunt instrument of the grand jury ― usually use the mere fact of misdemeanor or felony charges against a defendant as a mechanism for ending a case short of trial. Even prosecutors who ultimately drop a case will charge (misdemeanor) or indict (felony) it first, if only to give themselves time ― because defendants do have speedy trial rights, and statutes of limitation do sometimes intercede ― to plan their next move.

Third, Comey imagined his case at trial through the following lens: "How would we do at trial if the jury took every fact and presumption ― as we already have ― in Clinton's favor?" Indeed, I'm having more than a hard time ― actually an impossible time ― finding a single unknown or unclear fact that Comey took in a light unfavorable to Clinton (including, incredibly, the facts that became unknowable because of Clinton's own actions and evasions). Instead, Hillary was given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, so much so that it was obvious that the only evidence of "intent" Comey would accept was a full confession from Clinton. That's something prosecutors rarely get, and certainly (therefore) never make a prerequisite for prosecution. But Comey clearly did here.

I have never seen this standard used in the prosecution of a poor person. Not once.

3. Comey left the indelible impression, with American news-watchers, that prosecutors only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens rea (mental state) if and when a defendant has confessed. Imagine, for a moment, if police officers only shot unarmed black men who were in the process of confessing either verbally ("I'm about to pull a gun on you!") or physically (e.g., by assaulting the officer). Impossible to imagine, right? That's because that's not how this works; indeed, that's not how any of this works. Prosecutors, like police officers, are, in seeking signs of intent, trained to read ― and conceding here that some of them do it poorly ― contextual clues that precede, are contemporaneous with, and/or follow the commission of a crime.

But this apparently doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.

It would be easier to identify the contextual clues that don't suggest Clinton had consciousness of guilt than those that do ― as there are exponentially more of the latter than the former. But let's do our best, and consider just a few of the clear signs that Clinton and her team, judging them solely by their words and actions, knew that what they were doing was unlawful.

For instance, Clinton repeatedly said she used one server and only one device ― not that she thought that that was the correct information, but that she knew it was. Yet the FBI found, per Comey's July 5th statement, that Clinton used "several different servers" and "numerous mobile devices." So either Clinton didn't know the truth but pretended in all her public statements that she did; or she was given bad information which she then repeated uncritically, in which case a prosecutor would demand to know from whom she received that information (as surely that person would know they'd spread misinformation); or she knew the truth and was lying. A prosecutor would want clear, on-the-record answers on these issues; instead, Comey let other FBI agents have an unrecorded, untranscripted interview with Clinton that he himself didn't bother to attend. It's not even clear that that interview was much considered by the FBI; Comey declared his decision just a few dozen hours after the interview was over, and word leaked that there would be no indictment just two hours after the interview. Which, again, incredibly ― and not in keeping with any law enforcement policy regarding subject interviews I'm aware of ― was unrecorded, untranscripted, unsworn, and unattended by the lead prosecutor.

This in the context of a year-long investigation for which Clinton was the primary subject. Since when is an hours-long interview with an investigation's subject so immaterial to the charging decision? And since when is such an interview treated as such a casual event? Since never. At least for poor people.

And since when are false exculpatory statements not strong evidence of intent?

Since never - at least for poor people.

Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? Just so, Comey would naturally want to test Clinton's narrative by seeing whether or not all FOIA requests were fully responded to by Clinton and her staff in the four years she was the head of the State Department. Surely, Clinton and her staff had been fully briefed on their legal obligations under FOIA ― that's provable ― so if Clinton's "convenience" had caused a conflict with the Secretary's FOIA obligations that would have been immediately obvious to both Clinton and her staff, and would have been remedied immediately if the purpose of the server was not to avoid FOIA requests but mere convenience. At a minimum, Comey would find evidence (either hard or testimonial) that such conversations occurred. And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience."

Even if Comey believed that "avoiding access to the personal," rather than "convenience," was the reason for Clinton's server set-up, that explanation would have imploded under the weight of evidence Clinton, her team, and her attorneys exercised no due caution whatsoever in determining what was "personal" and what was not personal when they were wiping those servers clean. If Clinton's concern was privacy, there's no evidence that much attention was paid to accurately and narrowly protecting that interest ― rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that the aim, at all times, was to keep the maximum amount of information away from FOIA discovery, not just "personal" information but (as Comey found) a wealth of work-related information.

But let's pull back for a moment and be a little less legalistic. Clinton claimed the reason for her set-up was ― exclusively ― "convenience"; nevertheless, Comey said it took "thousands of hours of painstaking effort" to "piece back together" exactly what Clinton was up to. Wouldn't that fact alone give the lie to the claim that this system was more "convenient" than the protocols State already had in place? "Millions of email fragments ended up in the server's 'slack space'," Comey said of Clinton's "convenient" email-storage arrangement. See the contradiction? How would "millions of email fragments ending up in a server's 'slack space'" in any way have served Clinton's presumptive desire for both (a) convenience, (b) FOIA complicance, (c) a securing of her privacy, and (d) compliance with State Department email-storage regulations? Would any reasonable person have found this set-up convenient? And if not ― and Comey explicitly found not ― why in the world didn't that help to establish the real intent of Clinton's private basement servers? Indeed, had Clinton intended on complying with FOIA, presumably her own staff would have had to do the very same painstaking work it took the FBI a year to do. But FOIA requests come in too fast and furious, at State, for Clinton's staff to do the work it took the FBI a year to do in a matter of days; wouldn't this in itself establish that Clinton and her staff had no ability, and therefore well knew they had no intention, of acceding to any of the Department's hundreds or even thousands of annual FOIA requests in full? And wouldn't ignoring all those requests be not just illegal but "inconvenient" in the extreme? And speak to the question of intent?

It took Clinton two years to hand over work emails she was supposed to hand over the day she left office; and during that time, she and her lawyers, some of whom appear to have looked at classified material without clearance, deleted thousands of "personal" emails ― many of which turned out the be exactly the sort of work emails she was supposed to turn over the day she left State. In this situation, an actor acting in good faith would have (a) erred on the side of caution in deleting emails, (b) responded with far, far more alacrity to the valid demands of State to see all work-related emails, and (c) having erroneously deleted certain emails, would have rushed to correct the mistake themselves rather than seeing if they could get away with deleting ― mind you ― not just work emails but work emails with (in several instances) classified information in them. How in the world was none of this taken toward the question of intent? Certainly, it was taken toward the finding of "gross negligence" Comey made, but how in the world was none of it seen as relevant to Clinton's specific intent also? Why does it seem the only evidence of specific intent Comey would've looked at was a smoking gun? Does he realize how few criminal cases would ever be brought against anyone in America if a "smoking gun" standard was in effect? Does anyone realize how many poor black men wouldn't be in prison if that standard was in effect for them as well as Secretary Clinton?

4. Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave Clinton was normal. The mere fact that Comey gave public statements justifying his prosecutorial discretion misleads the public into thinking that, say, poor black men receive this level of care when prosecutors are choosing whether to indict them.

While at least he had the good grace to call the fact of his making a public statement "unusual" ― chalking it up to the "intense public interest" that meant Clinton (and the public) "deserved" an explanation for his behavior ― that grace ultimately obscured, rather than underscored, that what Comey did in publicly justifying his behavior is unheard of in cases involving poor people. In the real America, prosecutors are basically unaccountable to anyone but their bosses in terms of their prosecutorial discretion, as cases in which abuse of prosecutorial discretion is successfully alleged are vanishingly rare. Many are the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of poor black men who would love to have had their sons' (or brothers', or fathers') over-charged criminal cases explained to them with the sort of care and detail Hillary Clinton naturally receives when she's being investigated. Clinton and the public "deserve" prosecutorial transparency when the defendant is a Clinton; just about no one else deserves this level of not just transparency but also ― given the year-long length of the FBI investigation ― prosecutorial and investigative caution.

What's amazing is how little use Comey actually made of all the extra time and effort. For instance, on July 5th he said that every email the FBI uncovered was sent to the "owning" organization to see if they wanted to "up-classify" it ― in other words, declare that it should have been classified at the time it was sent and/or received, even if not marked that way at the time. One might think Comey would want this information, the better to determine Clinton's intent with respect to those emails (i.e., given Clinton's training, knowledge, and experience, how frequently did she "miss" the classified nature of an email, relative to the assessment of owning agencies that a given email was effectively and/or should have been considered classified ― even if not marked so ― at the time Clinton handled it?) Keep in mind, here, that certain types of information, as Clinton without a doubt knew, are "born classified" whether marked as such or not. And yet, just two days after July 5th, Comey testified before Congress that he "didn't pay much attention" to "up-classified" emails. Why? Because, said Comey, they couldn't tell him anything about Clinton's intent. Bluntly, this is an astonishing and indeed embarrassing statement for any prosecutor to make.

Whereas every day knowledge and motives are imparted to poor black men that are, as the poet Claudia Rankine has observed, purely the product of a police officer's "imagination," the actual and indisputable knowledge and motives and ― yes ― responsibilities held by Clinton were "downgraded" by Comey to that of merely an average American. That is, despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most powerful people on Earth, charged with managing an agency that collects among the highest number of classified pieces of information of any agency anywhere; despite the fact that Clinton's agency had the strictest policies for data storage for this very reason; despite the fact that State is, as Clinton well knew, daily subjected to FOIA requests; despite all this, Comey actually said the following: "Like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails..."

What?

How in the world does the "many email users" standard come into play here? Clinton's server, unlike anyone else's server, was set up in a way that permitted no archiving, an arrangement that one now imagines led (in part) to the person who set up that server taking the Fifth more than a hundred times in interviews with the FBI; even assuming Clinton didn't know, and didn't request, for her server to be set up in this astonishing way ― a way, again, that her own employees believe could incriminate them ― how in the world could she have been sanguine about deleting emails "like many email users" when the agency she headed had completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage than just about any government agency on Earth? Just so, once it was clear that Clinton had deleted (per Comey) "thousands of emails that were work-related" instead of turning them over to State, in what universe can no intent be implied from the fact that her attorneys purged 30,000 emails simply by looking at their headers? At what point does Clinton, as former Secretary of State, begin to have ill intent imputed to her by not directing her attorneys to actually read emails before permanently destroying them and making them unavailable to the FBI as evidence? If you were in her situation, and instead of saying to your team either (a) "don't delete any more emails," or (b) "if you delete any emails, make sure you've read them in full first," would you expect anyone to impute "no specific intent" to your behavior?

The result: despite saying she never sent or received emails on her private basement server that were classified "at the time," the FBI found that 52 email chains on Clinton's server ― including 110 emails ― contained information that was classified at the time (eight chains contained "top secret" information; 36, "secret" information; and another eight "confidential" information). Moreover, Clinton's team wrongly purged ― at a minimum ― "thousands" of work-related emails. (And I'm putting aside entirely here the 2,000 emails on Clinton's server that were later "up-classified.") At what point does this harm become foreseeable, and not seeing it ― when you're one of the best-educated, smartest, most experienced public servants in U.S. history, as your political team keeps reminding us ― become evidence of "intent"? Comey's answer? Never.

Indeed, Comey instead makes the positively fantastical observation that "none [of the emails Clinton didn't turn over but was supposed to] were intentionally deleted." The problem is, by Comey's own admission all of those emails were intentionally deleted, under circumstances in which the problems with that deletion would not just have been evident to "any reasonable person" but specifically were clear ― the context proves it ― to Clinton herself. During her four years as Secretary of State Clinton routinely expressed concern to staff about her own and others' email-storage practices, establishing beyond any doubt that not only was Clinton's literal key-pressing deliberate ― the "knowing" standard ― but also its repeated, systemic effect was fully appreciated by her in advance. Likewise, that her attorneys were acting entirely on their own prerogative, without her knowledge, is a claim no jury would credit.

Clinton's attorneys worked Clinton's case in consultation with Clinton ― that's how things work. In other words, Clinton's lawyers are not rogue actors here. So when Comey says, "They [Clinton and her team] deleted all emails they did not produce for State, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery," we have to ask, what possible reason would an attorney have for wiping a server entirely within their control to ensure that no future court order could access the permanently deleted information? In what universe is such behavior not actual consciousness of guilt with respect to the destruction of evidence? Because we must be clear: Comey isn't saying Clinton and her lawyers accidentally put these emails outside even a hypothetical future judicial review; they did so intentionally.

There's that word again.

The result of these actions? The same as every other action Clinton took that Comey somehow attributes no intent to: a clear legal benefit to Clinton and a frustration, indeed an obstruction, of the FBI's investigation. As Comey said on July 5th, the FBI can't know how many emails are "gone" (i.e., permanently) because of Clinton and her team's intentional acts after-the-fact. So Comey is quite literally telling us that the FBI couldn't conclude their investigation with absolute confidence that they had all the relevant facts, and that the reason for this was the intentional destruction of evidence by the subject of the investigation at a time when there was no earthly reason to destroy evidence except to keep it from the FBI.

In case you're wondering, no, you don't need a legal degree to see the problem there.

As an attorney, I can't imagine destroying evidence at a time I knew it was the subject of a federal investigation. And if I ever were to do something like that, I would certainly assume that all such actions would later be deemed "intentional" by law enforcement, as my intent would be inferred from my training, knowledge, and experience as an attorney, as well as my specific awareness of a pending federal investigation in which the items I was destroying might later become key evidence. That Clinton and her team repeatedly (and falsely) claimed the FBI investigation was a mere "security review" ― yet another assertion whose falseness was resoundingly noted by Comey in his public statements ― was clearly a transparent attempt to negate intent in destroying those emails. (The theory being, "Well, yes, I destroyed possible evidence just by looking at email headers, but this was all just a 'security review,' right? Not a federal investigation? Even though I knew the three grounds for referral of the case to the FBI, and knew that only one of them involved anything like a 'security review'?")

And certainly, none of this explains Comey's (again) gymnastic avoidance of stating the obvious: that crimes were committed.

Listen to his language on July 5th: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" (emphasis in original) ― actually, let's stop there. You'd expect the second half of that sentence to be something like, "...they nevertheless did violate those laws, despite not intending to." It's the natural continuation of the thought. Instead, Comey, who had prepared his remarks in advance, finished the thought this way: "....there is evidence that they were extremely careless with very sensitive, highly classified information" (emphasis in original).

Note that Comey now uses the phrase "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence," despite using the latter phrase ― a legal phrase ― at the beginning of his July 5th remarks. That matters because at the beginning of those remarks he conceded "gross negligence" would lead to a statutory violation. So why the sudden shift in language, when from a legal standpoint "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are synonymous ― both indicating the presence of a duty of care, the failure to meet that duty, and moreover a repeated failure on this score? Comey also avoids finishing his sentence with the obvious thought: that they may not have intended to violate criminal statutes, but they did nonetheless. Remember that, just like our hypothetical raver may not have intended to commit a Simple Assault by stepping on that poor young woman's foot, he nevertheless could be found to have done so; just so, had Comey accepted the statute as written, Clinton's "gross negligence" would have forced him to end the above sentence with the finding of a statutory violation, even if there had been no "specific intent" to do so.

This is how the law works. For poor black men, just not for rich white women.

5. Comey, along with the rest of Congress, left the impression, much like the Supreme Court did in 2000, that legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses. Not only is this untrue, it also is unspeakably damaging to both our legal system and Americans' understanding of that system's operations.

I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into pretzels to analyze Clinton's actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and a lawyer. Just so, watching Republicans who had no issue with George W. Bush declaring unilateral war in contravention of international law, and who had no issue with the obviously illegal behavior of Scooter Libby in another recent high-profile intel-related criminal case, acting like the rule of law is anything they care about makes me sick. Our government is dirty as all get-out, but the one thing it's apparently clean of is anyone with both (a) legal training, and (b) a sense of the ethics that govern legal practice. Over and over during Comey's Congressional testimony I heard politicians noting their legal experience, and then going on to either shame their association with that august profession or honor it but (in doing so) call into question their inability or unwillingness to do so in other instances.

When Comey says, "any reasonable person should have known" not to act as Clinton did, many don't realize he's quoting a legal standard ― the "reasonable person standard." A failure to meet that standard can be used to establish either negligence or recklessness in a court of law. But here, Clinton wasn't in the position of a "reasonable person" ― the average fellow or lady ― and Comey wasn't looking merely at a "reasonableness" standard, but rather a "purposeful" standard that requires Comey to ask all sorts of questions about Clinton's specific, fully contextualized situation and background that he doesn't appear to have asked. One might argue that, in keeping with Clinton's campaign theme, no one in American political history was more richly prepared ― by knowledge, training, experience, and innate gifts ― to know how to act properly in the situations Clinton found herself. That in those situations she failed to act even as a man or woman taken off the street and put in a similar situation would have acted is not indicative of innocence or a lack of specific intent, but the opposite. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what Clinton did, the most exquisitely prepared person for the situations in which Clinton found herself must in fact have been providing prosecutors with prima facie evidence of intent by failing to meet even the lowest threshold for proper conduct. Comey knows this; any prosecutor knows this. Maybe a jury would disagree with Comey on this point, but his job is to assume that, if he zealously advocates for this extremely powerful circumstantial case, a reasonable jury, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the government, would see things his way.

Look, I can't possibly summarize for anyone reading this the silly nonsense I have seen prosecutors indict people for; a common saying in the law is that the average grand jury "would indict a ham sandwich," and to be clear that happens not because the run-of-the-mill citizens who sit on grand juries are bloodthirsty, but because the habitual practice of American prosecutors is to indict first and ask questions later ― and because indictments are absurdly easy to acquire. In other words, I've seen thousands of poor people get over-charged for either nonsense or nothing at all, only to have their prosecutors attempt to leverage their flimsy cases into a plea deal to a lesser charge. By comparison, it is evident to every defense attorney of my acquaintance that I've spoken to that James Comey bent over backwards to not indict Hillary Clinton ― much like the hundreds of state and federal prosecutors who have bent over backwards not to indict police officers over the past few decades. Every attorney who's practiced in criminal courts for years can smell when the fix is in ― can hear and see when the court's usual actors are acting highly unusually ― and that's what's happened here. The tragedy is that it will convince Americans that our legal system is fundamentally about what a prosecutor feels they can and should be able to get away with, an answer informed largely, it will seem to many, by various attorneys' personal temperaments and political prejudices.

No one in America who's dedicated their life to the law can feel any satisfaction with how Hillary Clinton's case was investigated or ultimately disposed of, no more than we can feel sanguine about prosecutors whose approach to poor black defendants is draconian and to embattled police officers positively beatific. What we need in Congress, and in prosecutor's offices, are men and women of principle who act in accordance with their ethical charge no matter the circumstances. While James Comey is not a political hack, and was not, I don't believe, in any sense acting conspiratorially in not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, I believe that, much like SCOTUS did not decide in the 2000 voting rights case Bush v. Gore, Comey felt that this was a bad time for an executive-branch officer to interfere with the workings of domestic politics. Perhaps Comey had the best of intentions in not doing his duty; perhaps he thought letting voters, not prosecutors, decide the 2016 election was his civic duty. Many Democrats could wish the Supreme Court had felt the same way in 2000 with respect to the role of judges. But the fact remains that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different class and hue.

To have prosecuted Clinton, said Comey, he would need to have seen "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or....efforts to obstruct justice..." When Comey concludes, "we do not see those things here," America should ― and indeed must ― wonder what facts he could possibly be looking at, and, moreover, what understanding of his role in American life he could possibly be acting upon. The answers to these two questions would take us at least two steps forward in discussing how average Americans are treated by our increasingly dysfunctional system of justice.

Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

[Jul 11, 2016] Letter signed by over 200 members of Congress demanding answers from FBI Director Comey

Neoliberal MSM response to latest FBI director Comey testimony is a textbook example of brainwashing (or groupthink). It shows to me again that you need to go to the source watch at least the fragments of the testimony on YouTube. It deadly serious situation for Hillary. No person with even cursory knowledge of security can avoid thinking that she should be in jail. Republicans know it and will not let her off the hook. Probably special prosecutor will be appointed. See for example https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/House-Letter-to-FBI-Director-1.pdf
Now Comey is under strong fire and need to save his own skin. You can tell anything about Republican members of House of Representative, but it is now quite clear to me that several of them are brilliant former lawyers/prosecutor/judges.
From now on they will block all attempt to swipe this matter under the carpet and unless Hillary withdraw they might try to implicate Obama in the cover-up (and they have facts: he recklessly corresponded with her on this account).

