Fbi Report

[NOIRTRASH]

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...lary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So let's quote some of it.

For example, seven 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. 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).

***************************

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

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

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.

The Nixonian boast "I am not a crook" is damnation by faint praise in the face of such blatant irresponsibility.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

At the end of the day would it matter?

Does anyone think a charges would change the minds of a rory/cocksure/spidey?

These are her core voters. Party first. Country last.

They would still vote for her.

A trial would last forever. Prison time would be unlikely.

Unless there is a absolute law that would keep her from running I doubt charges would change the outcome. (There are a few laws people could argue that would prevent her from running but they do not seem absolute to me)

 

[Colonel Hogan]

At the end of the day would it matter?

Does anyone think a charges would change the minds of a rory/cocksure/spidey?

These are her core voters. Party first. Country last.

They would still vote for her.

A trial would last forever. Prison time would be unlikely.

Unless there is a absolute law that would keep her from running I doubt charges would change the outcome. (There are a few laws people could argue that would prevent her from running but they do not seem absolute to me)

If the election is close, it could matter. Close elections are often decided by the "undecideds" and the swing voters. Touting oneself as the experienced, sober candidate against the bumbling rank amateur rings hollow if you're too stupid or arrogant not to keep SECRET and TOP SECRET information off a vulnerable email server.

 

[snugglestruggle]

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

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

Sounds to me like he is saying don't blame me, she did such a good job of covering her tracks, that lacking eyewitness testimony ( like an IT guy not taking the 5th over 125 times), no prosecutor could make a case based on so many unintentional lapses of judgement .

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I AM NOTTA CROOK! I like it. She needed a campaign theme, now she has one.

 

[Ramone45]

So let's quote some of it.



The Nixonian boast "I am not a crook" is damnation by faint praise in the face of such blatant irresponsibility.

I really don't understand those last two sentences. Other people would face consequences, but not Clinton? Why?
Why is that not what you're deciding now? (I think I know the answer)

 

[Conager]

Unless you have actual statement of intent intent is awfully hard to prove.

Given that she actually worked on Watergate and very well understood why some politicians would want to keep what they had to say private despite laws forbidding that, her intent in establishing the server in the first place is relatively easy to infer.

The fact that she did a poor job of it leading to the security concerns is secondary and was never the point that part I buy that she was simply incompetent surrounded by synchophants who enabled her incompetence.

The precedents set by this Administration in both this scandal and the learner scandal is there any government official that does not want something they did coming to light a day is free to delete, destroy and obscure any record that they feel would embarrass them.

They sure have a funny definition of transparent.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I really don't understand those last two sentences. Other people would face consequences, but not Clinton? Why?
Why is that not what you're deciding now? (I think I know the answer)

Its a political bullet dodge for all. Like Nixon HRC can say I AM NO CROOK, but she's outted as a liar and incompetent and reckless.

Said another way, its like this: HRC got stopped for DUI but was passed out by the curb with her panties down around her ankles, and her hem over her face. No one died but what was exposed ain t pretty, and nuthin no sane person wants.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I really don't understand those last two sentences. Other people would face consequences, but not Clinton? Why?
Why is that not what you're deciding now? (I think I know the answer)

Comey told you. Read it again.

"those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

Revoking someone's security clearance or other administrative sanctions are not the same as a criminal prosecution.

 

[Knot Again]

Comey told you. Read it again.



Revoking someone's security clearance or other administrative sanctions are not the same as a criminal prosecution.

its wrong

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1327860

 

[Knot Again]

BREAKING: FBI finds John Wilkes Booth "extremely careless" in discharge of firearm.

 

[contrifan32]

So lets look for a moment at the words chosen by the FBI director. Clinton was "extremely carless" about her e-mails with sensitive secret and top secret information.

Since Colonel Hogan is our esteemed Lit legal scalar, maybe he would like to tell the class why this statement is contradictory to the recommendation by Comey that there will be no criminal charges against Clinton in this case.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

So lets look for a moment at the words chosen by the FBI director. Clinton was "extremely carless" about her e-mails with sensitive secret and top secret information.

Since Colonel Hogan is our esteemed Lit legal scalar, maybe he would like to tell the class why this statement is contradictory to the recommendation by Comey that there will be no criminal charges against Clinton in this case.