They already requested all FBI files on Clinton. Soon they will have all the dirty laundering from Hillary server and FBI probably recovered most of it.

From this point it is up-hill battle for Obama, and might well think about finding appropriate sacrificial lamp NOW. My impression is that she lost her chance to became the President. With FBI files in hand, In four month they can do so much damage that she would be better to take her toys and leave the playground.

And this topic hopefully already influence super-delegates. I think her best option now is give Sanders a chance. Because the real threat now is not that she will go to jail. She belongs to the elite and is above the law. Now the real threat is that all her close associates might.

judiciary.house.gov

On Tuesday, the FBI assumed the role of prosecutor and not simply investigator and took the unprecedented act of proclaiming that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Based on the perception that a decision has been made by the FBI that has seemingly ignored facts that the FBI itself found in its own investigation, we have additional questions that are aimed at ensuring that the cloud which now hovers over our justice system is at least minimally pierced:

1) As a former prosecutor, please explain your understanding of the legal difference between actions performed with "gross negligence" and those done "extremely carelessly." How did you determine that "extreme carelessness" did not equate to "gross negligence?"

2) You said that no reasonable prosecutor would decide to prosecute the Clinton case on the evidence found by FBI agents during the Bureau's investigation over the past year. We have multiple former prosecutors in Congress, and it is not far-fetched for many of us to envision a successful prosecution of someone for doing far less than that which was committed by Secretary Clinton. Is your statement not an indictment and prejudgment against any Assistant United States Attorney who is now tasked with reviewing the evidence you presented Tuesday? In your judgment, does it not follow that you would think that a prosecutor who moved forward with the instant prosecution of Secretary Clinton would be "unreasonable?"

3) Are you aware of any internal opinions by FBI agents or management who were intimately aware of the Clinton investigation which differed from your eventual decision to not recommend the case for prosecution?

4) You mentioned that Top Secret Special Access Programs (SAPs) were included in emails sent and received by Secretary Clinton. SAP material is some of the most highly classified and controlled material of the U.S. Government. If an agency of the U.S. Government were to encounter similar information from a foreign adversary, it would be extremely valuable data for us to exploit. Did the FBI assess how SAP information, due to its controlled nature, ever made it onto unclassified systems that were not air-gapped or physically blocked from outside Internet access? Is it not "gross negligence" to permit such SAP data to leave the confines of the most protective and secure governmental enclaves? Or even "intentional" conduct that allowed that to happen?

5) You mentioned that this investigation stemmed from a referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to determine whether classified information had been transmitted on an unclassified personal system. Following your investigation, it is clear that Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information on an unclassified system. Secretary Clinton on multiple occasions has said that she did not send or receive classified information or information marked as classified.3 In light of your decision to also not refer a false statements charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for prosecution, we can only presume that Secretary Clinton admitted during her interview with your agents that she, in fact, sent and received emails containing classified information. Please confirm.

6) Are you aware of whether any deleted emails which the FBI was able to forensically recover from Secretary Clinton's servers pertained to the Clinton Foundation?

7) You stated Tuesday, "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account." Is the FBI's Counterintelligence Division still involved in determining the level of damage related to possible exploitation of Secretary Clinton's or her associates' email accounts and other communications?

8) If the FBI performed a background check on an applicant for employment with the FBI or elsewhere in the U.S. Government, and that applicant engaged in conduct committed by Secretary Clinton, would a security clearance ever be granted to that person?

[Jul 11, 2016] Chaffetz, Goodlatte Request Perjury Investigation of Hillary Clinton

Notable quotes:
"... "The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony. In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes." ..."
"... The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony. In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes. ..."
July 11, 2016 | oversight.house.gov

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia requesting an investigation into whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements when testifying under oath before Congress.

The letter states:

"The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony. In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes."

Background:

During a July 5, 2016 hearing before the House Oversight Committee, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary Clinton's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation. According to Director Comey the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation into Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony.

Additionally, Chairman Chaffetz sent a letter to Director Comey requesting the FBI's full investigative file from its review of former Secretary Clinton's use of an authorized private email server.

Chairman Goodlatte sent a letter to Director Comey pressing for more information about the FBI's investigation and also led a letter signed by over 200 members of Congress demanding answers from FBI Director Comey regarding the many questions surrounding his announcement that he does not recommend federal prosecution against former Secretary Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information through private email servers.

Full text of letter:

The Honorable Channing D. Phillips
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
555 Fourth Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Phillips:

We write to request an investigation to determine whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees.

While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary Clinton's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation. Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony. Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony. We are writing for that purpose.

The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony. In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

[Jul 10, 2016] DOJ Will Not File Charges Against Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - Slashdot

Notable quotes:
"... at the time they were sent or received ..."
politics.slashdot.org

              • Re: Yawn ( Score: 5 , Informative)
                by acoustix ( 123925 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:38AM ( #52462645 ) Homepage 18 USC 793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any documentthrough gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custodyor having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody.shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires.

                18 USC 1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

                18 USC 798. This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Statesany classified informationshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

                18 USC 2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control. Reply to This Parent Share

                  • Re: Yawn ( Score: 1 )
                    by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28PM ( #52467767 ) The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server.
                • Re: Yawn ( Score: 2 )
                  by NicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @05:12PM ( #52466115 ) A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English.

                  Especially since we're talking about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:

                  18 USC 793: "Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The definition [wikipedia.org] starts with extreme carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head ("conscious and voluntary")? That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure.

                  18 USC 1924: Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said that. Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server, strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.

                  18 USC 798: Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.

                  18 USC 2071: You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.

          • Re: Yawn ( Score: 2 , Informative)
            by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28AM ( #52462567 ) Comey didn't say that she leaked anything. He said that she didn't properly safeguard classified information.

            However, there was no intent to leak information, nor is there evidence that anything was leaked. Comey searched high and low for a precedent which would allow him to bring charges, and he concluded that if he indicted Clinton, he would probably have to indict a significant portion of the federal bureaucracy.

            Hard to bring criminal charges for utilizing a bad process. "Should have known better" isn't a criminal offense.

            Actually, you are wrong, it is a criminal offense. Anyone given classified information is briefed on the proper use and handling of said classified information. The law, under 18 USC 793 subsection (f) actually states that any form of information that through gross negligence is removed from it's proper place of custody is subject to criminal fines or up to 10 years in prison.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

            Information that the Secretary of State has that she transmits to her subordinates on an unsecured email server does meet the requirement of "gross negligence".

            So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as written.

        • Re: Yawn ( Score: 2 )
          by gzuckier ( 1155781 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:17PM ( #52464359 ) What leaks do you need? If what Comey said wasn't enough nothing will satisfy you. He said she's a total fuckwit but her last name is Clinton so his hands are tied.

          do you read the papers? every time a high profile investigation of anybody comes up with nothing, the prosecutor has a press conference details all the terrible things they found.
          if they found serious stuff they would have filed charges, they would look like they did their job, and let the courts decide whether to let her off the hook or not.
          if "the fix is in" then they wouldn't be announcing all this stuff in the first place.

                  • Re:Hillary concerned about legitimacy ? ( Score: 2 )
                    by NicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) writes: on Friday July 08, 2016 @12:28AM ( #52468537 ) He has only admitted an account. He has not said where the account was. Widespread suspicion is that it was on a server set up by the Republican National Committee (gwb43.com was the most prominent example), because that's the service most of the White House used, and it auto-erased everything (to prevent FOIAs, etc.) which is consistent with his total inability to supply any emails he sent while at State. If so, that would be roughly as secure as an account set up by Clinton campaign staff. It would also explain his reluctance to specify a service. gwb43.com came to light because it was used to decide which US Prosecutors should be fired for disloyalty to the GOP, and that would not be good for his image.

                    Note that even if he used a service from a big company? Could be Hotmail. Could be AOL.

                    Regardless, if something is considered authorized for reasons a), b), and probably d) (Kerry had to ban all private email accounts, I just used that server word because that's what we're talking about); then even assuming you've disproven point c) the legal system will consider the entire act authorized and let Hillary go.

                    This would make a fascinating ethics case. You could possibly penalize her by withdrawing her security clearance. But putting thios shit in the ourt system was just stupid.

            • Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 1 )
              by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:36AM ( #52461905 ) Citation: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

              Sounds like it's more than a couple dozen to me.

              Page 21: Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet's introduction. He has publicly written: "To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign -minister colleagues...."

            • Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 2 )
              by NicBenjamin ( 2124018 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:20PM ( #52466545 ) Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private gwb43.com [wikipedia.org] server. This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted all emails after a period of time.

              While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he has admitted [politico.com] that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless nonetheless [cnn.com] he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.

                • Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 1 )
                  by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:05AM ( #52461955 ) Wrong

                  https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

                  "At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell's "internet service or email provider" to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers. The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell's representative conveying this request. As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative."

              • Re: Sanders has an option ( Score: 1 )
                by Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:10PM ( #52464787 ) A lot of people did the same thing and Colin Powell was one of them.

                No. There's a difference here. From FBI director Comey and the State Department:

                More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said.

                The State Department inquiry identified 10 messages sent to Rice's immediate staff that were classified and two sent to Powell, according to Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Benghazi committees.

                The emails, Cummings said, appear to have no classification markings, and it is still unclear if the content of the emails was or should have been considered classified when the emails were originally written and sent.

                It appears that Clinton sent / received over 100 Emails clearly marked "secret" in some form or another; Powell had 2 Emails retroactively classified. Seems like a very narrow distinction, but it's not. Clinton handled 110 messages (those that were found) that were unambiguously marked as classified, Powell did not.

          • Re:Sanders has an option ( Score: 2 )
            by dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @05:01AM ( #52461735 ) Homepage The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network. Regardless of where the server is hosted from.

            A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime. It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified. And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.

            For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required. Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.

            For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to.

            Colin Powell did NOT do the same thing.

              • Re:Sign the petittion... ( Score: 2 )
                by cmiller173 ( 641510 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:56AM ( #52462747 ) Are you seriously trying to make this about a FOIA compliance issue? This has nothing to do with FOIA. She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and we are recommending to not prosecute!

                Powell did not have a private server, and while he did have a personal address there is no evidence that any material that was classified at the time was ever sent to/from it. Politifact rates Clinton's statement that her predecessors did it as "Mostly false"

                "the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m... [theantimedia.org]

                The Government Has Prosecuted Nearly Every Violator of Secrecy Rules Before Hillary Clinton. The Obama administration has filed more charges against those who leak classified information than all previous presidential administrations combined, according to a statement made by CNN's Jake Tapper that was marked "True" by Politifact. http://usuncut.com/politics/cl... [usuncut.com]

                • Re:I would daresay... ( Score: 2 )
                  by Coren22 ( 1625475 ) writes: on Friday July 08, 2016 @04:47PM ( #52474221 ) Journal http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

                  What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.

        • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 5 , Informative)
          by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @08:39PM ( #52460001 ) 18 U.S. Code 793 (f)

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

          (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.

          She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.

          Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was violated.

          Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.

            • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
              by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @10:20PM ( #52460475 )
              through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody

              Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.

              This is beyond a reasonable doubt.

              If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves intent :)

            • Reply to This Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin Share on Google+ Flag as Inappropriate
              • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
                by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:01AM ( #52460869 ) Homepage The words "extremely careless" were chosen carefully to avoid saying "negligent". To be careless is to be ignorant of the required security procedures, while to be ignorant is to know what's proper and required, and choosing to not attempt to follow it. If you're going to go down that road, you'll need to establish that the sysadmins responsible for that server were aware of the that the system could hold classified information, and they knew the security requirements necessary to protect a system holding classified information, and chose willingly to leave it unsecured.

                What proof is there that the sysadmins were competent, beyond the faint hope that they should be?

                What proof do you have that she personally put classified information on her server?

                What proof is there that, at the time the server was built, it was intended to hold classified information?

                There are an awful lot of bad things here... certainly enough to say the handling was careless. Unfortunately, without an absolutely solid case for a particular and completely-provable allegation, a successful prosecution is extremely unlikely, and would not serve the cause of justice in any meaningful way.

                • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
                  by dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:27AM ( #52461887 ) Homepage This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified on it.

                  You don't get to be careless with classified information.
                  The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?

                  This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.

                  The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified networks.

                  But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.

              • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
                by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @11:57PM ( #52460841 ) Homepage That email about the fax proves only that a particular message was requested to be transmitted in an insecure manner. That does not mean the contents of the fax were sensitive or that removing the markings was improper. As I understand, the subject of the fax was a set of talking points for a speech, which were sensitive only in that they were not yet publicly released. If there was indeed a classified piece of information in the fax, it could have been sanitized prior to the insecure transmission. Without seeing the classified version, it is impossible to tell.

                It's not "moving the goal post" to point out that your kick fell far short. Again, consider that a prosecution would be arguing before a court of law. Nothing is obvious, and nothing is beyond question. If you want to prove something, you have to show your entire case.

                  • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
                    by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:20PM ( #52468021 ) Homepage Actually, yes, you can usually just remove markings from (or more precisely, rewrite without markings) unclassified material that's on a secure system. The unclassified material doesn't need to be "declassified" because it was never classified to begin with. That includes unclassified parts of a larger document that's marked as containing classified information, and by the same extension it applies to unclassified data on computer systems that are marked as containing classified data.

                    What's important is that no classified information actually gets out of the secure environment. Nobody cares about other information, with a few exceptions.

            • "Remove markings and send non-secure" ( Score: 2 )
              by raymorris ( 2726007 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:22AM ( #52463387 ) Journal She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them."

              I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal.

            • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
              by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @08:38PM ( #52467483 ) She consciously refused a state.gov email account.

              She voluntarily setup a private email server.

              Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong, makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.

              tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry and lives with whatever email it's configured with.

          • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 1 )
            by P. I. Staker ( 3958187 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:02AM ( #52463239 ) I'm sure this is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to prosecute, even when the letter of the law has been definitively broken. Obviously, this is how it should work, but in many cases laws regarding handling of protected information are prosecuted with extreme discretion. In other words, charges are often not brought unless there is intent and/or aggravating factors, even when the law has clearly been broken as written. Really we need someone with substantial legal experience in this specific area to comment (I won't hold my breath for that). Despite the fact that the above code is fairly straight forward, I don't feel qualified to assess the FBI's conclusion: "Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," (James Comey). I'm not addressing whether or not it makes sense to use discretion in these cases. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate and sets a double standard; it's not like someone selling drugs will not get prosecuted because there was no intent to cause addiction. That said, I don't make the rules, and I really don't think most people in this forum are qualified to judge whether she is getting preferential treatment by applying the letter of the law, combined with the way that other laws are prosecuted (and the way laws should be prosecuted). The reality is that, right or wrong, this is not how laws regarding handling of sensitive information are applied. For the record, I despise Hillary & the Clintons and will not vote for her, even though the alternative is at least as terrible. Reply to This Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin Share on Google+ Flag as Inappropriate
            • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
              by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @08:42PM ( #52467511 ) I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.

              Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding with a warning, is discretion.

              But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.

        • Re:FBI director announced she IS guilty, won't pro ( Score: 2 )
          by dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:09AM ( #52461843 ) Homepage No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.

          Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence. When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.

      • Wrong ( Score: 3 , Informative)
        by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:33PM ( #52459649 ) He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight of those emails carried top secret information , eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.

        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/no-charges-clinton-emails-fbi-director-article-1.2699441

      • Re:No justice ( Score: 3 )
        by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @09:11PM ( #52460137 ) I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...

        It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "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." The FBI characterization of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with disclosure of classified material; "grossly negligent" is the legal term associated with the threshold for felony mishandling of classified information.

        The FBI statement is also very clear on the security classification of what they found, which is why I think you're reading something else.

        110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

        That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com]

      • Re:No justice ( Score: 2 )
        by dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:43AM ( #52462061 ) Homepage It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not. It was exposed.

        As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall (highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified. There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked. That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.

        The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).

    • Re:No justice ( Score: 1 )
      by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:36PM ( #52459661 ) Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws actually applied to me.
      • Re:No justice ( Score: 2 , Insightful)
        by argumentsockpuppet ( 4374943 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @09:56PM ( #52460371 ) I support the NSA and I also support Snowden. Snowden did a brave and terrifying thing that needed to happen, that needed to be done, knowing the consequences he faced. The NSA is a good organization with many good people doing what they need to do with love for their countrymen in their hearts and honor in their actions. Some people in the NSA made bad, perhaps even evil decisions. Sometimes bad people get put in positions they shouldn't be, and sometimes people with power, even good people, make decisions that are bad.

        Supporting the NSA doesn't mean I support all the decisions or people that are a part of it. I believe the NSA did some bad things, but that doesn't mean I think the organization is bad or comprised of bad people.

        What Snowden did may have been illegal, but it was a choice to do what he believed was right. For what it's worth I believe it was right too. I think it is a terrible thing to have to choose between following the law and doing what is right when the two are mutually exclusive.

        The US justice system was designed intentionally to have people determine not only whether the law was followed, but also whether the law should apply. Snowden should be able to face a court of his peers and plead his case and that jury should be able to make a judgement not based on the law, but on whether what he did was wrong or right. It disturbs and saddens me to realize I don't trust that he could receive such a fair trial.

      • We could always bring back Star Chambers ( Score: 2 )
        by hwstar ( 35834 ) writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @09:25PM ( #52460195 ) From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

        The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.

        The constitution would need to be modified, however.

          • You've not heard of the Petraeus case? ( Score: 2 )
            by GPS Pilot ( 3683 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @08:27PM ( #52467409 ) The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying, or in Manning's case, whistleblowing

            I'm surprised that you've not heard of the David Petraeus case.

            In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA. Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.
                • Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 1 )
                  by cold fjord ( 826450 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:04AM ( #52461069 ) Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence officer with Top Secret clearance and had served in the war zone. She used the information (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)

                  As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.

                  Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.

                  Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton [dailycaller.com]

                      • Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 2 )
                        by dwillden ( 521345 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:21AM ( #52462927 ) Homepage Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information was included in her product.

                        Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.

                        The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.

                  • Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 2 )
                    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:52PM ( #52468371 ) You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.)

                    She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce.

                    Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.

          • Re:I wonder if they'll cancel Petraeus's sentence ( Score: 2 )
            by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:24AM ( #52463403 )
            She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her.

            She has said that. She has also made the same statement without the word "marked".

            I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying.

            The fact that she phrased her statement so carefully actually shows the opposite: even if literally true, that statement is intended to deceive.

            Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.

            I don't disagree much with Clinton politically as far as I know (it's hard to know what she really believes); I actually used to be a registered Democrat until a few years ago.

            I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.

[Jul 10, 2016] Here Are The 23 Classified Memos Sidney Blumenthal Sent To Hillary Clinton

dailycaller.com
by Chuck Ross

Of the dozens of intelligence memos that Sidney Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state, 23 contained information classified as "Confidential" or "Secret," a Daily Caller analysis shows.

Sending nearly two dozen sensitive emails makes Blumenthal, a former journalist and aide in the Bill Clinton White House, one of Clinton's most prolific sharers of classified information. The Democratic presidential candidate herself sent 104 emails containing classified information, The Washington Post found .

Some of Clinton's State Department aides, such as chief of staff Cheryl Mills and deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, sent dozens of emails which contain now-classified information. Jake Sullivan, Clinton's top foreign policy adviser, sent 215 now-classified messages.

But the Blumenthal memos are especially intriguing because the longtime Clinton ally did not work for the government. Instead, during the period that he sent Clinton memos, he was working for the Clinton Foundation as well as for several non-profit organizations with close ties to the Clintons. He also worked during some of that period as an editor for The Daily Beast.

Here is a complete list of Blumenthal's classified memos and emails:

2009

2010

2011

2012

[Jul 10, 2016] http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/06/06/hillary-clinton-emailed-names-of-us-intelligence-officials-unclassified/

antiwar.com

Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of US Intelligence Officials, Unclassified

Peter Van Buren, June 06, 2016 Print This | Share This | Comment These are facts.

You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.

From a series of Clinton emails, numerous names were redacted in the State Department releases with the classification code "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 by exposing the names of CIA officials.

How FOIA Works

The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of a document, that do not fall under a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted to allow the rest of the document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing a specific reason for exclusion.

But don't believe me. Instead, look at page two of this State Department document which lists the exemptions.

Note specifically the different types of "(b)(3)" redactions, including "CIA PERS/ORG." As common sense would dictate, the government will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process. It would - literally - be against the law. What law? Depending on the nature of the individual's job at CIA, National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917.

Names of CIA, NSA Officials Mentioned, Now Redacted

Yet Hillary's emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term "(b)(3) CIA PERS/ORG" Click on the links and see for yourself:

There are also numerous instances of exposure of the names and/or email addresses of NSA employees ("B3 NSA"); see page 23 inside this longer PDF document.

Why It Matters

BONUS: There is clear precedent for others going to jail for exposing CIA names. Read the story of John Kiriakou .

A Personal Aside: I just remain incredulous about these revelations seeming to mean nothing to the world. They're treated in the media as almost gossip.

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

tom a month ago
So if Hillary is elected and she takes the USA into WW3 by continuing to harass Russia and supporting terrorists, and the USA is finally attacked like the USA attacks other nations, are not the people who supported Clinton, and the Clintons themselves, fair game for some sort of retribution? When are these obvious war crimes going to be met with some sort of justice? There is a story well-known by now of how a group f German soldiers tried to assassinate Hitler and failed. Well, the FBI and DOJ have every opportunity to stop another Hitler before she acquires more leverage to reign down death and destruction on America's "enemies". Will they do their job or will we in 10 tens be wondering what could have been?
    • Avatar
      BrotherJonah tom 19 days ago
      While and at the same time doing much business with Russia, and China, and all of the newly conquered (but not very conquered) puppet dictatorships like Iraq and Libya. The first real indication we'll get is if the Halliburton operatives get pulled out. I haven't seen a mass exodus of pipeline workers coming back to the states. My lowly position as an ex-Halliburton worker (they literally broke me and then abandoned me. I can't walk two blocks without extreme pain for an uncompensated on-the-job injury 23 years ago) gives me a unique vantage no CIA spook can ever get. Unless you were to talk some Harvard Princesses to get up on a damned ladder or roughneck on an oil rig or pipeline. On our level we get a larger view of what's going on. Like for instance, Sudan was invaded by Halliburton years before the Libyan coup. How does that matter? The nation is landlocked and the only direction they can point a pipe to the Med is through Libya. Shell and Exxon want to export the extorted oil so they had to take down Libya. Roll the dice. Also by publishing the names of the agents who were previously outed, we'd be doing the exact same thing. Prove that those agents were endangered and wham bam thank you ma'am they'll be even more endangered. The alternative would be a secret trial. Which happens.
  • Avatar
    Tonyandoc a month ago
    It seems that HRC may become POTUS, thanks to the actions of DNC, DWS and the MSM and the inaction of the FBI and DOJ - much to the relief of the MIC, CIA and NSA and the satisfaction of the TBTF banks and the RDA*.
    The rest of us are FUCD.
    * I made this one up; it stands for "Revolving Door Apparatchiks".
  • Avatar
    Tired_of_poor_healthcare a month ago
    The media has been bought and paid for. There is no longer news reporting, only propaganda recitation. Statistically, most people are followers. Let's hope there are a few principled public servants at the FBI to help save our country.
  • Avatar
    liveload a month ago
    An external IT audit is necessary in this case, if it hasn't already been ordered. Who gave the approval to set this thing up? Where is the documentation requesting access to the State's servers? Who signed off on that? Who verified that approval? Who processed the request and what verification did the approvals undergo?

    An IT auditor would rip State several new orifices with which to excrete solid waste matter.

  • [Jul 08, 2016] Despite FBI findings, experts say Clinton's email likely hacked

    POLITICO
    Wright noted that while the State Department's information technology budget trails many other departments, Clinton's arrangement was likely still more vulnerable because it was administered by many people without a cybersecurity background.

    "When you take a bad situation and put something else bad on top of it you've made it far worse," he told POLITICO.

    And the countries interested in going after Clinton's emails all possess advanced cyber capabilities, experts said. The federal government has determined that Chinese hackers have been snooping on personal email accounts of top U.S. officials for years and just last year Secretary of State John Kerry said it is "likely" that Russian and Chinese hackers are reading his emails.

    As for Israel, hackers would have targeted Clinton's emails to glean her positions on Middle East issues, according to Wright.

    "They're friendly … but even friendlies can get aggressive on spying on each other," he said.

    Clinton also accessed her private email "extensively" while traveling, Comey said, "including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."

    This practice considerably heightened the risk of compromise, particularly if Clinton used unencrypted pathways to access her email while abroad, said Jason Straight, chief privacy officer of UnitedLex, which advises corporations on cybersecurity practices.

    Comey also said FBI investigators determined that hackers had infiltrated the private commercial email accounts of people that regularly emailed Clinton's personal account, opening up another potential entry point for digital snoops.

    The FBI chief didn't name these outside contacts, leading some, including Wright, to wonder if there would be further investigation into the emails of top aides, like Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin.

    But while there are considerable factors pointing to a likely intrusion, there may never be a smoking gun, according to specialists.

    "The bottom line is that we will likely never know for certain whether her server was compromised or not," said Straight.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Elizabeth Warren's AWKWARD Tweet Might Upset Hillary -

    www.youtube.com

    Jul 7, 2016 | YouTube

    Elizabeth Warren tweeted about holding public officials accountable. Nobody is above the law, not even public officials, she tweeted. She is the leading candidate to be Hilary Clinton's VP, a public official who is above the law.

    Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

    Subscribe Here ▶ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

    Full audio version of The Jimmy Dore Show on iTunes ▶ https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-...

    Join our community by liking, commenting and sharing to help us reach a wider audience. Keep it positive!

    Strong independent media depends on your support. Here's how to contribute:
    ▶ Become a premium member ▶ http://www.JimmyDoreComedy.com
    ▶ Use this Amazon link to do your shopping (Bookmark it!) ▶ http://www.amazon.com/?tag=comedylink...

    [Jul 08, 2016] FBI Invents A New Standard To Let Hillary Clinton Off The Hook - YouTube

    www.youtube.com

    Published on Jul 7, 2016

    FBI Director James Comey announced there would be no charges for Hillary relating to her reckless use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

    Jimmy Dore breaks it down.

    Subscribe Here ▶ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

    Full audio version of The Jimmy Dore Show on iTunes ▶ https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/the-...

    [Jul 08, 2016] Now Chaffetz Wants Clinton's Lawyers Prosecuted For Defending Her

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton gave lawyers without any security clearance access to her classified emails. ..."
    YouTube

    Hillary Clinton gave lawyers without any security clearance access to her classified emails.

    [Jul 08, 2016] 12 highlights of FBI Director Comey's testimony on Clinton email investigation WJLA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date. ..."
    "... Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system. ..."
    "... Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well ..."
    wjla.com

    House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed.

    ... ... ...

    While Comey maintained that nobody else would face criminal prosecution for doing the same things Clinton did, he emphasized in his testimony that there would be consequences if a current government employee did it. This could include termination, administrative sanctions, or losing clearance.

    He refused to definitively assess a hypothetical situation where someone like Clinton was seeking security clearance for an FBI job, though.

    ... ... ...

    Gmail: One aspect of Clinton's actions that Comey said was particularly troubling was that he could not completely exclude the possibility that her email account was hacked. Unlike the State Department or even email providers like Gmail, Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date.

    ... ... ...

    Clearance: Clinton and her top aides had security clearance to view the classified material that was improperly being transmitted on the server, but Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton Foundation: Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well

    [Jul 08, 2016] Chaffetz promises referral to FBI on Clinton testimony for perjury

    POLITICO

    During the same exchange, Chaffetz inquired as to whether the FBI investigated Clinton's statements to the Benghazi committee, including her declaration that there was "nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received."

    "Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress," Comey responded, noting that such a probe would usually require a referral from Congress.

    Chaffetz responded with a chuckle, "You'll have one. You'll have one in the next few hours."

    Megyn Kelly shows video of Hillary Clinton lying and FBI director James Comey calling her out - YouTube

    [Jul 08, 2016] Buck To Comey Did You Rewrite Federal Law

    Jul 7, 2016 | YouTube

    Rep. Ken Buck questions FBI Director James Comey about his insertion of the term "willfully" into 18 U.S. Code § 1924. Comey says he "imputes" the term in line with the Department of Justice's history/tradition of enforcing the statute.

    The above clip is taken from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hearing regarding Hillary Clinton's criminal email conduct.

    Also see

    [Jul 08, 2016] Jason Chaffetz Digs in on Comey at Start of Capitol Hearing 'We Are Mystified and Confused' - YouTube

    www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    Everybody knows that Hillary Clinton created a secret hidden computer server to evade the "Freedom of Information Act". James Comey knows she violated that Federal Law but he did not even look in to it. Plus he did not even look in to her lying to Congress ! Bravo to Congressman Jason Chaffetz drilling Comey

    [Jul 08, 2016] Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails 7-7-16

    That was very impressive... This is the first time question of signing of NDA by Hillary Clinton and her aides. See all hearing Full Congressional Hearing With FBI Director James Comey 7-7-2016 - YouTube
    In full transcript Ke Buck ask interesting question at 1:55. Lawyer did not have any security clearances 4:09 and 11:25
    Jul 7, 2016 | YouTube

    Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails. Hillary Clinton Email Investigation FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers while serving as secretary of state, as well as the decision to not recommend criminal charges against her. Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department.

    At a congressional hearing Thursday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled FBI director James Comey about several of Hillary Clinton's statements to the public, which the FBI investigation revealed to be untrue. For instance, Clinton had previously claimed that she had never received or sent classified information to or from her private email server; Comey conceded to Rep. Gowdy that that was not true.

    Another claim of Clinton's, which the investigation revealed to be untrue, was that she had retained all work-related emails. Comey noted that they had uncovered "thousands" of work-related emails not returned to the State Department. "In the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon," Gowdy concluded after running through a catalogue of Clinton's claims, "I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements."

    But Gowdy determined that "false exculpatory statements" can be used to determine intention and consciousness of guilt.

    Wesley Eskildsen

    Is this guy a Starfish from Bikini Bottom!? If Hillary gave her Lawyer, or anyone without the proper Security Clearance AND the "Need to know", access to her Server containing classified information then she is in violation of Federal Law. If she were on active Duty she would be court-martialed. that is Chaffetz point exactly!

    John Doe

    As a democrat, I am disgusted that every member of my party, when givin the opportunity to ask some questions, not one of these cowards asked a real question and instead focussed on basically explaining about what a wonderful human being Hillary Clinton is, and what terrible people the republicans are....

    Wayne Paul

    This chick Maloney just throwing softballs I have no clue why she is even talking.

    aadrgtagtwe aaqerytwerhywerytqery

    Comey is a liar, look at his reaction when asked about what questions did FBI ask hillary during the 3 and a half hour interview. He said he couldn't remember at the moment. How is that possible? The only question to ask hillary during the fbi interview was: "Did you send and receive classified top secret emails through your servers?"

    Both answers Hillary could have given, would have been enough to indict her. If she said "Yes", then she would have been indicted for sending top secret info. If she said "No" , she would have lied, because the report that Comey presented said that "top secret emails were sent and received, and they were top secret at the time they were sent and received. Fbi didn't ask that question at all. That tells you that the whole interview was a sham, Hillary was never interviewed.

    The propaganda-media reported "hillary was grilled by fbi during 3 and a half hour interview". What unbelievable bullshit! WE WANT JUSTICE!!!!!!!!! For all those people who are now in jail for the rest of their lives for doing much less than the criminal-hillary!!!!!!!

    [Jul 08, 2016] F.B.I. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From G.O.P.

    www.nytimes.com

    The New York Times

    he also provided new details that could prove damaging to her just weeks before she is to be named the Democrats' presidential nominee.

    At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the F.B.I.'s investigation.

    Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.

    [Jul 08, 2016] State department reopens its own investigation into Hillary Clinton emails

    The announcement comes after FBI Director Comey said Clinton was "extremely careless" when she used her personal server during her tenure with the State Department
    Notable quotes:
    "... Spokesman John Kirby says the emails probe is restarting now that the Department of Justice isn't pursuing a criminal prosecution. The Department of State suspended its review in April to avoid interfering with the FBI's inquiry. ..."
    "... But Kirby said this week former officials can still face "administrative sanctions". The most serious is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton's naming of a national security team if she becomes president. ..."
    "... the probe is most likely examining confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The state department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides.

    Spokesman John Kirby says the emails probe is restarting now that the Department of Justice isn't pursuing a criminal prosecution. The Department of State suspended its review in April to avoid interfering with the FBI's inquiry.

    Kirby set no deadline for the investigation's completion.

    Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter.

    But Kirby said this week former officials can still face "administrative sanctions". The most serious is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton's naming of a national security team if she becomes president.

    Beyond the Democratic frontrunner, the probe is most likely examining confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Representative Gary Palmer: she is stunningly incompetent in handling e-mail and classified information

    From comments: "Just last year: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /30862027/ Granted that was two a year probation plus forever not being allowed a security clearance but there is no substantial difference between between their violations. In fact her violations were several magnitudes worse. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney. ..."
    "... Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail. ..."
    "... Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York. ..."
    "... He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure. ..."
    "... "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden ..."
    "... Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. ..."
    "... This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this? ..."
    "... Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her... ..."
    "... In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat. ..."
    "... People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job. ..."
    "... Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case. ..."
    "... Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | Ars Technica

    House Oversight Committee grills Comey over Clinton e-mail findings by Sean Gallagher

    "The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing," Chaffetz said in a statement announcing the hearing. "The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation. I thank Director Comey for accepting the invitation to publicly answer these important questions."

    Update, 11:30 am: Eight e-mail threads of the more than 30,000 messages stored on Clinton's server included conversations containing what was determined by State Department and Intelligence Community review to be of the highest level of classification (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information). But that information wasn't marked as such-and much of it was sent to Clinton by her staff from the State Department's unclassified e-mail system. Both Clinton and State Department staff sent messages stored on Clinton's server and on the State Department's unclassified e-mail system that included classified, secret, and Top Secret/SCI information, including names of intelligence community personnel.

    In response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." (Later in his testimony, Comey elaborated that the lack of sophistication was more technical than understanding the importance of protecting classified data.)

    Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney.

    "Based on your answers, and what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent in handling e-mail and classified information," said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), acknowledging Comey's honesty. "For a Secretary of State, that level of carelessness is shocking."

    Chaffetz concluded the hearing with a battery of questions over the people who had access to Clinton's e-mails, including the administrators and lawyers. "She's not the head of Fish and Wildlife," Chaffetz shouted.

    Comey responded that it wasn't unreasonable for Clinton to assume that administrators would not be reading her e-mail. And in other testimony, Comey said that because of the lack of security markings on the vast majority of the content, it was reasonable to assume Clinton believed the contents to be unclassified.

    Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail.

    Update, 1:00 pm: While a statute passed by Congress in 1917 allowed for prosecution based on "gross negligence," Comey said that there were questions about the constitutionality of that statute, and a later statute for misdemeanor offenses based on negligence. He said the decision not to recommend prosecution "fits within a framework of fairness and what the Justice Department has prosecuted over the last 50 years. I don't see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these," continued Comey. "There was one time it was charged in an espionage case, and the defendant pled guilty on another charge so it was never adjudicated."

    The general tone of Comey's testimony was that while Clinton was careless with classified information, virtually none of the information that was sensitive was marked as such. Three e-mail threads included "content markers" at the beginning of paragraphs within the body of messages indicating that the paragraphs included classified information (using a letter "C" in parentheses). In response to a question from Rep. Thomas Massie, Comey said, "Someone down in the chain put a portion marking in the paragraph."

    However, as noted by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, the State Department had said that the content classification markings were in error-that they were preliminary marks from a "call sheet" for Clinton, and should not have been left in the document when it was forwarded to Clinton.

    Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York.

    As for Clinton's comments when asked if she had "wiped" her server: "Do you mean with a cloth?" Comey quipped. "I would assume it was a facetious comment about a cloth, but I wouldn't know that."

    Rommel102
    crustytheclown wrote:

    In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification."

    Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat.

    "Yes, she was," Comey replied.

    This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!

    I didn't read it like that. I think Comey is honestly trying to say that Hillary is just not sophisticated about it, even after decades of being read in to the program.

    He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure.

    TechTuner777Wise ,

    "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden

    iPirateEverything

    Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

    arkielArs

    This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this?

    Is an FBI recommendation a prerequisite to prosecution now? The fact that they found "extremely careless" sounds like factual information upon which charges could be brought (but then again, I don't know the letter of this law).

    IGoBoom
    > These people all wish the rules that they were privvy to the same rules as Hilary Clinton.

    The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".

    MeaildaArs

    Marid wrote:

    The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even more difficult who understands the politics.

    Sub this for the strike: Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her...

    IGoBoomWise,

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q ... archresult Also, here is a sampling of emails tagged with the secure internet the military uses.

    Read them yourselves. Look at the actual PDFs and see all the redacted info. Read the emails and see how there is conversation that directly discusses information that was sent via secure channels.

    crustytheclown

    In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat.

    "Yes, she was," Comey replied.

    This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!

    IGoBoom wrote:

    These people all wish the rules that they were privvy to the same rules as Hilary Clinton.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/co-of- ... d-1.168997 Mishandling of classified materials

    Clinton is not SoS, so they can't fire her

    Quote: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-re ... -materials Mishandling of classified materials, without intent to distribute.

    Lied to the FBI, kept the materials after he was told to delete them.

    Quote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... ck-upheld/ Mishandling of classified materials, in an attempt to prevent an attack that ultimately caused US service members to die.

    Again, was fired, not criminal charges filed

    Quote: The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".

    Coriolanus A, about 19 hours ago

    I did a quick bit of research. The only instance of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being used to prosecute anyone was U.S. v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir., 1978) (which was referenced by Dir. Comey in his press conference and at the House hearing).

    In that case, a civilian mathematician took some classified documents home to proofread. His cousin, who was a Soviet agent, was staying with him and took pictures of the classified work he brought home with him. The cousin later told him he copied the classified materials and gave him $1000 to keep quiet, which he did.

    In that case, the DOJ brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 793(f) because he didn't report that the classified material was copied after he learned about it, and for taking the bribe to remain silent.

    There has never been an instance of the DOJ bringing a 18 U.S.C. 793(f) case against anyone for mere gross negligence alone.

    AlexisR200X Ars Scholae Palatinae

      I have lost all faith in the democracy the US politicians spout. Sounds good but its rotten to the core with secret bullshit behind closed doors actually calling the shots. There is not much point on expecting anything meaningful to come from this circus, its just pretending to look busy and the outcome was already decided long before it even started.

      Last edited by AlexisR200X on Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:34 am

    flatrock Ars Centurion

        iPirateEverything wrote:

        Between a rock and hard place...

        On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone,

      and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president.

      For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

      People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job.

      Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case.

      Prosecuting Hillary would be justified. However, an argument can also be made that without evidence of clear criminal intent, that the voters should not be denied the opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. Even if it's a really bad choice in my opinion.

      The decision not to prosecute can be justified and if the people want to elect someone as President who as Secretary of State put covering her ass and obscuring her actions over the security of the United States, then we will have one more example of how democracy is an imperfect system. I don't think there is a better system overall, but I of course have my own ideas on how our system could be tweaked to make it a bit better.

    benderific about 19 hours ago
    Marid wrote: The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even more difficult.