Most legal experts say EXTREME CARELESSNESS is the meaning of GROSS NEGLIGENCE. This comes from lawyers who know Comey and like him.

gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

 

[Knot Again]

So lets look for a moment at the words chosen by the FBI director. Clinton was "extremely carless" about her e-mails with sensitive secret and top secret information.

Since Colonel Hogan is our esteemed Lit legal scalar, maybe he would like to tell the class why this statement is contradictory to the recommendation by Comey that there will be no criminal charges against Clinton in this case.

its wrong

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1327860

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Here's an example of gross negligence.

A supervisor puts staff of work inside machinery that must be turned off and locked to prevent activation, but doesn't. Anyone could flip the machines switch ON.

 

[Aglaopheme]

At the end of the day would it matter?

Does anyone think a charges would change the minds of a rory/cocksure/spidey?

These are her core voters. Party first. Country last.

They would still vote for her.

A trial would last forever. Prison time would be unlikely.

Unless there is a absolute law that would keep her from running I doubt charges would change the outcome. (There are a few laws people could argue that would prevent her from running but they do not seem absolute to me)

Get back to me when charges are filed.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

anyone with intelligence knows that the clintons are scumbags

they just bury the dead humans better (or maybe they put the dead bodies in a food processor and feed them to people on welfare as spam)

 

[Ramone45]

Comey told you. Read it again.



Revoking someone's security clearance or other administrative sanctions are not the same as a criminal prosecution.

To be clear, this decision comes as no surprise, however those last two sentences ar a little weird don't you think? What I hear is, "If it were anybody else, we would recommend sanctions, bit since it's Hillary...we won't because it would be too much of a mess." Am I wrong?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So lets look for a moment at the words chosen by the FBI director. Clinton was "extremely carless" about her e-mails with sensitive secret and top secret information.

Since Colonel Hogan is our esteemed Lit legal scalar, maybe he would like to tell the class why this statement is contradictory to the recommendation by Comey that there will be no criminal charges against Clinton in this case.

Most legal experts say EXTREME CARELESSNESS is the meaning of GROSS NEGLIGENCE. This comes from lawyers who know Comey and like him.

gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

Read this. It thoroughly explains the difference between negligence, the standard used primarily to award civil damages, and recklessness, the more culpable state of mind normally comprising the basis for criminal sanctions. The definitions and applications vary somewhat between various state and federal jurisdictions. I've already belabored the point over in the accidental shooting thread.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&context=dlj

But here's a teaser just to get you started.

Harms caused intentionally and negligently are directly at odds with each other. At one extreme lies intentional harm, properly and traditionally the subject of criminal sanctions. Here the actor adverts to the possibility of harm, and then acts or fails to act either with the express purpose of achieving the harm, or with knowledge that the proscribed harm must inevitably follow his act or omission, however much he may not desire the consequences. At the other extreme lies the negligent conduct sufficient to support civil liability. Here there is an entire absence of intent. The actor neither desires the consequences nor deems them inevitable, if he adverts to them at all. In the language of tort law he creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another. On the basis of an objective standard by which his conduct is later tested, he has failed to act as a reasonably prudent man under the circumstances would have acted.

By way of comparison, as bad as Hillary's use of a private email server was in direct violation of State Department policy and her negligent and/or reckless handling of classified information on that same server, it pales in comparison to the lies her husband told in a sworn deposition to a special federal prosecutor while in office as President and for which he was subsequently impeached. But nothing more.

Justice is not always served. But in this case, odds of a successful criminal prosecution were probably a toss up at best, and had it occurred, it would have almost certainly proceeded under the presumption of the lesser culpable standard of negligence rather than recklessness.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

To be clear, this decision comes as no surprise, however those last two sentences ar a little weird don't you think? What I hear is, "If it were anybody else, we would recommend sanctions, bit since it's Hillary...we won't because it would be too much of a mess." Am I wrong?

It's not a question of you being "wrong." It's simply not Comey's place to make that recommendation. His recommendation appropriately stays with whether or not to pursue a criminal prosecution. Administrative sanctions are the sole province of the Department of State and/or the Secretary of State's boss; the President.