    Yep. Criminal intent is core to a good persecution.. Simple possession of classified information can be trouble, but these people in state all have clearances. Just from personal job experience, a staggering number of government employees have top secret clearances. It's not like stuff on a private email server was more or less safe than going through official routing. In fact, it's probably a bigger target.

    If this is about how big a liar Hilary Clinton is, I would push people to look over some of the very first presidential campaigns the USA has had to see all sorts of whoppers flying at candidates. This is business as usual. Complete with the totally uninformed public spouting expert technological opinions about things they know nothing about.

    flatrock , about 18 hours ago
    greatn wrote:

    HonorableSoul wrote:
    You all know this is a witch hunt. FBI Comey is doing the right thing in trying to be transparent so as to let voters decide. Still going to vote Hillary and not Trump.

    But this has nothing to do with voting for Hillary or Trump. I don't plan on voting for either one, but that doesn't change what Hillary did, and the fact that her actions received zero consequences, when anyone else would have received life in prison.

    The FBI director has been very clear that no one else has EVER received prison for something like this. In fact, this is a direct quote from him from this hearing: "You know what would be a double standard? If Clinton actually were prosecuted for gross negligence"

    Well there is a significant difference in both the level of negligence and the level of authority of the person involved. Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending.

    As long as Clinton can get elected to public office that requires access to classified data, she can't be denied access simply based on mishandling such data in the past. The voters can elect the representatives they want and have every right to make stupid choices. So basically Clinton violated the law and is avoiding all consequences because she seeks to be an elected official, not a government employee.

    If Clinton manages to escape any consequences it will be because of voters. If she was criminally prosecuted, maybe more voters would realize who they would be voting for, however there seems to be lots of evidence that Hillary supporters just don't care that she is untrustworthy and puts her own ambitions ahead of the country. It's not likely they haven't been presented with enough evidence of that before now.

    danstl , about 18 hours ago
    I think a big take-away here from watching this unfold is that the FBI director is correct in his assertion that Clinton did not lie to the FBI. BUT because she was in charge she bears the responsibility of information handled improperly.

    From the questioning it was brought up that no actual documents classified or greater classification were actually transmitted to/from her email server, BUT transcribed conversations (conversations that happened in person between two or more individuals) that contained classified information was. These message threads all originated from a person lower on the chain and then forwarded around (not just to Clinton's server) through non-classified systems. Sometimes (like in many forwarded emails) only portions of the original messages were maintained (this is common with any forwarded and or quoted email in long chains) and a paragraph for instance would have a [C.] marking at the beginning of the thread, but as it got forwarded around that message was quoted and modified and the marking was removed by another individual (accidentally or on purpose, this is unknown).

    Comey stated that they are not actively investigated the origination of the email chains as that was not part of their original investigation (this is somewhat interesting, but makes sense as it was not in their original investigative scope)

    linnen, about 18 hours ago
    sugarbooger wrote:

    Interesting. Others have been punished more severely for less. from the Military Times

    Quote: When another officer who received the email raised the alarm about sending the document over a nonsecure network, Brezler reported himself to his superiors and cooperated with a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe into the classified material spillage. The probe turned up another folder with some 106 documents marked secret. Brezler said he inadvertently brought them back with him following his 2010 deployment to Now Zad, Afghanistan, where limited resources sometimes meant Marines worked on their personal computers and thumb drives.

    Quote: But a Marine prosecutor said this week that the case was about more than that one communication with Marines in Afghanistan. Brezler knowingly kept classified documents to inform a book he was writing about his Now Zad experiences, said Maj. Chip Hodge, showing that Brezler had copied and pasted a paragraph from the Sarwar Jan document into his manuscript, "Rebirth of Apocalypse Now Zad."

    [Jul 08, 2016] Clinton Email Hairball

    Notable quotes:
    "... I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted? ..."
    "... Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer…because the investigators are reasonable. ..."
    "... What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman. ..."
    "... In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!" ..."
    "... It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act…ever. Can I haz my money back? ..."
    "... When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance? ..."
    "... Can a president operate without having a security clearance? ..."
    "... "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015 ..."
    "... BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor. ..."
    "... In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
    "... Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Clinton Email Hairball

    "Comey and Lynch asked to testify before Congress on Clinton probe" [MarketWatch]. From my armchair at 30,000 feet: If the Republicans really want to make Lynch squirm, they just have to ask Lynch one question, which Comey - strong passive-aggressive move, there, Jim! - handed to them on a silver platter at his presser, yesterday. I've helpfully written it down (quoted phrases from Comey's press release, parsed here):

    Q: Attorney General Lynch, what "security or administrative sanctions" do you feel are appropriate for Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of her email communications at the State Department?

    No speeches instead of questions, no primping on camera for the folks back home, nothing about the endless lying, no Benghazi red meat, no sphincter-driven ranting about "security", tie gormless Trey Gowdy up in a canvas bag and stuff him under a desk. Just ask that one question. And when Lynch dodges, as she will, ask it again. I don't ever recall having written a sentence that includes "the American people want," but what the American people want is to see some member of the elite, some time, any time, held accountable for wrong-doing. If it's Clinton's "turn" for that, then so be it. She should look at the big picture and consider the larger benefit of continued legitimacy for the Republic and take one for the team. So let's see if the Republicans overplay their hand. They always have. UPDATE This is a good, that is, sane letter from Bob Goodlatte (pdf), chair of the House Judiciary Committee (via MsExPat). But don't get down in the goddamned weeds!! K.I.S.S.!!!

    "Comey's solo appearance Tuesday stood out for historical reasons, because it's highly unusual for the FBI to make public findings when investigators have decided no charges should be brought" [CNN]. This purports to be the inside story of how Comey "stood alone" to make the announcement. But there are some holes in the narrative:

    Matthew Miller, the former top Justice spokesman under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey's announcement "outrageous." "The FBI's job is to investigate cases and when it's appropriate to work with the Justice Department to bring charges," he said on CNN. House Republican sides with Comey over Trump on Clinton emails. Instead, Miller said: "Jim Comey is the final arbiter in determining the appropriateness of Hillary Clinton's conduct. That's not his job."

    When you've lost Eric Holder's spokesperson… And then there's this. After Clinton's "long-awaited" Fourth-of-July weekend three hours of testimony:

    Officials said it was already clear that there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges. The interview cemented that decision among FBI and Justice officials who were present. …

    By Monday night, Comey and other FBI officials decided the public announcement should come at the earliest opportunity.

    The fact that Tuesday would also mark the first public campaign appearance by Obama alongside Hillary Clinton didn't enter in the calculation, officials said.

    But as Yves points out, there was no time to write an official report of Clinton's "interview" over the weekend. So for this narrative to work, you've got to form a mental picture of high FBI officials scanning the transcript of Clinton's "interview," throwing up their hands, and saying "We got nuthin'. You take it from here, Jim." That doesn't scan. I mean, the FBI is called a bureau for good reason. So to me, the obvious process violation means that political pressure was brought to bear on Comey, most likely by Obama, despite the denials (those being subject to the Rice-Davies Rule). But Comey did the bare minimum to comply, in essence carefully building a three-scoop Sundae of Accountability, and then handing it, with the cherry ("security or administrative sanctions"), to Lynch, so Lynch could have the pleasant task of making the decision about whether to put the cherry on top. Or not. Of course, if our elites were as dedicated to public service as they were in Nixon's day, there would have been a second Saturday Night Massacre (link for those who came in late), but these are different times. (Extending the sundae metaphor even further, it will be interesting to see if the ice cream shop staff knows what else is back in the freezer, the nuts and syrups that Comey decided not to add; Comey certainly made the ethical case for leaks.)

    "Hillary Clinton's email problems might be even worse than we thought " [Chris Cilizza, WaPo]. Cillizza, for whom I confess a sneaking affection, as for Nooners, isn't the most combative writer in WaPo's stable


    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Re: "Hillary Clinton's great day"

    I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer…because the investigators are reasonable.

    Elizabeth Burton, July 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    The cultish nature of Clinton followers struck me months ago; it's quite plain to anyone who's done any amount of study of cults. The giddy insistence now that the Comey statement is total vindication is a case in point, and any attempt to point out how damning it actually was only brings an "innocent until proven guilty" reply.

    One can only surmise that a large number of people have been so inured to corruption they no longer consider it a negative unless the perpetrator goes to jail; and even then there would likely be more insistence that person was railroaded.

    Tertium Squid, July 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman.

    Tim, July 6, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    On election day hindsight will show the real inversion with the Clintons is:

    In 1990s Bob Dole ran on a platform of having the moral high ground, while Bill Clinton said "it's the economy stupid", and Bill won.

    In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!"

    Isolato, July 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act…ever. Can I haz my money back?

    Kokuanani, July 6, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    Can we hope for that to happen to Clinton? [Why not?]

    Can a president operate without having a security clearance?

    3.14e-9, July 6, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015:

    The United States Attorney charges: THAT BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor.

    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Since the classification program falls under the President by law, it is impossible for a President to not have a security clearance.

    Pookah Harvey, July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Clinton supporters seem to feel the fat lady has sung but it might be they are only hearing someone who is slightly chunky. From Politico:

    On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.

    In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

    Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen.

    [Jul 08, 2016] The Clinton Email Probe and the Question of Gross Negligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect? ..."
    "... Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal? ..."
    "... She was specifically not authorized to have a private server. ..."
    "... "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification." ..."
    "... "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
    "... Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license. ..."
    Jul 5, 2016 | WSJ

    ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence."

    That provision of the Espionage Act, the primary law governing the handling of classified information, could require at least proof that the offender knew the classified information disclosed could harm the United States or benefit a foreign power if it got into the wrong hands.

    But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.

    Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence.

    What would constitute a degree of recklessness that rises to gross negligence? Mr. Vladeck offered an example of accidentally leaving a briefcase stuffed with classified national security secrets on a busy sidewalk in Washington, D.C.

    ... ... ...

    Charles Silva

    Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect?

    Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal?

    Lee Hartwig

    @Charles Silva She was specifically not authorized to have a private server.

    Clifford Crouch

    @Michael Piston

    "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification."

    -FBI Director James Comey, July 5, 2016

    "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

    -James Comey, July 5, 2016

    Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license.

    [Jul 07, 2016] Why the FBI concluded Hillary Clintons email practices did not rise to the level of criminal charges -

    That's baloney: she coped her emails and gave all of the to her private lawyer on the UCB stick.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information. ..."
    "... Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said. ..."
    "... HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together. ..."
    "... But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States. ..."
    "... A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end - ..."
    "... Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary. ..."
    "... Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY. ..."
    "... "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?" ..."
    "... Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. ..."
    "... This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision. ..."
    "... The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge. ..."
    "... The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email….not 30,000 destroyed emails. ..."
    "... Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back. ..."
    "... NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted. ..."
    "... When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb? ..."
    LA Times

    "It's just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. "Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward."

    John M. Deutch, another former CIA director, narrowly avoided a misdemeanor charge for having taken hundreds of top secret files home on his laptop computer. He was pardoned by Clinton before charges were filed.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information.

    However, investigators did not find evidence she knowingly or intentionally disclosed government secrets or that she exposed secrets through gross negligence. Clinton's apparent interest was in maintaining her privacy.

    ... ... ...

    Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said.

    knox.bob.xpg

    No amount of facts, no amount of evidence, and no amount of lies will change the minds of supporters of Hillary Clinton. Her coronation was pre-determined. Ideology is more important to her supporters than the quality of the candidate. While brash, Trump nailed it yesterday. The fix was in and the optics played out.

    HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together.

    Obama would have never done this if Comey's decision was to seek criminal charges. Presidential travel is not spur of the moment, it is carefully planned weeks in advance. So what happened here ? I believe Comey knew that DOJ would not seek criminal charges against her despite the overwhelming evidence of gross negligence.

    Comey "fried" her yesterday and now she will be tried in the court of public opinion. There are simply some people who believe that global warming, income inequality, and transgender bathrooms are more important than ISIS, our economy, terror, or national debt.

    unclesmrgol

    Hillary has been freed from any punishment, for some animals are more important than others.

    But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States.

    That is the new standard, and a mighty fine one it is -- right?

    SandyDago

    A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end -

    That seems very obvious at this point...The FBI does not do - what James Comey did yesterday. No comment is how they roll - Yet we get a play by play yesterday.

    Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary.

    Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY.

    Chris Crusade

    "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?"

    lon.ball

    Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism.

    Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. (See this article in this issue.) So, it is not about Democrat vs. Republican. The new political dichotomy is Centralization (corporatism, totalitarian, collectivism) vs. Personal Constitutional freedom. I am a lifelong Democrat and Sanders man who is "never Hillary" for good reason. I cannot sit by idly and watch as our national Democracy continues to devolve into world fascism with the Neo-cons. Hillary is a traitor to the Nation and to the late great Democratic Party.

    It is time for the old right and old progressive left to unite for preservation of the US Constitution and personal freedom. Never Hillary; never New World Order!" less

    tommy501

    This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision.

    The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge.

    Something's fishy.

    andytek2

    @tommy501 he didn't make a prosecutorial decision he only said that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges.

    DennisWV

    The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email….not 30,000 destroyed emails.

    Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back.

    Outside the Herd

    NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted.

    FBI & O knew months ago what was in all of them, & delayed looking away until primaries were clinched. Which was also crooked, ask Bernie's peep's.

    Andre-Leonard

    "A second law makes it a crime to "remove" secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through "gross negligence."

    Funny how they went after Edward Snowden for the very same thing. Yet no one in their 'right' mind expected a Justice Department led by Obama to allow for Billary to be indicted. It's all about favorites here and justice is 'not' really blind.

    kenwrite9

    When she was in foreign countries she should have known that those countries spy on American officials. I now that, why she did not is strange. When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb?

    [Jul 06, 2016] Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking The Daily Caller

    dailycaller.com

    As a former Justice Department official, I have, of late, been asked by both Democratic and Republican friends whether Hillary Clinton could be indicted for her email related actions. The simple answer is yes - she, and perhaps some of her senior staff, could be indicted for violating a number of federal criminal statutes. But for reasons that will be discussed later, it is unlikely that she will be.

    Nevertheless, it is well worth discussing the various criminal provisions of federal law that she and others may have been violated based on mainstream news reports. Remember that news reporting can be incorrect or incomplete - and that Hillary Clinton, and anyone else involved, deserves every presumption of innocence. Also keep in mind that an indictment is not a conviction but rather the informed opinion of a grand jury that probable cause exists to believe one or more violations of federal criminal statutes have transpired.

    This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

    1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
    18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

    A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor's charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years.

    The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

    [Jul 06, 2016] Fact Check Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law Its All Politics

    www.npr.org

    NPR

    Section 1924 Of Title 18 - Classified Information

    During Clinton's news conference last month, she was asked if she was aware of the security implications of using her own email. Clinton answered this way:

    "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

    What's remarkable about that answer is that she wasn't asked in the preceding question specifically about classified emails, but offered that answer anyway. There's a reason for that. It would be illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server.

    The day after Clinton's news conference, the New York Times reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely" that Clinton didn't email at least something classified.

    "A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that although it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton's staff identified as involving government business.

    " 'I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,' said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. 'Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine.' "

    The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law.

    [Jul 06, 2016] 3 Federal Laws Hillary May Have Violated By Using Personal Email Accounts for State Business

    Notable quotes:
    "... "'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters. ..."
    "... 'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'" ..."
    "... "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system." ..."
    "... "Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency's record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton's case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record. ..."
    "... In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton's advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department." ..."
    "... "'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request." ..."
    "... "'Hillary Clinton's system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'" ..."
    ijr.com

    Mishandling Classified Information

    Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. Casey Harper at The Daily Caller delved into this angle:

    "'By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,' Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.

    'This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.'"

    Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently, including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch's security clearance was suspended for using his personal email to send classified information.

    Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email.

    Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act

    Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

    "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system."

    According to the original story on Clinton's emails published in The New York Times:

    "Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency's record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton's case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.

    In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton's advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department."

    The fact that the State Department combs through the 55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton's private email account seems to verify that at least some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information.

    Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

    Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:

    "'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request."

    MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:

    "'Hillary Clinton's system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'"

    These are just three of the potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to conduct official State business. More information will be provided as this story continues to develop.

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Director Thought He'd Drop Hillary Charges Walk Away. Now, Congress Says 'Not So Fast'

    ijr.com

    On Tuesday, multiple Republicans said they expected to hear from Comey, as Independent Journal Review reported. That was followed Tuesday evening by House Speaker Paul Ryan, who told Megyn Kelly he would be calling Comey to the Hill to explain his decision:

    "Comey should give us all the publicly available information to see how and why they reached these conclusions … Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, is going to be calling up James Comey to ask questions. He didn't answer any questions with the press. And our judiciary committee has sent a number of questions. There are a lot of unanswered questions here, Megyn."

    Now, we've got a concrete development. Just a day after the FBI announced its decision on Hillary's emails, the House Oversight Committee will be holding a hearing where Comey will testify on his decision.

    That's right. Comey will be on Capitol Hill on Thursday, just two days after his statement.

    In a statement from the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said:

    "The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing. The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation."

    Republicans will have plenty of "questions" for Comey, as Chaffetz has said in the past. Now that Comey has nailed down numerous Clinton lies on the emails, it will be very intriguing to see how he'll explain his decision not to indict.

    We'll find out on Thursday.

    Sigmund Kramer · On-Air Personality at Salem Media Group

    This will serve no real purpose, not even much of a political one. But Comey needs to be put in the hot seat over his dereliction of duty. It's all a game, though. And that's the worst part of all of this corrupted mess.

    [Jul 06, 2016] The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton's Email Traffic

    Notable quotes:
    "... But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails. ..."
    www.politico.com

    POLITICO Magazine

    But, when it comes to Clinton's correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton's email history? Did she or her team delete emails that she should have made public?

    Story Continued Below

    The State Department has released what is said to represent all of the work-related, or "official," emails Clinton sent during her tenure as secretary-a number totaling about 30,000. According to Clinton and her campaign, when they were choosing what correspondence to turn over to State for public release, they deleted 31,830 other emails deemed "personal and private." But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails.

    We already know that the trove of Clinton's work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments on Tuesday, Comey declared, "The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014." We also already know that some of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, "It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

    Why does this matter? Because Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails. We now know that is not true. But even more importantly, the absence of emails raises troubling questions about the nature of the correspondence that might have been deleted.

    Peter Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute, senior editor at large at Breitbart News and the author of Clinton Cash.

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) ..."
    "... The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. ..."
    "... It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. ..."
    "... Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. ..."
    "... To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."
    National Review

    Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

    In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

    ... ... ...

    It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

    Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States.

    Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI.

    To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

    [Jul 06, 2016] WikiLeaks Published Over 1,200 of Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Emails

    www.legitgov.org

    WikiLeaks Published Over 1,200 of Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Emails | 05 July 2016 | On Monday, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks tweeted a link to 1,258 emails that it claims were sent and received by the former Secretary of State pertaining to the war in Iraq. The emails were part of a trove of 30,322 emails made available by the U.S. State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, according to WikiLeaks. While the emails were available since February of this year, the tweet was timed to Wednesday's release of the so-called Chilcot report, which will outline the U.K.'s involvement in the Iraq war.

    [Jul 06, 2016] The worst thing Hillary Clinton did with her email

    Notable quotes:
    "... Given her "extremely careless" handling of classified material, how can she be given the required security clearance that the President of the United States must bear? ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Jim

    Was Clinton properly trained by WH IT advisers and the FBI?

    I worked as a contractor employee for DoD for 43 years until retirement end of 2007.

    I recall that my company had specific requirements from DoD Security with respect to the technical considerations required to be implemented to protect classified information (physical building 'shielding', computer devices and use thereof having to be closed systems within the secure domain used for the classified program, etc).

    Both the FBI and DoD personnel performed the clearance investigations required for all employees.

    So the FBI was very much aware of the risks associated with communications devices.

    But since task performance did require some communication beyond the firewall, the primary line of defense was simply to prohibit verbal and written communication of classified aspects of the project. And any classified information 'captured' on hard copy or electronically had to be managed on a 'need to know', ...even if the audience had a clearance compatible with or exceeding the declared classified level of the information annotated with security labeling appropriate to hard copy and electronic 'copy'.

    In other words if information which you had access was classified, the DD-254 Security document peculiar to the project clarified made it very clear which information was classified and to what security level (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc).

    The FBI was responsible for making sure personnel (including management and company executives) were cognizant with respect to all aspects of classified information and material handling, ..and .even thought despite appropriate levels of clearance, ...some project personnel might not have access because they did not have a need to know with respect to their tasks on the program.

    My point is that the FBI along with DoD security had a responsibility to prevent inappropriate handling of classified information, ...and after making it clear what was expected, ...to then address abuses which were contrary to FBI and DoD requirements which had been clearly communicated as part of the clearance process.

    So how is it that the FBI did not tell State what the rules were? If State makes up the rules for security on the fly, ...then why is the FBI asked to enforce rules which they did not establish with respect to the operation?

    Are we saying the FBI is not enforcing a lack of rules which they failed to implement with State employees?

    I am just saying that this whole "email' issure seems incredibly disjointed with respect to common sense security protocol required by DoD, ....so I would expect the FBI should be establishing security procotol for State in a manner just like, ...or at least similar too, ...the requirements for process required for Defense Department contractors?

    I cannot believe that security protocol considerations of 50 years ago would not be engaged today? The FBI knew how to protect information, so why did they not do it, ...and now be passing judgement on the character of a political candidate even though the FBI cannot show any wrongdoing????

    Looks like a political hack job instead of an FBI investigation.

    Larry

    And no mention of the biggest crime she committed: the cover up and deletion of evidence when she deleted select emails that she knew could be used as criminal evidence against her. She did that KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY WITH CRIMINAL INTENT. She's a damn lawyer she fully knew the consequences of her actions.

    Why have we sunk to such lows as a free society to allow something like this to happen without public protest? Why is Hillary Clinton even being considered as a possible candidate for president? Have we lost all our personal pride as a free and just society?

    Larry

    "Intent" is the word as to why she got off. The report clearly shows that she lied to the public, and must of given a very different story to the FBI, State Department, and Justice Department, or she would have been prosecuted for lying to investigators. This means she and her campaign knew they were purposely lying to us. It is also clear she did not follow the freedom of information act. I never thought they would be able to show intent, but the way she handled classified material should have already been investigated by the DIS (Defense Investigative Service), and most likely would take away her security clearance. How can you be president without a clearance?

    Kitt

    The Bilderberg-CFR-controlled press are relentless. There is an adage that comes to mind that befits what they're trying to do. "Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining."
    ;..
    Not since the complicity of the FBI and the Justice Department in the Kennedy Assassination and the 9/11 False Flag Ruse have they been so complicit in being dutiful servants to the Bilderberg Round Table Usury-Oil-War Enslaver Hierarchy.

    With a billion people around the world scratching their heads, wondering how such a miscarriage of justice could happen - we all wonder how Comey, Lynch and Obama can live with themselves. Shrillary and Bill (the Anti-Christ couple) have no problems living with their evil selves. But, Comey, Lynch and Obama - even though you're all members of the Council on Foreign Relations (one the evil subgroups of the Bilderberg Round Table), we had some hope that you would be honest brokers and help Americans come to the conclusion that no one is above the law. We have certainly learned on July 5, 2016, that's nowhere close to being true.

    Non-Politicus

    The most corrupt person ever to run for president and she is about to be our commander in chief. For the record, during my military career I placed on report several service members for security violations [they lost their security clearances and were FIRED] which were insignificant when compared to what this candidate did. American voters do have a very serious decision to make before the general election: elect the crooked one, elect the trash talking one, or elect the boring one.

    Michael

    Hillary used a personal email server for 100% of her government work for one reason and one reason only: Secrecy. Se knew exactly what she was doing. She didn't need any government watchdog groups drawing conclusions between her position as Sec. of State & the Clinton Foundation & Bill's speaking gigs.

    Bill

    Interesting, I work for a government agency where people have been charged, convicted and sent to prison for far less.

    Bart

    "no reasonable prosecutor" would file criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for using a private email system as secretary of state.

    Say what? FOR USING A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER? Is that all she did? Who writes this idiocy?

    opiegreensboro

    One issue not being discussed is that she fired an ambassador for doing the same thing she did, on a much smaller scale. If it was important enough to fire that person, why isn't she being held accountable? Oh, because the current Attorney General was co-opted in a clear conflict of interest meeting which is also not being reported. Must be great to be a Clinton. Laws matter people.

    Tom

    Ok, maybe if I squint just right and make a generous interpretation of laws regarding intent versus gross negligence, I could see some argument for this recommendation by the FBI...but let's not pretend avoiding prison time is compelling evidence that she should be promoted to leader of the free world.

    John

    The FBI director should have referred this matter to a grand jury. This was he job. His job was NOT to unilaterally decide whether ''a reasonable prosecutor'' would file criminal charges. This is just another example of the total corruptness of Washington, D.C. Hillary Clinton is only qualified to clean latrines since she and ''Bubba Bill'' crawled out of one! They are both POS.

    Blair

    Intent. Well a good percentage of prisoners in jails across the country can be let out now and the legal system completely revamped as the FBI has established new Harvard Law policies. All hit and runs, manslaughter, and anyone that can lie should be freed. Clinton and their arrogance put my military brothers and our country in peril. Screw her send her packing.

    Try A Hammer

    Given her "extremely careless" handling of classified material, how can she be given the required security clearance that the President of the United States must bear? Will she be careless with nuclear launch codes as well, effectively fumbling the "Nuclear football" in her "extremely careless" hands? This alone disqualifies her for the presidency.

    alex

    The guy spent 15 minutes outlining, point after point, Clinton's level of incompetence and dishonesty. The, when it was time for action, he rolled over and played dead like every other government hack.
    Coward.

    [Jul 06, 2016] The FBI gave Hillary Clinton a legal victory – and a political setback

    Notable quotes:
    "... it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. ..."
    "... If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our nation's security apparatus. ..."
    "... I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people have different rules than the common people! ..."
    "... Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's all on the Dems this time. ..."
    "... Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him. ..."
    "... Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too. ..."
    "... Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long. ..."
    "... No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. ..."
    "... Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings. Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc ..."
    "... I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening. ..."
    "... If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. ..."
    "... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony. ..."
    "... That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November. ..."
    "... The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as a liar is because she is one. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Haigin88

    "......but Clinton's enemies will say yes. And that means the political witch hunts will begin anew......".

    This is no witch hunt. Aside from the fact that she wasn't indicted, it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. She's also, yet again, been confirmed as a shameless liar. Her proclamation - in that tired, "bored teenager" voice that she affects when she's boxed in to a corner - at that event: "I never sent any classified information.....I never received any classified information" has been proven as a lie. The standard that she was held to was that intent meant that she was a spy. The standard of intent that you or I would have been held to would have been a heck of a lot lower.

    Also, the law says that 'gross negligence' is enough to either fine someone or put them in jail for not more than ten years or both: how is Hillary's 'extreme carelessness' is any way different from 'gross negligence'? Everything that people suspected of Hillary Clinton has been borne out, if not more (yesterday was the first I'd heard of *multiple* servers: how is that not intent to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act?) but - yay! - the bar for presidential candidates is now so staggeringly low that champagne corks are being popped because she avoided jail.
    *Clap..........clap.............clap...........clap...........clap.........clap.......*

    Raskente

    If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our nation's security apparatus.

    Iron Mike

    I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people have different rules than the common people!

    There is no telling what Bill told Loretta but it worked. I know they didn't discuss grand kids for 30 minutes.


    HungerArtist

    In that way, Republican operatives have already accomplished their mission

    Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's all on the Dems this time.

    erik_ny

    Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him.


    ga gamba

    Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too.

    One can be graduated from one of the world's finest law schools and still plausibly state that she didn't intend to break the law. Seems law school trains people how to treat the law cavalierly. Sure, she was informed she was flouting the rules, and she disregarded this each time, but this is meaningless because the FBI is unable to read her mind. Ignore the actions because they suggest nothing of a person's intent.

    That's the privilege of power. You're never accountable.

    Tom Cuddy

    Once again with feeling. We know Sec Clinton won her delegates. She has achieved the numerical feat of having enough delegates to be our nominee. And I see the tree coming closer and the brakes are not working. This is why Sander's is not enthusiastically joining the Clinton effort as yet. The party can stop from making a terrible mistake. I like Sec Clinton and believe she would make a good Prime Minister. She is also exactly the kind of politician Trump eats for breakfast. We are not unrealistic, we are not anti woman and we are not "Bros'. We just see Sanders as giving Trump a serious campaign and Hillary just being , not quite.... The question; do Americans fear Clinton or Trump more. The great unpopulated states ( y'know, the Red one's) are terrified of Clinton. DEmocrats ( and a few Republicans) are terrified of trump. This truly shows Plato's point about Democracy

    Shotcricket -> Tom Cuddy

    Sanders is what the US need but are told they don't, not unlike the UK in its portrayal of Parties & their leaders etc.


    Robert Rudolph

    Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long.

    Did Hillary want to evade normal channels because she was using her official position to lever money out of people? Follow the money, people....

    Dee Smith

    I wish to humbly apologize in advance to the other nations that inhabit this earth on what the US is about to unleash on our collective space. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated she is a money and power grasping disingenuous liar, complicit in the murder of US citizens, and not bearing the sense that the good Lord gave a woodchuck in handling information that ought to be more protected than storing it on an unsecured server in a basement. Conversely, we have Mr. Trump, whom, while opening up a very necessary dialog for myself and my American brethren, demonstrates all the sensitivity of rampaging water buffalo at a wallow.

    Dear God, help us.

    SteveofCaley -> Dee Smith

    Don't fret. They already suspected, I think. Another day, another drone.

    devanand54

    The FBI did a lot more than rebuke her for being "extremely careless." It was a scathing report, the conclusion of which was not consistent with what was actually in the report. It also proved Clinton to - once again - be lying.


    Dale Roberts

    No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. I recall a couple of military officers who were brought up on charges for failing to lock their safe containing classified material in a secure building. The nightly security sweep found the safe closed but combination lock had not been engaged. Eventually no one was prosecuted but the matter was handled administratively so neither was likely to ever see another promotion. Being a politician may save Hilary from this fate too.

    DebraBrown

    Oh, enough of the balony that we don't trust Hillary because of her gender. We don't trust her because she LIES, again and again, demonstrably and proveably, beyond any shadow of doubt. Both the IG Report and Comey confirm her lies about the email server.

    Comey's decision is purely practical, given America's two-tiered justice system. The wealthy class are virtually un-indictable, they can get away with any crime because they hire armies of lawyers. It is sickening.

    After being a loyal party member for 35 years, I am leaving the Democratic Party because Hillary Clinton is a bridge too far. God save America... from the Clintons.

    eminijunkie

    Odd. No mention of the fact that like Bill, who got nailed for lying under oath, albeit he only lost his lawyer's license and gained some fame for having said 'it all depends on the meaning of the word is,' Hillary is now shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed perjury. As far as I know though, that's only something Congress can deal with at this point.

    We should hear soon if they are going to do anything about it.

    Balmaclellan

    The case ultimately comes down to a matter of intent, something famously difficult to prove. Did Clinton intentionally send out or receive any sensitive information?

    The Guardian seriously expects people to pay for this 'jourrnalism'? Seriously?
    Clinton was the Secretary of State. How could she fail to "intentionally send out or receive sensitive information"? What the case actually comes down to is whether she intentionally placed the sensitive information she was sending out and receiving on a private server in order to conceal it from scrutiny and specifically to evade the provisions of Freedom of Information.

    And no, I won't be subscribing.

    Balmaclellan

    Some of it may be attributable to poor optics... attributable to gender... partisan-fueled attacks...

    Alternatively, it could simply be that she's a pathological liar. You know, the sort of person who tells stupid, pointless lies for the purpose of self-aggrandisement, and then bone-headedly continues to insist that they're true even when they've been incontrovertibly proven to be lies.

    "Yah, the plane zig-zagged as it landed under sniper fire... I ran across the tarmac dodging bullets..."

    BigPhil1959 -> Balmaclellan

    Her husband was accused of rape and had sexual relations with an intern. She trashed the reputations of these women to protect her husband. I doubt neither May nor Leadsom have ever played the woman's card as Hilary Clinton has. The Clinton's are awful people and should be banned from public office.

    badfinger

    Flox Newts asks the tough questions:
    1. What is the Statute of Limitations?
    2. What about the Clinton Foundation?
    Watch for a bogus "investigation" of the Foundation soon.
    Brought to you by the GOP at taxpayers expense.

    Filipe Barroso -> badfinger

    A bogus investigation on a Foundation that would make the Mafia embarrassed? No way, they are too compromised for that and the Clinton's would be able to bought their way off anyway.

    BigPhil1959 -> badfinger

    Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings.
    Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc

    Sadly no longer with us, but a proper journalist.

    Alpheus Williams

    "Careless" with classified material...certainly careless with the facts...careless with promoting the bombing of M.E. countries. Her record on Iraq, Syria and Libya don't instil confidence....Europe is overwhelmed with refugees from war and chaos from our making and Clinton's judgement certainly hasn't helped. She has not only managed to spot the Nation but there own political party. I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening.


    WMDMIA

    If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

    Beside these government protected account are hacked far more often than private servers, so the information she passed on was safer where she had it.

    simonsaysletsgroove -> jsayles

    From what I read elsewhere, it wasn't an 'accidentally leaving files on a bus' scenario... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony.


    kaltnadel

    If Hillary had any integrity, she would step down in the face of being deemed "extremely careless" by the director of the FBI. Clearly she is unsuitable for a position of responsibility.

    Being better than Trump is not good enough.

    "Witch hunt" is a totally inappropriate phrase. HC has been close to felons over and over again for decades. She lies as she breathes; she speaks in vapidities; she laughs without a glimmer of what good humor is. She is not only bad, she is dangerous. If she has avoided out and out criminality herself, she has her Yale law degree to thank for that, not her moral compass. And she has not a grain of political ambition that isn't personal to herself.

    Someone should help her to realize that she ought to step down, and it clearly isn't going to be Obama.


    Metreemewall

    Never mind her husband, her carelessness, her snipe's fire dodging skills, her gender.

    She's a warmonger - "We came , we saw, he died"a - was her giggling reaction to the news of Gaddaff being sodomised and murdered. And she is an AIPAC tool. And she's partly responsible for the immoral profitable prisons' scheme. And she does not believe in universal healthcare. And she's putting her "Glass-Steagall" poster child of a husband in charge of the economy.

    And the list goes on, and on, and on...


    elliot2511

    "Bill Clinton bumbled his way into the eye of a political storm last week when a private meeting he arranged with Lynch"

    That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November.

    If this sort of thing had occurred in, say, Bolivia or Kazakhstan, everyone would know what was going on and be able able to see this behaviour for what it is. The contemptible idiocy and demagoguery of Trump doesn't change that.


    keeptakingthetablets

    The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as a liar is because she is one.

    Just to take this particular issue as an example, she lied when she said she would fully cooperate "anytime, anywhere' with the respective inquiries and she lied when she said she had permission to use a private email server.

    Slammy01

    I don't see the matter of intent as a particularly relevant factor here. She has an obligation to protect classified information as part of being granted access. James Comey said she and her aids were "extremely careless" with how they handled information which any reasonable person in that situation would recognize was classified. Any other person would already have been indited....

    calderonparalapaz

    compared the case to that of retired general David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, who was sentenced to twoyears' probation after he shared classified information with his biographer, with whom he was having an affair. . "The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."

    Yup, it sure is rigged.

    [Jul 06, 2016] Clinton's main talking point on the email scandal is false

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information," Comey explained. "But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." ..."
    "... Comey explained that in the course of its investigation, the FBI was able to recover "several thousand" work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 that Clinton and her staff produced to the State department in 2014, three of which contained information that was classified at the time they were sent. Comey said it is "highly likely" that additional work-related emails were deleted by Clinton's lawyers but not subsequently recovered by the FBI. ..."
    "... "In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," a former CIA case officer told the Associated Press last summer. ..."
    "... The FBI found that Clinton's use of a private domain was widely known and that hackers had accessed the private email accounts of people with whom Clinton regularly communicated using her private email account. ..."
    "... "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries," Comey said. "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
    www.salon.com

    Clinton has said throughout the FBI's investigation - and as recently as last week - that while using her private server she "did not send nor receive information that was marked classified at the time."

    Comey's statement contradicted Clinton's claim in no uncertain terms: "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were sent. Thirty-six of those chains contained 'secret' information at the time, and eight contained 'confidential' information at the time."

    Note that Clinton's statement refers to information "marked" classified, while Comey's does not. As Politifact pointed out recently, Clinton's phrasing was revealing because, under scrutiny, it left open the possibility that Clinton's emails might have included information that was classified but inappropriately left unmarked. This appears to have been the case with the majority of the 110 classified emails Comey referenced.

    "Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information," Comey explained. "But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

    Comey did not elaborate on the "very small number" of Clinton's emails that bore classified markings (as opposed to emails that contained classified information not marked as such), but his statement indicates that at least some of the emails on Clinton's private server contained information marked classified at the time they were sent or received. If this is the case, it renders Clinton's claim false even by a legalistic standard.

    2. The FBI isn't really sure how much Clinton didn't hand over from her private server

    Before Clinton handed over 30,000 work-related emails from her private server to the State Department in 2014, her lawyers deleted roughly 30,000 other emails containing information they deemed personal in nature. After this process was complete, Comey explained, Clinton's lawyers "then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

    "I have provided all of my work-related emails," Clinton told ABC News in May. The FBI's investigation revealed that, knowingly or not, a significant number of Clinton's work-related emails were not actually handed over by her staff.

    Comey explained that in the course of its investigation, the FBI was able to recover "several thousand" work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 that Clinton and her staff produced to the State department in 2014, three of which contained information that was classified at the time they were sent. Comey said it is "highly likely" that additional work-related emails were deleted by Clinton's lawyers but not subsequently recovered by the FBI.

    Though Comey said that the FBI has "no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way," his remarks revealed that the FBI's investigation lacked "complete visibility" because it relied so heavily on the sorting process employed by Clinton's lawyers. That is to say, the FBI acknowledges the existence of what Donald Rumsfeld might refer to as "known unknowns" in its investigation.

    3. The FBI doesn't know if Clinton's personal server was hacked

    Critics have long claimed that the Clinton's use of a private email server unprotected by government security standards put classified information at risk of being accessed by foreign states or actors.

    "In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA," a former CIA case officer told the Associated Press last summer.

    Comey said that while the FBI "did not find direct evidence" that hostile actors had successfully hacked Clinton's email, the bureau would be unlikely to find such evidence even if a breach had occurred.

    The FBI found that Clinton's use of a private domain was widely known and that hackers had accessed the private email accounts of people with whom Clinton regularly communicated using her private email account.

    "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries," Comey said. "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

    [Jul 06, 2016] Ex-DOJ Spox Rips FBI Director's 'Really Reckless Statements'

    Notable quotes:
    "... "For Jim Comey to come out and make that kind of public statement about someone whom the government is not going to charge is completely inappropriate and arguably violates DOJ and FBI rules." ..."
    "... "I think that type of statement is why the FBI director is not supposed to hold press conferences like the one he held today. If you're not going to bring charges you shouldn't insert yourself in the middle of a political campaign the way he did," ..."
    "... "If there is to be a judgment that her behavior was careless or inappropriate, that's a judgment for the State Department and Inspector General to make. The FBI's job is to determine whether laws were violated and charges can be brought in court. His determination was that there were no laws violated and he wouldn't recommend charges." ..."
    "... "Beyond that, it's really inappropriate for him to be talking about this case any further." ..."
    "... "And I can't remember a time in history when the FBI director or when an Attorney General has reviewed a case, decided that the evidence does not support bringing charges, and still make really reckless statements about an underlying individual's behavior. It's really just not appropriate unless he's ready to back them up in court which obviously as he said today he doesn't believe is appropriate." ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | Crooks and Liars
    Mrs. Greenspan began by asking Matt Miller, ex-spokesman for the Department of Justice how he could "justify the fact that she was this careless with her emails?"