 

[sr71plt]

To be clear, this decision comes as no surprise, however those last two sentences ar a little weird don't you think? What I hear is, "If it were anybody else, we would recommend sanctions, bit since it's Hillary...we won't because it would be too much of a mess." Am I wrong?

What you heard WERE the sanctions. FBI chiefs aren't prosecutors. His proper announcement role was to announce that they hadn't found any cause to indict and then walk off the stage. He didn't. Against all precedent, he continued in the announcement chastising her (and her staff) for bad judgments. This constitutes sanctions that go beyond the FBI director's brief, but that don't let her off scot-free for actions that were misjudgments but not criminal.

If he'd done just what his job was, the hue and cry of coverup would be unyielding--now it's just the use of his language in the announcement that's going to be unyielding in the campaign. The FBI director took a middle road. What he did constitutes sanctions.

You would have preferred a slap on the wrist in private? That's what the history of these things and the limits of the FBI director's authorities called for--in the case of administrations of either party.

You'd serve yourself better by taking what you can get out of this rather than going to what didn't happen and legitimately being told to shut up because it didn't happen. Just using the public dressing down will be more powerful in the campaigning than overreaching. Happily, though, I don't think her opponents will stay within the limits of what they can get from this and thus will let the opportunity water down to nothing in the end. (The problem there, of course, is that Trump uses bad judgment every time he opens his mouth, he can't keep his mouth shut, and these are the two major options.)

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Read this. It thoroughly explains the difference between negligence, the standard used primarily to award civil damages, and recklessness, the more culpable state of mind normally comprising the basis for criminal sanctions. The definitions and applications vary somewhat between various state and federal jurisdictions. I've already belabored the point over in the accidental shooting thread.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&context=dlj

But here's a teaser just to get you started.



By way of comparison, as bad as Hillary's use of a private email server was in direct violation of State Department policy and her negligent and/or reckless handling of classified information on that same server, it pales in comparison to the lies her husband told in a sworn deposition to a special federal prosecutor while in office as President and for which he was subsequently impeached. But nothing more.

Justice is not always served. But in this case, odds of a successful criminal prosecution were probably a toss up at best, and had it occurred, it would have almost certainly proceeded under the presumption of the lesser culpable standard of negligence rather than recklessness.

My wife disagrees with me but I think Justice is served if HRC accepts the dropped criminal charges. As you say, HRC can boast I AM NO CROOK, but shes exposed as a liar and incompetent and reckless. The facts will matter to many.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Unless you have actual statement of intent intent is awfully hard to prove.

Given that she actually worked on Watergate and very well understood why some politicians would want to keep what they had to say private despite laws forbidding that, her intent in establishing the server in the first place is relatively easy to infer.

The fact that she did a poor job of it leading to the security concerns is secondary and was never the point that part I buy that she was simply incompetent surrounded by synchophants who enabled her incompetence.

The precedents set by this Administration in both this scandal and the learner scandal is there any government official that does not want something they did coming to light a day is free to delete, destroy and obscure any record that they feel would embarrass them.

They sure have a funny definition of transparent.

This ^

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What you heard WERE the sanctions. FBI chiefs aren't prosecutors. His proper announcement role was to announce that they hadn't found any cause to indict and then walk off the stage. He didn't. Against all precedent, he continued in the announcement chastising her (and her staff) for bad judgments. This constitutes sanctions that go beyond the FBI director's brief, but that don't let her off scot-free for actions that were misjudgments but not criminal.

If he'd done just what his job was, the hue and cry of coverup would be unyielding--now it's just the use of his language in the announcement that's going to be unyielding in the campaign. The FBI director took a middle road. What he did constitutes sanctions.

You would have preferred a slap on the wrist in private? That's what the history of these things and the limits of the FBI director's authorities called for--in the case of administrations of either party.

You'd serve yourself better by taking what you can get out of this rather than going to what didn't happen and legitimately being told to shut up because it didn't happen. Just using the public dressing down will be more powerful in the campaigning than overreaching. Happily, though, I don't think her opponents will stay within the limits of what they can get from this and thus will let the opportunity water down to nothing in the end. (The problem there, of course, is that Trump uses bad judgment every time he opens his mouth, he can't keep his mouth shut, and these are the two major options.)

Excellent post.