    Oh, the vapors. You could almost see them on the screen.

    Miller shot back, "For Jim Comey to come out and make that kind of public statement about someone whom the government is not going to charge is completely inappropriate and arguably violates DOJ and FBI rules."

    Mrs. Greenspan was having none of it, so she dragged out Paul Ryan's statement where he did everything but call Clinton Satan.

    Miller had a comeback for that, too, and it was not kind to Director Comey.

    "I think that type of statement is why the FBI director is not supposed to hold press conferences like the one he held today. If you're not going to bring charges you shouldn't insert yourself in the middle of a political campaign the way he did," Miller asserted.

    He went on to repeat, "If there is to be a judgment that her behavior was careless or inappropriate, that's a judgment for the State Department and Inspector General to make. The FBI's job is to determine whether laws were violated and charges can be brought in court. His determination was that there were no laws violated and he wouldn't recommend charges."

    "Beyond that, it's really inappropriate for him to be talking about this case any further."

    ... ... ...

    He continued, "And I can't remember a time in history when the FBI director or when an Attorney General has reviewed a case, decided that the evidence does not support bringing charges, and still make really reckless statements about an underlying individual's behavior. It's really just not appropriate unless he's ready to back them up in court which obviously as he said today he doesn't believe is appropriate."

    [Jul 06, 2016] Are We a Post-Justice Society?

    Notable quotes:
    "... We have all been riveted by news Tuesday that FBI Director James Comey concluded that although then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had mishandled more than 100 classified documents, had destroyed evidence, and had acted in an "extremely careless" way at the helm of the US Department of State, he could not recommend that any charges be filed against her. ..."
    "... But let's not just pick on Hillary. What about then-SACEUR (NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe), USAF General Philip Breedlove, whose hacked e-mails reveal that he considered civilian control of the military an inconvenient joke? Breedlove, while in uniform, actively conspired with other former military officers and with think tanks and PR firms to undermine President Obama's cautious policy toward the 2014 conflict in Ukraine. He presented false information to suggest that Russia had invaded Ukraine and he misrepresented the Ukraine situation to Congress -- at the same time he was working behind the scenes to fully arm Ukrainian extremists who wanted war with Russia. NATO claims its role is to keep us safe -- but we learn from Breedlove's secret, Strangelovian maneuvers, that those in charge will do anything to make us believe they are still relevant, including provoke a nuclear war. Move over, Hillary. Breedlove deserves a turn on the dock. ..."
    "... Congress refusing to act on eight solid years of President Obama's illegal wars is every bit as destructive to the rule of law as Hillary Clinton's email homebrew. ..."
    "... That is why we are taking our case to Washington this September, to make a pitch for a new foreign policy that resists to the face the deep state's secret manipulations, the Clintons' maneuverings, and Congress's dereliction of duty. ..."
    RPI 5 July Update

    Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

    We have all been riveted by news Tuesday that FBI Director James Comey concluded that although then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had mishandled more than 100 classified documents, had destroyed evidence, and had acted in an "extremely careless" way at the helm of the US Department of State, he could not recommend that any charges be filed against her.

    Former State Department official and good friend of the Ron Paul Institute, Peter Van Buren, reminded us of the grotesque double standards that on the one hand govern whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden, and on the other hand excuse the behavior of the privileged elite like Hillary Clinton. Van Buren tweeted this quote from Comey's statement today: "This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences." Pretty clearly, then, there are one set of rules for the Hillary Clintons of the world and a very different set of rules for the Snowdens or the John Kiriakous of the world. And most of the rest of us are in the second category. Van Buren used sarcasm to point out that in the old days when he (and I) signed a non-disclosure agreement with the US government it was expected that violation of that agreement would be evenly applied regardless of one's placement on the food-chain.

    Alas this is not the case.

    But let's not just pick on Hillary. What about then-SACEUR (NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe), USAF General Philip Breedlove, whose hacked e-mails reveal that he considered civilian control of the military an inconvenient joke? Breedlove, while in uniform, actively conspired with other former military officers and with think tanks and PR firms to undermine President Obama's cautious policy toward the 2014 conflict in Ukraine. He presented false information to suggest that Russia had invaded Ukraine and he misrepresented the Ukraine situation to Congress -- at the same time he was working behind the scenes to fully arm Ukrainian extremists who wanted war with Russia. NATO claims its role is to keep us safe -- but we learn from Breedlove's secret, Strangelovian maneuvers, that those in charge will do anything to make us believe they are still relevant, including provoke a nuclear war. Move over, Hillary. Breedlove deserves a turn on the dock.

    And if we want to further discuss how the rule of law has been flushed to oblivion in the US of 2016, we need look no further than Congress, which actively facilitates lawlessness through its continued inaction and fecklessness in areas of its Constitutional responsibility. Congress refusing to act on eight solid years of President Obama's illegal wars is every bit as destructive to the rule of law as Hillary Clinton's email homebrew.

    Yes, there is plenty of lawlessness to go around, and in both parties. That is why we are taking our case to Washington this September, to make a pitch for a new foreign policy that resists to the face the deep state's secret manipulations, the Clintons' maneuverings, and Congress's dereliction of duty. The old system is breaking apart and we will make the case for peace, prosperity, and non-intervention.

    [Jul 05, 2016] Clinton Offers New Contract To Attorney General - Escapes Indictment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Comey laid out a 100% air-tight case for a life-sentence felony conviction, and then said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring an indictment". ..."
    "... She is as good as convicted. You could say it was a pardon. ..."
    "... Anybody besides me wonder how a "Loyal Bushie" became Obama's FBI Director? ..."
    "... So we watch this guy spend 20 minutes telling us how many Federal Criminal Laws / NATIONAL SECURITY she and her staff has broken. Then you tell us that it's impossible to prove intent. That is absurd, pathetic, cowardly and obscene. (Maybe reread the OATH you took to the Constitution and God). ..."
    "... I would think the choice of vice president for a Hillary administration is EXTREMELY important. The Corporatists now supporting Hillary will demand a Corporatist VP. Many of the Sanders supporters will not vote for her if she chooses a Corporatist VP. ..."
    "... There is one way that Trump is the lessor of two evils: she already has the blood of millions dripping from her hands before the election. What we don't know is if Trump will follow in the footsteps of the previous three fools in the WH and after his election rack up his own million deaths. Killing millions is now another trophy of being president. ..."
    "... It's not "lesser of two evils." It's "different of two evils." ..."
    "... The remarkable events also serve as a clear reminder that while the Clintons enriched themselves over the years, they were helping to bankrupt the public trust in its government and institutions. And they won't stop until they're stopped. ..."
    "... Giuliani: "This is an extremely hard conclusion to justify. People have been charged under these statues for far less than this but... when one is Hillary Clinton, the laws don't exactly apply like they do for ordinary people. . ..."
    "... Trump has been handed a lot of firepower. Oh for the debates. Perhaps Hillary's cough may deflect. ..."
    "... My personal opinion is that women in Power are expeditive persons whose only concern is" Can I get away with it?" Hillary loves to find ways to break the law. Re her stint as counselor to certain congressional entities in her first job. ..."
    "... "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned", and even Obama should remember it, without counting countless others who stepped on her toes or so she deemed. ..."
    "... Surely for all his bravado, Trump is a lesser evil. But I doubt he can win counter to the whims of the Establishment. ..."
    "... The Empire's choice not charged? Well, I'm really shocked......NOT! ..."
    "... Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released a large archive of Clinton's emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on Julian Assange's claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign. ..."
    "... Released only a week after Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents of Hillary's released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton's current presidential campaign. ..."
    "... For those who bellow about her candidacy just being an extension of Obama's (sorry, Obomber) presidency, just bear in mind if he were running again he'd be a shoe-in. ..."
    "... Think Jill before Hill hashtag will get some momentum? ..."
    "... I completely understand them. Because the most horrible and obscene things Clinton did were not illegal (As far as US law is concerned.) So if destroying Libya and laughing like a hyena at Qadhafi's murder doesn't make you hate here, poor handling of national security documents won't do it either. ..."
    "... The global plutocrats that own private finance should be tried for war crimes and their political psychopaths removed from control but since they own rule of law I expect they have legalized all their theft as they go.....history is written by the winners. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    ALberto | Jul 5, 2016 1:37:41 PM | 16

    Wikileaks publishes 1,000 Clinton emails July 4, 2016 ...

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=iraq

    blues | Jul 5, 2016 1:47:00 PM | 17

    I am stunned. And not because I didn't expect this. Here is what I just posted on ZeroHedge:

    Comey laid out a 100% air-tight case for a life-sentence felony conviction, and then said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring an indictment".

    She is as good as convicted. You could say it was a pardon.

    karlof1 | Jul 5, 2016 2:07:32 PM | 21

    Pasting what a fellow posted on the CD comment board on the article related to this event,

    ""Precedent" (DEJA VU) then BUSH acting AG / Deputy AG Jim Comey's March 16, 2004 Draft Resignation Letter: (Anybody besides me wonder how a "Loyal Bushie" became Obama's FBI Director?)

    "I was asked what I would do if I concluded that a course of action was fundamentally wrong and I could not convince my superiors of that fact....Over the last two weeks I have encountered just such an apocalyptic situation, where I and the Department of Justice have been asked to be part of something that is fundamentally wrong. As we have struggled over these last few days to do the right thing, I have never been prouder of the Department of Justice or of the Attorney General. Sadly, although I believe this has been one of the institution's finest hours, we have been unable to right that wrong...I would give much not to be in this position. But, as I told you during our private meeting last week, here I stand; I can do no other. Therefore, with a heavy heart and undiminished love of my country and my Department, I resign as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, effective immediately.

    Sincerely yours, James B. Comey."

    The next day he / they (FBI) had a meeting with W. Bush and they all had their minds changed. /

    So we watch this guy spend 20 minutes telling us how many Federal Criminal Laws / NATIONAL SECURITY she and her staff has broken. Then you tell us that it's impossible to prove intent. That is absurd, pathetic, cowardly and obscene. (Maybe reread the OATH you took to the Constitution and God)." http://commons.commondreams.org/t/fbi-recommends-no-consequences-for-clintons-reckless-email-handling/24678/21?u=enemyofwar

    jawbone | Jul 5, 2016 2:08:38 PM | 22

    So, a tainted Hillary is elected president. After she is sworn in, and there is a Repub majority in the House, impeachment time!

    I would think the choice of vice president for a Hillary administration is EXTREMELY important. The Corporatists now supporting Hillary will demand a Corporatist VP. Many of the Sanders supporters will not vote for her if she chooses a Corporatist VP.

    Is a dilemma. For the voters, not for the Corporatist Dems.

    AriusArmenian | Jul 5, 2016 2:10:06 PM | 23

    There is one way that Trump is the lessor of two evils: she already has the blood of millions dripping from her hands before the election. What we don't know is if Trump will follow in the footsteps of the previous three fools in the WH and after his election rack up his own million deaths. Killing millions is now another trophy of being president.

    mc | Jul 5, 2016 2:21:54 PM | 27

    The "lesser evil" problem is the "either-or" fallacy. Either one of them is worse or the other is. They both are. It's not "lesser of two evils." It's "different of two evils." Some say the world will end in fire, some in ice. Trump is the roaring fire, Clinton is the suffocating ice. Both end us up the same place, just different ways at different speeds. Freddy Krueger or Hannibal Lecter.

    Dismemberment by chain saw or scalpel. A gaping chest wound or gangrene. Going off that high mountain cliff at 500 mph or 400 mph. Either choice is just projecting one's personal fears, not dealing with reality, which is that our grandchildren will look at their conditions when adults and at this election of either Trump or Clinton with hatred and contempt for our stupidity at allowing things to evolve to this point and for relying on "lesser of two evils" arguments to perpetuate them.

    likklemore | Jul 5, 2016 2:30:32 PM | 30

    Chet380 @ 20

    In addition to my post @ 2;
    Is there anything at all in these two posts at ZH
    which escapes your comprehension?

    "From Monica To Loretta - The Clintons Corrupt Absolutely"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-04/monica-loretta-clintons-corrupt-absolutely

    [.] The explosive result shows the Clintons haven't lost their touch for leaving destruction and chaos in their wake. The remarkable events also serve as a clear reminder that while the Clintons enriched themselves over the years, they were helping to bankrupt the public trust in its government and institutions. And they won't stop until they're stopped.

    And

    Rudy Giuliani: "Today Hillary Clinton Was Put Way Above The Law"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/rudy-giuliani-today-hillary-clinton-was-put-way-above-law

    Giuliani: "This is an extremely hard conclusion to justify. People have been charged under these statues for far less than this but... when one is Hillary Clinton, the laws don't exactly apply like they do for ordinary people. .

    ~ ~ ~

    Trump has been handed a lot of firepower. Oh for the debates. Perhaps Hillary's cough may deflect.

    CarlD | Jul 5, 2016 2:36:37 PM | 31
    Sad day indeed and vexing hours to come, on all fronts, once HRC is elected and sworn in as POTUS.

    My personal opinion is that women in Power are expeditive persons whose only concern is" Can I get away with it?"
    Hillary loves to find ways to break the law. Re her stint as counselor to certain congressional entities in her first job.

    She will spin her ways through the miseries of mankind wrought by her very ministrations. And as sower of wars galore
    she will probably receive a Nobel Peace Prize for good measure.

    "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned", and even Obama should remember it, without counting countless others who stepped on her toes or so she deemed.

    Surely for all his bravado, Trump is a lesser evil. But I doubt he can win counter to the whims of the Establishment.

    So, enjoy life while you can.

    ben | Jul 5, 2016 2:42:56 PM | 32
    The Empire's choice not charged? Well, I'm really shocked......NOT!

    Trump, Clinton, six or half a dozen. The evil Empire rolls on. Business as usual uber alles!

    Tony B @ 29 said.."
    " Man, wake up! American elections are fixed to the gills."

    Yep, No doubt.
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    WorldBLee | Jul 5, 2016 2:45:55 PM | 33
    Re: "Additionally a judge ruled today that Clinton's "private" emails will be open to FOIA requests. Some dirt will be found in them."

    Look at the history of FOIA requests for Clinton emails. The cases may be won, but the timeline for actually releasing the information in all cases so far is AFTER the November election--in one case 75 years from now according to the Unanimous Dissent podcast on Sputnik.

    Here's a link to the show that discusses this: Unanimous Dissent from July 4

    jaqwith | Jul 5, 2016 3:19:18 PM | 39
    The Link to Director Comey's statement got mixed up apparently. There is a press release online, and I think it's worth reading in full. I loved the subtlety…

    What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

    […]

    So, first, what we have done:

    […]

    That's what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

    […]

    So that's what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

    […]

    I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

    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.

    ALberto | Jul 5, 2016 3:21:04 PM | 40
    Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released a large archive of Clinton's emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on Julian Assange's claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign.

    Released only a week after Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents of Hillary's released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton's current presidential campaign.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously stated that he has multiple leaks in store for Clinton and, as a free speech fundamentalist, believes that a Clinton presidency could be damaging.

    source - http://www.globalresearch.ca/things-get-worse-for-hillary-wikileaks-releases-1258-hillary-clinton-iraq-war-emails/5534312

    Laguerre | Jul 5, 2016 3:33:59 PM | 41

    So how is Clinton's liberation from prosecution likely to play with the public?

    peter | Jul 5, 2016 4:05:35 PM | 44
    The American people aren't surprised that HRC isn't going to be prosecuted, neither are they highly outraged. It just wasn't that big a deal for them in the first place. They are aware of her shortcomings and Bill's aura has taken a significant hit over the last while.

    For those who bellow about her candidacy just being an extension of Obama's (sorry, Obomber) presidency, just bear in mind if he were running again he'd be a shoe-in.

    Trump has pissed off some major voting blocks in the US, Hispanics and women to name but two. The Blacks are usually Democratic voters and there's no reason to think that's about to change. His message mostly resonates with angry young whites and they simply don't have the numbers. That being said, there's a chance that Trump could conceivably find enough dirt on hHillary to make a difference, but he's already called her everything but a white woman.

    The Yanks still see themselves as inclusive and a nation of immigrants even if the reality is somewhat different. There's something about Trump's denigration of Mexicans and his walked-back ban of all Muslims that doesn't fit with their view of themselves.

    The Yanks couldn't give a fiddler's fuck about Brexit and its implications. They don't share this thread's widely held view that now is the time for revolution. Some do, of course, but they're mostly regarded as a fringe.

    It's true that Hillary is more of a warmonger than the Donald but that's not too important in this election. Then again Trump's worldview could change in a heartbeat if he were elected and saw an opportunity to cash in on some of that MIC money.

    Laguerre | Jul 5, 2016 4:17:32 PM | 45
    Public in this case is a Potato Couch.
    Typical expression of the American problem. You're unable to say what the problem is.
    Bluemot5 | Jul 5, 2016 4:31:54 PM | 46
    Think Jill before Hill hashtag will get some momentum? http://www.jill2016.com/it_is_time_for_a_second_american_revolution
    Lysander | Jul 5, 2016 5:09:12 PM | 51
    @ Mark, 15

    I completely understand them. Because the most horrible and obscene things Clinton did were not illegal (As far as US law is concerned.) So if destroying Libya and laughing like a hyena at Qadhafi's murder doesn't make you hate here, poor handling of national security documents won't do it either.

    psychohistorian | Jul 5, 2016 5:12:02 PM | 52
    I am now thinking that we are entering a high cognitive dissonance phase of empire decline with rule of law being the center piece and Clinton II's teflon application of it being one example.

    The next example is this recent speech by Elizabeth Warren which I read at Angry Bear here:
    http://angrybearblog.com/2016/07/reigniting-competition-in-the-american-economy.html#more-35836

    I encourage folks to read the Warren piece and ask yourselves how someone who believes what she exposes can be associated in any way with Clinton II politics.....but the rumor is that she may be VP pick.....another Dem sheepdog?

    The global plutocrats that own private finance should be tried for war crimes and their political psychopaths removed from control but since they own rule of law I expect they have legalized all their theft as they go.....history is written by the winners.

    [Jul 05, 2016] Forget It Jake, It's Clintontown

    Notable quotes:
    "... Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."
    "... I did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a presidential election year, and not when she's the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House. ..."
    "... The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House, with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement - it's sick-making. What a country. What a year. ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | The American Conservative
    I concur with my colleague Daniel Larison:

    Clinton won't be indicted for breaking any laws, but Comey's statement is nonetheless an indictment of her poor judgment, negligence, and recklessness. This should be very damaging for Clinton, and maybe it still could be, but it can hardly come as a surprise to anyone that remembers how the Clintons have operated over the years. The sloppiness, sense of entitlement, and disregard for consequences are all only too familiar. We can expect several more years of this sort of behavior from a future Clinton administration.

    Andrew McCarthy is stunned. He says the FBI director has refused to indict her on a premise that is not required for an indictment to be issued. And:

    I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

    It is somehow comforting to find that one's pitch-black cynicism is vindicated. I did not believe that official Washington would indict Hillary Clinton, not in a presidential election year, and not when she's the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

    The thought of four more years of those people, the Clintons, in the White House, with all their sleaziness, their drama, their sense of entitlement - it's sick-making. What a country. What a year.

    [Jul 05, 2016] FBI rebukes Clinton but recommends no charges in email investigation

    Looks like the Democratic establishment decided that they wants Clinton in November no matter what. But the price of this decition si that she will now compete as officially named "reckless and stupid" candidate.
    An interesting side affect might be that there will be attempts to impeach her from day one.
    Notable quotes:
    "... How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz? ..."
    "... "Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection." ..."
    "... After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State. ..."
    "... Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration. ..."
    "... Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected. ..."
    "... The NYTimes, 2 days ago: ..."
    "... But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven. ..."
    "... She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie. ..."
    "... She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie. ..."
    "... She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie. ..."
    "... She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie. ..."
    "... "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;" ..."
    "... I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president. ..."
    "... Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur. ..."
    "... The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling. ..."
    "... This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... "Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president. ..."
    "... Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945). ..."
    "... First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law. ..."
    "... Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways. ..."
    "... They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain. ..."
    "... Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no... ..."
    "... She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she. ..."
    "... the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies! ..."
    "... Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security. ..."
    "... Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Rob Lewis , 6 Jul 2016 01:27
    In violation of the Espionage Act. The relevant part of the law, 18 USC 793, says that anyone who handles important national security documents with "gross negligence," so that they are "delivered to anyone," or "lost," or "stolen," is guilty of a felony.

    The guilty party "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."

    Tomas Desent , 2016-07-06 01:07:47
    18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Comey called her "extremely careless." But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires.

    18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

    18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

    18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

    eastbayradical , 2016-07-06 01:06:04
    Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
    Timothy Everton , 2016-07-06 03:11:19
    Can the House of Representatives or The Senate vote to prosecute a former Secretary of State?
    Defiini -> Timothy Everton , 2016-07-06 03:26:17
    Under which law? For what crime? Chortle.
    thenthelightningwill -> Defiini , 2016-07-06 03:30:13
    Aggressive war is a war crime, Defini.

    Probably couldn't be prosecuted in the U.S., but we have charged others with it.

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record /

    Timothy Everton -> consumerx , 2016-07-06 03:12:31
    "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," Mr. Comey said, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources.
    SEE A PATTERN HERE ?

    hadeze242 , 2016-07-06 03:06:14
    "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" (FBI/CNN). that's a lie. anyone in a working situation who lie so many times, and in so many different ways would be terminated. for Clinton to become the next US President is an absolute moral disaster - which will haunt not only America, but generations of young people watching this moral deception unfold.
    RonettePulaski -> hadeze242 , 2016-07-06 03:07:04
    Bernie lost.

    deal with it.

    hadeze242 -> RonettePulaski , 2016-07-06 03:10:50
    Bernie did not lose. He was run over by the corrupt establishment of the Dem. Party. He didn/t take their money, & condemned them for their undemocratic manipulations.

    BlooperMario

    She is a symbol of American hegemony and globalisation.
    The East is rebelling and so is Europe.
    Shamerica has been exposed as liars and cheats.
    Poverty in Asia was promoted in order for USA to rule.
    Regime change in Europe and Middle East created to support Lockheed-Martin , Boeing, and military financial machinery.
    Time for Europe to disconnect from Washington; link with Asia where the future will come very soon.
    Stop Uncle Sam's Navy and Air Force provoking China and Russia.
    Hilary needs to go to Laos and Vietnam to clear minefields and unexploded bombs that US is responsible for.

    Chirographer

    Comey offers his opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would press charges, but the dividing line is between a finding that Clinton did wrong and was "extremely careless" is that she was not "grossly negligent."

    That's a judgment call to be made by the 'reasonable prosecutors" in the DOJ. It's not for the FBI to prejudge that for them.

    In a case like this the decision would normally be made by the AG. But, she had already announced she would not be able to do her job in the circumstances- her chit chat with Bill tainted her impartiality - and the decision whether or not to prosecute would be made by senior level career prosecutors. Apparently the FBI wasn't interested in what the people charged with the responsibility to make the decision would think.

    Finally, for some unexplained reason, the FBI Director felt he had to make his statement today without the DOJ's knowledge. Doesn't the FBI operate under the DOJ?

    What a mess.

    ExKStand

    I think this shows you how scared the establishment in the U.S. is of Trump taking up power. Save them from organising a black operation against him. No way should Hiliary be exonerated in this way. In a democracy this should be for a court to decide, not the FBI. Hard to see how a fair court could find her not guilty of at least incompetence.

    kiwijams

    Are their Clinton supporters who can read through this entire saga and still think she has a high degree of integrity and honesty? By all means vote for her because she isn't Trump, but surely you can't think this woman is all that trustworthy?

    GrandmasterFlasher

    Hillary is too big to fail, and too big to jail. There are too many vested interests invested in the megalomaniac for charges to be laid.

    funnynought

    Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied that none of her emails were classified at the time of sending/receiving. This stinks.

    Bill Clinton didn't have a "chance meeting" with Loretta Lynch, but walked across the tarmac and boarded her plane to talk. Hillary Clinton has misleadingly characterized numerous times how the two met, even with Lynch's own account out in the press. This stinks.

    Lynch had the option of refusing to talk with Bill Clinton for the sake of avoiding conflict of interest. She didn't. This stinks.

    Just days after her husband met Lynch, Hillary Clinton was called into the FBI for a meeting, on the quietest news weekend of the year till Thanksgiving. This stinks.

    Somehow, after a mere 3 days of deliberating--over a holiday weekend--the FBI came to a recommendation. This stinks.

    The recommendation was no charges. This stinks.

    The recommendation lays heavy emphasis on her intention, not on her negligence with classified information. This stinks.

    If elected president, Hillary Clinton is "considering" retaining Lynch as Attorney General. Quid pro quo. This stinks.

    President Hillary Clinton: "I didn't really mean to leak the nuclear codes to ISIS in Libya. My bad. I didn't have bad intentions, though." This stinks.

    "The buck stops here." -Democratic President Harry Truman. This doesn't stink.

    Shardz

    Meanwhile, feel free to leak any government documents you might have and see how lenient the FBI will be with your case. I guarantee you will be in federal prison before dusk. Hillary was not authorized to set up an external mail server no matter what the status was with those documents. More Liberal ridiculousness.

    Britaining

    So Hillary carelessly voted for Iraqi war, carelessly pushed the Libya/Syria civil wars, carelessly paved the way for Benghazi attack and refugee crisis in EU.......but liberal idiots won't care.

    Anyway, she made a special contribution to Brexit, just like theGuardian's smarty pants.

    Michronics42

    This decision is deeply disappointing but not surprising as the late Carl Sagan observed:

    " One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

    The FBI's partial exoneration of Hillary comes with this proviso: "Although we did not find clear evidence that the Secretary or colleagues intended to violate laws, [of course has been clearly documented that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing

    1)by lying that she received government permission to set up her private servers and

    2)knowing full well that she would evade FOIA requests by destroying thousands of these emails]there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information, said Comey."

    For those Clinton, Inc supporters who continue to support this "congenital liar," and longtime "charlatan," this just the latest 'careless' episode in the deeply troubling career of a sociopath who craves power way more than she cares about the nation she may one day govern.

    I'll always Feel the Bern and I'll always support those who will continue the fight for reform.

    jimmy coleman

    Praise the mosquitoes in a Louisiana swamp, Ms. Hillary is innocent. She didn't know what she was doing!! On several levels I can believe that. We can now all sleep better just knowing the Clinton's once again dodged a close one, like the time Ms. Hillary and Chelsea dodged gunfire in Bosnia. We are told to believe that no reasonable prosecutor, from Maine to Texas, from Alaska to Florida, from the moon to Pluto would dare try the fair lady.

    Ms. Hillary may not know what she twas doing after she signed the pledge not to do such a thing, she may have misspoken like she did when traveling in Bosnia or talking about the Benghazi video to the victim's families. She may have used bad judgment, ad infinitum, slept through the burning of the midnight oil as Rome burned and been a lousy administrator of the nation's secrets but add, according to the latest legalese, Ms. Hillary ain't guilty of deliberately knowing what she was doing!! She can do more harm in ignorance than a smart person can do on purpose!

    For those of you working in the computer security field, your job has just become easier, for now nothing, absolutely nothing one can do with classified or even Top Secret information can be considered criminal. If the prospective Democratic nominee, perhaps our next Great Leader of the 'free' world, can do what the FBI Director himself said she did, then none of the underlings should have a fear to face or a hefty price to pay for emulating the shenanigans of Ms. Hillary.

    Ain't this country great. If you got money and power - where you can send your disbarred, impeached hubby to visit secretly for half an hour with the chief law enforcement official, all the while the FBI G-men shoo away pesky reporters with cameras rolling - and then two days later those same G-men interview the prez-in-waiting, - with just a one day interval in-between the FBI Director can say to the country, with a straight face, that 'no reasonable prosecutor in the whole wide country would convict Ms. Hillary.... And if that don't beat all, while the FBI is talking to the nation, Ms. Hillary and the other guy,...... oh yes, Mr. Obama, who promised us to run the most transparent and honest government in the nation's history, strap themselves in Air Force One to go campaigning together. And if that wasn't enough poop through a goose, a big chunk of the unwashed masses swallowed what was said and done, hook, line and stinker!!

    jgwilson55

    WaPo piece on the topic....

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be-even-worse-than-we-thought/

    I wouldn't rule Bernie out quite yet! The superdelegates don't like liars!

    TheRealCopy

    "Several thousand work related emails were not among those returned to the government and appeared to have been deleted"!
    How does the FBI know what was in the e-mails apparently missing if they were deleted?

    It appears to be a political decision not to charge her for security breached and they won't charge her because she's who she is and in the middle of a campaign as POTUS nominee for the Democratic Party!

    To put the matter into perspective, Remember what happened to General Petreaus! A top notch war commander completely destroyed over breaching information security on a much smaller scale!

    ericsony

    Talk about friends in high places....Watch the Clinton chronicles on you tube.. what these people get away with is amazing...If it was made into a film you would think it was a bit too far fetched!!

    CaliforniaLilly -> ericsony

    Time to watch a classic movie: The Manchurian Candidate. Love the original one with Angela Lansbury. But, good time to see it. Trust me.

    PotholeKid

    "This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today – just in time to save Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations." /Greenwald
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

    lot3con3rr1

    "Extremely careless" just the kind of person you need with the finger on the button.

    ID8020624

    The 15 minute press interview w/ the FBI, however, was vey revealing, but not duplicated here. She was shown to be the careless arrogant system-girl that she is. W-leaks just published 1000 of her emails for all to see,...go see for yourselves.

    Bot candidates have highest unfavorable ratings ever recorded in US history. This is not right: over 60% of voters neither support nor Trump!

    The Oligarchic rule is stripped naked for all to see. US people are not that dumb not to see a couple crooks running to rule over them,...

    Vote Green! Vote Stein!

    Unfortunately Bernie is busy trimming party platform that has never been followed by any Dem president.

    Robb1324

    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.

    How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz?

    Is there a benefit to having your own email server to conduct department business on other than skirting FOIA requests and internal oversight?

    KlaatuVerataNiktu

    Glenn Greenwald: Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations - until Hillary Clinton

    "Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection."

    time2plyBsides -> Nelson Ricardo

    I worked in IT for the U.S. gov't. Everybody has to take the trainings for IT and data protocol. The lowliest cleaning staff who merely dust a laptop. The highest ranked general. They are VERY serious about it.

    There are specific rules for which communications go over which networks. If Hilary wants to log on to her gov't computer, the system must register that she took the training or she will be locked out. Let me be clear: THERE IS NO WAY THE SEC. OF STATE DID NOT KNOW ALL DoS BUSINESS ALWAYS MUST STAY ON SECURE GOV. NETWORK. She would have had that drilled into her head by then.

    She is a lawyer. She knows all Sec. of State emails are archived to protect the People from malfeasance. She intentionally side-stepped protocol. There is no other reasonable explanation IMO.

    eminijunkie

    ""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it was sent and received,..."

    Same sentence parsed properly: " I know i sent and received classified information, so I can't say I didn't, but I need to make it sound like I didn't know what I was doing in an nice, innocent way, so I'll say I was 'confident that I didn't because I think that's the safest thing I can say to seem to deny the possibility of doing what i know I did."

    Goias Goias -> CriticAtLarge

    After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State.

    Bo1964

    A decade ago CIA claimed Iraq of WMD, now FBI recommends 'no charges' against Hillary. All collusions to please the bosses!

    Brockenhexe

    Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration.

    Brendan Groves

    Hillary has been careless with her emails, careless with her votes for the Iraq war, and very careless with her husband. all of this carelessness does not bode well for a future President.

    shaftedpig

    Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected.

    johhnybgood

    Proof if any is needed, that the US Administration, together with its Judiciary and its law enforcement agencies, are criminally negligent. The elites are above the law, just like the banks. This may well be the tipping point that sends Trump and Sanders supporters over the edge.

    rochestervandriver -> MtnClimber

    "The head of the FBI is a Republican, btw."

    This is what he is (below) so no wonder people think the fix is in. Obama appointed him , republican or not. He's a "Business as usual" man. I guess he hopes that Trump doesn't get elected as I'm sure this story will not end here.

    Anyway, this will cost Hilary on the campaign trail . Trump will rip chunks out of her with this.

    In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and he became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin. In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School. He also joined the London-based board of directors of HSBC Holdings. In 2013, Comey was appointed as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.

    NoOneYouKnowNow -> outfitter

    The NYTimes, 2 days ago: "Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation's first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015."

    UKnowNothing

    Whether it's putting the Bush/Cheney crime family in prison for an illegal war and thousands of innocent deaths, or HRC in prison for Bengazi and releasing sensitive documents, y'all are starting to see what's wrong in this nation. It's a nation of crooked professional politicians, family dynasties run by the 1% and the banksters... Welcome to the land of the free. Free for the wolves to eat our souls.

    Vladimir Makarenko

    Not counting this:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-04/hillarys-closest-aide-admits-clinton-illegally-burned-daily-schedule

    Scott Anderson

    Clinton is not above the law. If the GOP really thinks they have a legitimate case then Speaker Ryan and the other members can impeach her if she wins. The reality is it is game over since it is only GOP partisans who are interested in pursuing this. I think it would be a repeat of the last time with the Senate laughing at the House for their stupidity. Everyone knows that neither Clinton nor Trump are honest. The Democrats don't see it as a real issue. Bernie Sanders said he does not care about "her damn emails".

    Both the GOP and the Democrats are more intent on partisanship than in talking about ideas on how to improve the government and society. Sanders was different and I think a lot of his supporters felt that it wasn't just about him. Both Trump and Clinton do not have strong morals and it is a bit sad.

    Leviathan212

    I'm glad Hillary is not being indicted, and I'm happy that we still have a viable candidate against Donald Trump.

    But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven.

    - She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie.
    - She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie.
    - She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie.
    - She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie.

    People are so blinded by their worship of a candidate that they are willing to ignore blatant wrong-doing. This is how moral and ethical corruption happens. Try admitting the truth to yourself - it's okay to say, "Yes, I support Hillary Clinton, but I can also see how she lied in these instances".

    RealWavelengths

    if an average worker at, say, a bank would have been caught using a private email account to conduct bank business, and some of those emails contained unsecured, confidential bank customer info that could have been at risk for interception by identity theft crime rings, that worker would have been in violation of several laws. And if subsequently it turns out that employee deleted some of those emails and claimed they did not contain customer data but were personal, it is doubtful, given other evidence, the employee would have gotten away with just scolding words from the FBI.

    At least a fine would be levied, and perhaps a prohibition from working with confidential financial data again. Here, Clinton just got scolded, and that's it. Clearly, this is a problem with high ranking elected and appointed officials, and yet many of us somehow keep letting these people get into office. We should indeed let our voices be heard online in various ways that enough is more than enough. Time to get rid of the revolving door of past corrupt officials getting back into office with the same corrupt ethics. Both parties are trash. There's a better way…

    Georwell

    "...is Ian Bremmer who said that "it's very clear that in trying to make it go away actually lied, repeatedly, about whether or not these materials were classified at the time. And it's the cover up frequently that gets people in trouble, it's not the actual misdeed. This was very badly mishandled by Hillary all the way through."

    But then she got some much needed help from the FBI to complete the cover up.

    In retrospect, perhaps former Attorney General Eric Holder said it best when he justified with the US DOJ simply refuses to bring up criminal cases against those it deems "too big to prosecute":

    if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps world economy

    And just like that, Hillary is "systemically important", if mostly for her countless Wall Street donors. "

    full story here:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption-meet-bryan-nishimura-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi

    midnightschild10

    Welcome foreign countries. You will soon be able to know everything you need to know about thrUS if Hillary becomes President. Will need a larger bedroom or basement for her server which of course the White House has. The head of the FBI says although statutes may have been broken, it is no big deal. We don't need them anyway. Good to know, so if anyone wants to break statutes in the future, they just need to ask the FBI for the Hillary deal. Poor people of Washington D.C. Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse then the poisoned water in Flint, or the Green Algae in Southern Florida, the toxic smell of whitewashing covers D.C. Stay indoors, take precautions, donate to the Clinton Foundation, because this could last for years.

    Leviathan212

    So, Bill Clinton meets with Loretta Lynch and four days later the FBI recommends no charges?

    I'm not saying that there was any corruption - mainly because I have a high enough opinion of Loretta Lynch's integrity (and not of Bill Clinton's). But the optics are not good. It further fuels the idea that the Clintons play fast and loose with the rules and are morally and ethically compromised.

    virginiacynic -> boscovee

    No one should ever, ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer (preferably two lawyers) and a Tape Recorder.
    The FBI will not record it and instead write up a summary of what was said and ask the person to sign the summary. If the person subsequently says something contrary to the FBI summary then that person can be charged with lying to the FBI.
    It was not overkill when the FBI had eight people. It was good sense and good lawyering by Clinton's Counsel once it had been decided to talk with them. If she were not running for President then any sane lawyer would have said to take the fifth, just as the guy who set up the server system did.

    greg2644

    For all of you guys who are up in arms about this decision, let's pretend for a second that serious classified information did get out from her server. Even if that were true, involuntary treason is not a crime. Intent matters in a court of law. All of the things Hillary is being accused of are only crimes if she intended for information to get out. There's no proof that she did, so they can't charge her with anything. This decision shouldn't surprise anyone. Politicians are untouchable unless they're caught with blood on their hands... and even then...

    Vladimir Makarenko -> greg2644

    It's called "criminal negligence". The stress is on the word "criminal". If she couldn't have understood after had been told many times the rules of separation of private from government emails how she can be trusted with Red Button?
    As minimum JD must withdraw her clearance. She can apply for a job at her "foundation".

    Georwell

    so Hitlary declare she never sent any classifieds documents
    ""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it was sent and received,..." (Hitlary )

    BUT next we get this from FBI :

    "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;"

    Its this incompetence or just THE MOST corrupt system ever ?

    ghostintheshell29

    "An indictment could have wrecked Clinton's election hopes and perhaps opened the door for Donald Trump to become president."

    I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president.

    Its a lot easier for Trump to beat Hillary then Bernie. People actually like him.. Huge advantage over both other opponents.

    RealWavelengths -> Joe Smith

    Actually, laws were broken. Comey just chose not to prosecute because, in his and his staff's opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the matter, which is in the discretion of the prosecutor to do. But Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur.

    As Secretary of State, Hillary was considered an "Original classification authority," which is a top ranking official that not only handles such data, but classifies and declassifies it. The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling.

    DebraBrown, 2016-07-05T19:59:58Z
    America's two-tiered justice system strikes again. One rule of law for the masses, a very different set of rules for the elite.

    However one may feel regarding whether or not Hillary committed crimes, one thing is absolutely clear -- she lied.

    Comey listed a number of points which prove beyond doubt that she lied. For instance, she said she never sent or rec'd anything marked classified at the time. Per Comey, there were seven (known) email strings that were clearly marked classified at the time.

    The Inspector General's report also made it clear beyond doubt that Hillary lied about her use of the email server, point by point by point refuting everything she said about its use. And yet, after the IG report came out, Hillary went on air to say how happy she was that the IG report validated everything she'd been saying (though the opposite is true).

    This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

    gvs951

    "Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president.

    Sarah7

    FBI Director James Comey stated the following, which makes it clear that the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her top aides is a very 'special case' that would not pass the standard statutory criteria:

    To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. (Emphasis added)

    Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).

    theguardianread

    Forgot to say that mishandling US Official communications is a crime-- there is NO WAY TO KNOW IF AN INCOMING COMMUNICATION IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT, ESP AT THAT LEVEL, EVERYTHING IS CLASSIFIED BY THE "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS" RULE. No matter how unimportant it may seem to you, it is part of the bigger picture of responsibility...

    Goias Goias

    I am listening to Hillary giving a speech and she hasn't mentioned a word about the FBI declarations. Can she really think her bulshit is above answering for being called extremely careless by the FBI?

    KlaatuVerataNiktu -> Goias Goias

    Being high-ranking in the establishment means never having to say you're sorry.

    Goias Goias Goias Goias

    Even Obama is looking ridiculous building up Hillary after the FBI wiped the floor with her credibility.

    MARK Corrales

    So by this rational it is okay to break the law and violate national security protocols as long as its unintentional. WOW! The political elite do not have to worry about any kind of accountability for there actions.

    Jessica Roth -> Stu Wragg

    It's not so much her wealth, but how she got it. When you're in the pay of the Saudis/MIC/Wall Street, the US government looks out for you.

    Seriously, she swears under oath that she's turned over all her emails, it eventuates that there are thousands more emails, but the FBI goes "no big, don't worry"? I didn't know that the federal perjury statutes had been wiped off of the books. Perhaps Hillary sent me an email, but I missed it?

    Snowden gets exiled, Manning gets tortured…Clinton gets a coronation. Yes, very fair.

    I urge everyone to vote for Jill Stein. Nothing can be done about this election (Trump, despite his manifest flaws, is the more honest candidate and the peace candidate, but he has very little chance of winning), but by getting Stein/the Greens to 5%, there is an opportunity for the left to be properly heard next time, rather than the same corrupt dance between the two halves of the Money Party. It's the only way to deny Clinton the second term she's already planning.

    Yuri Esev -> zepov

    Quote: ...love people who think that because Comey is a Republican, that this means that he tried everything he could to reach an indictment. He's TELLING YOU that he's choosing not to.
    Some people refuse to acknowledge this simple reality:
    If there is one thing that democrats and republicans *always* agree on, it's helping big business to buy our politicians wholesale so that they can continue to redirect money away from the most electorate, and towards big business and the existing political establishment. In this case, it means putting the first lady of Goldman Sachs in the White House Unquote

    Carpasia

    First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law.

    Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways.

    I believe Hillary Clinton fully intended to break the law, that law being the Freedom of Information Act under which her emails were capable of being publicized upon request after vetting for, among other things, how classified they were. Only a fool would think otherwise given the information she had and the use of a private server in the face of that information.

    I do not think she intended to break laws concerning effectively risking the loss and publication of classified security materials by using an unsecured private server for her email.

    Thus, what she did resulted in the risk of loss of classified materials that would never have been lost if she had stayed within the government system, which laws she broke, one intentionally and one carelessly, so journalists could not read her other unclassified emails, for they would never have seen the classified ones.

    At best, she was ignorant of the law on classified materials while intending to break the law on access to information.

    This bodes well if she is elected a President of the United States, for it will put paid to the vaunted myth the Americans ceaselessly tell the rest of the world, that it is a nation in which no one is above the law. This is the truth. Hillary and Barack having a laugh at The Donald.

    csterling11 , 2016-07-05T19:09:05Z

    In the meantime, a serious federal lawsuit, not business related, has been brought against Trump, alleging, among other things, rape and false imprisonment of a minor, about which I see little to no coverage in the media. http://lawnewz.com/celebrity/why-isnt-anyone-paying-attention-to-the-sexual-assault-lawsuit-against-trump / and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

    Jooolie

    Its great to see this investigation come to an end so quickly after such a long process.

    June 27th Bill speaks with Lynch
    July 2nd FBI interviews Hillary
    July 5th FBI clears Hillary

    ClearItUp

    They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain.

    For what she did, at a minimum she would have been charged with something to cause her to agree to a plea bargain, the terms of which would have been at a minimum not being able to receive classified information, i.e. losing her security clearance. If she were not running for president, I have no doubt she would have plea bargained to that level and admitted she broke the law.

    But in the infinite wisdom of the FBI, they decided not to pursue her because just charging her with anything would have ended her campaign for presidency. The punishment would have been greater than the crime, again in their mind. So they didn't charge her. They would have even charged Hillary Clinton if she wasn't running for president. This was a political decision no matter how you look at it.

    dongerdo

    Critically, the FBI said that other similar cases in which a prosecution had been sought involved evidence of "willful or intentional" breaches of the rules, "vast quantities" of data or "indications of disloyalty or efforts to obstruct justice". "We do not see that here," he said.

    Interesting. Considering all those things are actually applicable, it was intentional, it involved a lot of mails concerning Libya, she made an effort to keep it secret and tried to delete rather large quantities and therefore has been obstructing justice I am curious if they would still 'Do not see that here' if the opponent would not be called Trump....

    Adoniran

    "Nonetheless the detail of the FBI's investigation is likely to hit Clinton politically. Comey revealed that of the 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent."

    Just add it to the list of lies that she told about this.

    From the FBI:

    "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    So I guess we have different standards of intent for her than we do for the rest of us. That intent to commit an action that is felonious would be enough for anyone else. For Clinton though, it seems she needed to intend to break the law knowingly, otherwise she's immune. But wait, even if we use that lofty, specialized standard, more from the FBI:

    "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

    ..........So why, again, are we not indicting?

    ClearItUp

    If a government agent takes a folder of classified (not even talking about highly classified) information and leaves them on a counter in a public restroom, then after say a few hours remembers and goes and retrieves it, he will be charged with neglect or mishandling classified information. Depending on what the information and intent was, they could be charged anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony with possible years in jail. If this act occurs multiple time by the same individual not being charged with something is unusual, even in cases of unintentional confidential information. The usual outcome for such unintentional negligence, if they are minor is plea bargain in which the subject gives up his/her security clearance for a period of time or permanently.

    Hillary Clinton by Comey's own admission violated the law, but they decided no to pursue prosecution. Because, the penalty would have been too strong in her case, i.e. dropping out of nomination. This is the real story. It was a political judgement, no two ways about it.

    venkatt

    The Farce of a Presidential nomination cycle is now complete. The billionaire Donor class has officially INSTALLED its "Chosen One" on the American Masses...

    Lester Smithson

    The Clinton propensity for ethical shortcuts, special treatment, statute dodging (they are both Yale-educated lawyers), and supreme entitlement are eclipsed by the last GOP president ($7T war, and wrecking the economy) and the prospect of Trump, whose potential for destruction in near infinite.

    Clinton dodged this one. She'll destroy Trump and the next ethically challenged foot in the dung is just around the corner. It's the Clinton way.

    Jill Stein 2016

    skatterbrayn

    Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no...

    Another win for the oligarchy and queen of the weapons industry. I fear for families in the Middle East if she is POTUS. Get ready to go play in the desert again troops.

    A sad day for justice in America. The Guardian must be thrilled though. Congratulations. I'm sure Lucia will write a a great nyah nyah piece about this. Pat yourselves on the back, your queen of global intervention skated on something others have been destroyed for.

    callingallcars

    People are attracted to Trump because he is not a member of the political establishment, viewed by many as incorrigibly corrupt and discredited. Ironically, the decision not to prosecute Clinton will enhance the prospect of Trump's being elected, because it reinforces widespread views in the public that political elites like Clinton can act with impunity and are immune from the laws that apply to the rest of us. If Trump is elected, Clinton only has her own bad judgment to blame. Using a private server for email and effectively stealing the public record is conduct that one only does if one actually feels immune to the rules that the rest of us must follow. Her arrogance may well lead to her own downfall and the foisting of Trump on the rest of us. (That is not to suggest that Clinton would serve the American public well.)

    Longleveler

    The e-mail server imbroglio is the tip of the iceberg. Under the water and as yet out of MSM's sight is the influence peddling, money laundering , and election rigging:
    https://medium.com/@Chijourno/bernie-sanders-should-go-there-on-arms-sales-for-donations-influence-peddling-is-at-the-rotten-f4b61019be9a#.8fnh4x1jy
    http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-democracy-dead-in-california_us_5772c94fe4b04650f1505de2
    If the Fairness Doctrine was still in effect the Corporate Media would have had less influence in creating the mirage that Hillary is capable of being President.

    Jon404

    There's an old Roman saying -- 'Res ipsa loquitur' -- 'The thing speaks for itself'. Basic to our tort law; you don't need to prove intent.

    For 28 minutes, Comey precisely described the 'thing'. Then, in his last two minutes, he ran away from the law, and then out of the room as fast as he could go.

    Is there a different law for the Clintons than for the rest of us? Yes. From Whitewater until today, obviously. In the corridors of power, from the leaders of both parties, the fix is in.

    As a Democrat, does this mean that I should vote for Trump, and put up with four years of babbling idiocy, rather than going with Hillary and furthering the assault on our democracy and on our law?

    Maybe.

    steveky

    So She was not knowingly Criminal.
    She only had an unsecured server and put national security at rick so she could have her own Blackberry.....
    Or she had the server to circumvent freedom of information act laws, which Comey did not even address.
    This is not over folks....
    Stupid or Criminal... If she is to be president I almost hope Criminal....


    Curt Chaffee

    "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey."

    The poodle speaks.

    Copper65 -> Curt Chaffee

    ..no reasonable prosecutor who wanted to keep his job (or maybe his life).

    dddxxx -> Wolfclan

    Winston Churchill once said when criticized, "Any fool can see what is wrong---Can you see what is right?"

    BillFromBoston

    I'm sure that many of you Europeans speak Spanish and,therefore,know what "plato o plomo" means.However,I'll wager that few of you know much about the Mexican drug cartels that literally control Mexico today.And they control Mexico through "plato o plomo".This utterance is very,*very* effective when directed at the police,judges,prosecutors and elected officials.

    Although it's possible that Mr Comey and/or his subordinates were promised "silver" that seems unlikely.Much more likely is that they were promised jobs...promotions...lucrative consulting gigs.Remember,Europe...there are many,many,*many* people who make very,*very* comfortable livings while connected to folks "inside the Beltway" (meaning Washington).

    It's also possible,but highly unlikely,that anyone involved was threatened with "lead".Much more likely is that threats to careers...threats to reveal the existence of a mistress...and other less extreme,but *very* persuasive,threats were communicated.

    "Plato o plomo"..."I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"...take your pick.

    nerospizza -> ID1773222

    It means silver or lead- as in you can take a bribe or a bullet..

    Arbuzov

    I possessed a Top Secret Special Intelligence Compartmented Access security clearance for 34 years before my retirement, and I handled uncountable classified documents in my time. And I can assure you that 90 percent of them (at a minimum) were either overclassified, or never should have been classified in the first place.

    Joelbanks

    She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she.

    What is grievously wrong with this picture?

    ilipe Barroso -> alan101

    Then, explain this rubbish: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

    There was no intent but a lot of recklessness. How different is from this case? I'll help you: he was a nobody.

    makaio -> alan101

    Lying - Her ongoing lie about the server's purpose, and her past b.s. about it being approved and fully above board.

    Reckless - See this article, and take into account her support for toppling Muammar Gaddafi, among others.

    Obstinate - Twelve years to admit toppling Saddam Hussein -- with millions suffering as a result to this very day -- was a bad call. She's still lying about her server a year after its discovery and, to the detriment of her supporters who always have to avoid this topic, she obviously doesn't care.

    Secretive - Her server was implemented to evade public and official records requests, with a degree of success.

    Warring - Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Honduras leader ousters or attempts, all without follow-on plans, all increasing suffering and terrorism, all indirectly or directly supported by Hillary.

    Her traits are right before us, and they're only "Rubbish!" for those who cower, deny, and stick their heads in sand.

    And they don't bode well for our future.

    guicho

    So she lied when she said no classified information was sent on the private server, the FBI just admitted that there was information of the highest security classification on the server. Whether intentional or not, failing to keep top secret information safe from intrusion and access to persons without the proper security clearances is a crime. Yet the FBI won't recommend charges. I can't believe this is going to be swept under the rug and "news" media will continue to champion Hillary for president. If any of us breached security protocol at work we would be fired, prosecuted and prevented from finding work in the future. Just another example of how the law discriminates based on who you are and how much money and influence you have.

    bill9651

    Emailgate looks like it is just the tip of the iceberg!

    https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3qbytj/hillarys_22_biggest_scandals_ever_with_cliffnotes/


    ciaofornow -> trilobitestew

    Dud?

    I am no Republican.

    Clinton has been outed as a serial lair to the nation:
    .

    the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies!

    Now the FBI contradicts her statements that none of the material she sent was marked as top secret or as classified.
    The FBI found: 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent.
    Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time, 36 chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information.

    So is the FBI part of the right wing conspiracy? And if so, why no indictments. She broke rules in order to keep the public from knowing anything about her using her post to boost the corrupt Clinton Foundation. By doing so, she played fast and loose with govt secrets, even top secrets. And then she repeatedly lied to the nation about it.

    Not my findings, not that of Republicans, but of Democrat appointed FBI directors and State Dept investigators.

    Her corruption is becoming public knowlege at last.

    Battlehenkie

    Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"

    Because doing so would make for a weak case that a prosecutor is unlikely to win, or because it would be career suicide for the prosecutor due to upsetting vested interests?

    wjpietrzak

    Now we'll never know if the contents of the compromised Secret files led to any harm to the US, its citizens, Servents and allies. No prosecution, no need to reveal the facts.

    LeaveHasLost

    Just a coincidence http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/bill-clinton-tarmac-history.html?_r=0

    Mauricio Faria -> ataylorusa

    Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security.

    Doug Wenzel

    When my dad was a lt. jg on Kwajalein 50+ years ago, he was an entry level Communications Officer. The whole island was one big Nay base. One day, he got distracted, and forgot to deliver a minor, routine encrypted message. It was found in his pants at the base laundry.

    Needless to say, that was the end of his career in communications. he was reassigned as a radar operator in the belly of a single-engined SkyRaider like this one, which meant sure drowning if the plane had to ditch.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider#/media/File:AD-5W_on_deck_USS_Kearsarge_1957-58.jpg

    When Hillary Clinton opted to have her own server she assumed strict liability for everything involved with it. Plus she signed an acknowledgement when assuming work at the State Department. Clearing her is an disgrace, and an insult to those in the intelligence community and with foreign allies whose lives were put at risk, as well as to all those who have had their careers drawn and quartered for breaches far less significant than these.

    Jack Dornan

    Careless = little or no regard to the consequences.

    Top Secret = disclosure consequences would be damaging to the nation or place US lives in danger

    No prosecution = no unauthorized disclosure occurred

    Conclusion = Lucky Lady

    stratplaya

    No classified info: lie
    Allowed by State: lie
    Turned over all work emails: lie
    Wanted a single device: lie
    Never breached: lie

    Laws are for the peasants, not our rulers.

    Reason336 -> stratplaya

    ahhh when has it EVER been different than that in human history???

    You expected different now?

    Kommentator

    On the premise she did nothing wrong (snigger....) she is reckless, careless, a proven lair, Wall St. bought & paid for, a known warmonger, a recipient of funds from dubious nation states and apparently a war hero from dodging snipers bullets........and yet......and yet you still she is the best option, you could not make this up.

    Urgelt

    This is very disturbing to me.

    The FBI doesn't mention the legality, or lack of legality, of Clinton's avoidance of compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA. She purged official correspondence from her e-mail server - a fact turned up by discovery of that correspondence on the senders' servers. Did they even ask her if her intent was to avoid compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA? We can see no evidence that the FBI even brought it up.

    So the Obama Administration hands to Clinton a mild spanking on classified document handling, but ignores the elephant in the room: why she refused to use an official government server for her official correspondence. If her intent was to avoid compliance with federal statutes, then she broke the law.

    Adrian Newton

    Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law.

    God bless exceptional America. Lady Justice will not be back anytime soon.

    callingallcars

    "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey.

    Evidence of potential violations of criminal statutes is typically called "probable cause" that would get every American in the country other than its elite and untouchable political classes indicted and brought to trial. Or at least all of the black ones, i.e., the superpredators that must be brought to heel.

    [Jul 05, 2016] Giuliani: Dissapointed in FBI's Comey

    www.youtube.com

    Jul 5, 2016

    Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani argues FBI Director James Comey put Clinton above the law.

    Category
    News & Politics
    License
    Standard YouTube License

    [Jul 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut

    Jul 5, 2016 | youtube.com

    Hillary Clinton 2015 vs FBI Director James Comey 2016

    Subscribe to Reason TV for daily content like this: http://bit.ly/1Ocr2AL

    Approximately 1:45 minutes.

    Produced and edited by Austin Bragg. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

    Visit http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/07/05... for full text, links, and downloadable versions of this video.

    [Jul 05, 2016] Rand Paul Rule of law 'turned upside down' on Clinton emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Republican senator and former presidential candidate took to Twitter to express his outrage over what he called "a loss for the rule of law" that "further degrades Americans' faith in the justice system." ..."
    "... "While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. ..."
    TheHill

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday blasted the FBI's recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server as secretary of State.

    The Republican senator and former presidential candidate took to Twitter to express his outrage over what he called "a loss for the rule of law" that "further degrades Americans' faith in the justice system."

    Paul also criticized the controversial private meeting between the former president Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch that took place just days before the FBI's announcement regarding possible charges for Clinton.

    WASHINGTON-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) issued the following statement regarding the recommendation from FBI Director James Comey that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted for her "extremely careless" mishandling of classified information:

    "While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions.

    While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."

    Fred Lang,

    Just underscores that there are 2 justice systems in America today: One for us peons and another for the rich, powerful and politically connected.

    It's a disgrace.

    [Jul 05, 2016] Off the hook: FBI directors statement on Hillary Clinton email investigation

    From comments: "Judging by the vast majority of comments, NO ONE has been fooled by the decision. The massive awakening is in full swing. The people are just waking up and won't be stopped now. Throughout history once the people opened their eyes to the fraud, the powers that should NOT be was removed, destroyed or both."
    Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).
    Notable quotes:
    "... I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. ..."
    "... Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. ..."
    "... Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal email server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors. ..."
    "... Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the state department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain ..."
    "... when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the email software was removed. ..."
    "... 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained 'secret' information at the time; and eight contained 'confidential' information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were "up-classified" to make them 'confidential'; the information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent. ..."
    "... The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. ..."
    "... I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed. ..."
    "... The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related emails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total emails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. ..."
    "... there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. ..."
    "... we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the US Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" emails). ..."
    "... None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the US government – or even with a commercial service like Gmail. ..."
    "... Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked "classified" in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. ..."
    "... With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. ..."
    "... 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. ..."
    "... To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. ..."
    "... 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. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Good morning. I'm here to give you an update on the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as secretary of state.

    After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

    This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

    I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

    So, first, what we have done:

    The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

    Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

    Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal email server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

    I have so far used the singular term, "email server", in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the state department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together – to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal email was used for government work – has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

    For example, when one of Secretary Clinton's original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the email software was removed. Doing that didn't remove the email content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of email fragments end up unsorted in the server's unused-or "slack"-space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

    FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 emails provided by Secretary Clinton to the state department in December 2014. Where an email was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the email to any US government agency that was a likely "owner" of information in the email, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the email contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the email now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as "up-classifying").

    From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was 'top secret' at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained 'secret' information at the time; and eight contained 'confidential' information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were "up-classified" to make them 'confidential'; the information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent.

    The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional emails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private email domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government email accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a secretary of state might naturally correspond.

    This helped us recover work-related emails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of email fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

    With respect to the thousands of emails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the 'confidential' level. There were no additional 'top secret' emails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been "up-classified".

    I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account – or even a commercial account like Gmail – there was no archiving at all of her emails, so it is not surprising that we discovered emails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 emails to the state department.

    It could also be that some of the additional work-related emails we recovered were among those deleted as "personal" by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for production in 2014.

    The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related emails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total emails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related emails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

    It is also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

    We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

    And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton's personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on email, to those involved in the email production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

    Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal email operation.

    That's what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

    Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

    For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the US Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" emails).

    None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at departments and agencies of the US government – or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

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

    While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the state department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

    With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

    So that's what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

    In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don't normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the i