Posted on Oct 18, 2019
Investigation of Clinton emails ends, finding no 'deliberate mishandling'
617
16
23
2
2
0
Email
Investigation
Hillary Clinton
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
Hogwash. The mere existence of Hillary's private email server is prima facie evidence of deliberate mishandling. Maintaining an insecure, extralegal server is a wrongful act in and of itself. And it could not exist but by a deliberate act. All of which leads me to wonder, what hold does Hillary have on the denizens of the Swamp, that they repeatedly turn a blind eye to her crimes? Ultimately, as someone who was entrusted with America's greatest secrets, I am appalled at this outcome. I know full well that had I done anything even remotely similar, that I would languish in prison for all my remaining days
(3)
(0)
Maj John Bell
1SG (Join to see) - 1) Where specifically did my hypothetical stray from Secretary Clinton's scenario?
a. Used a private home server to conduct official business including:send, receive, and store classified material.
b. turns over server to attorneys, lacking security clearance, to determine what will and will not be turned over.
c. has server "bleached" and data storage destroyed AFTER receiving order to turn the server over.
2) I presume you are rightfully angered when you see seniors get lighter punishment than juniors. I know I am.
3) Your experience wherein enlisted members received harsher punishment than enlisted is not mine. But I will not deny that I have seen a case or two. I apologize for your experience. It is not just. In my opinion, officers should receive punishment just as harsh as enlisted men, if not more harsh. In cases where it is merited, (but maybe not appropriate for enlisted personnel) officers' careers should also be terminated if they have abused the "special trust" and confidence placed in them.
a. Used a private home server to conduct official business including:send, receive, and store classified material.
b. turns over server to attorneys, lacking security clearance, to determine what will and will not be turned over.
c. has server "bleached" and data storage destroyed AFTER receiving order to turn the server over.
2) I presume you are rightfully angered when you see seniors get lighter punishment than juniors. I know I am.
3) Your experience wherein enlisted members received harsher punishment than enlisted is not mine. But I will not deny that I have seen a case or two. I apologize for your experience. It is not just. In my opinion, officers should receive punishment just as harsh as enlisted men, if not more harsh. In cases where it is merited, (but maybe not appropriate for enlisted personnel) officers' careers should also be terminated if they have abused the "special trust" and confidence placed in them.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Maj John Bell I didnt see in your hypothetical where the 2+ years of investigation cleared the spc of mishandling emails. Now I am not sure what was done to the spc in the intervening time to destroy his career if the investigation cleared him.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
1SG (Join to see) - Your assertion that there was no mishandling is incorrect and that is not the finding of either the Department State (DOS) IG, or the FBI investigation.
The DOS IG chracterization that there was "no mishandling" is not the same thing as there was "no deliberate mishandling."
Furthermore FBI Director Comey characterized Secretary Clinton's server as "extremely careless." The decision to not press charges was in Director Comey's own words "prosecutorial discretion." John Solomon produced copies of an internal FBI memorandum drafted in May 2016, prior to completion of the FBI investigation, which stated categorically, that Secretary Clinton was grossly negligent
"The sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the 'up classified' emails) supports an inference that the participants (including Secretary Clinton) were grossly negligent in their handling of that information."
The language here is important because "gross negligence" — even absent any intent — is a violation of the law regarding handling of classified material. Yet when then-FBI Director James Comey issued his final statement, "gross negligence" was watered down to "extremely careless," which let Comey claim that no reasonable prosecutor would take this case.
Your response to the hypothetical situation is a clear side step. The points I laid out are factual. They are not disputed by Secretary Clinton.
_Are you asserting that people who routinely handle classified material may set up private home servers and conduct official business on those servers, and use those servers to receive, transmit and store classified materials. Or are you asserting that there was no private home server?
_Are you asserting that it was not a violation of classified material handling rules and regulations to allow personnel lacking security clearances to review material, including knowingly classified material.
_Are you asserting that AFTER receiving a subpoena demanding the server be turned over that Secretary Clinton had the server "bleached."
The DOS IG chracterization that there was "no mishandling" is not the same thing as there was "no deliberate mishandling."
Furthermore FBI Director Comey characterized Secretary Clinton's server as "extremely careless." The decision to not press charges was in Director Comey's own words "prosecutorial discretion." John Solomon produced copies of an internal FBI memorandum drafted in May 2016, prior to completion of the FBI investigation, which stated categorically, that Secretary Clinton was grossly negligent
"The sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the 'up classified' emails) supports an inference that the participants (including Secretary Clinton) were grossly negligent in their handling of that information."
The language here is important because "gross negligence" — even absent any intent — is a violation of the law regarding handling of classified material. Yet when then-FBI Director James Comey issued his final statement, "gross negligence" was watered down to "extremely careless," which let Comey claim that no reasonable prosecutor would take this case.
Your response to the hypothetical situation is a clear side step. The points I laid out are factual. They are not disputed by Secretary Clinton.
_Are you asserting that people who routinely handle classified material may set up private home servers and conduct official business on those servers, and use those servers to receive, transmit and store classified materials. Or are you asserting that there was no private home server?
_Are you asserting that it was not a violation of classified material handling rules and regulations to allow personnel lacking security clearances to review material, including knowingly classified material.
_Are you asserting that AFTER receiving a subpoena demanding the server be turned over that Secretary Clinton had the server "bleached."
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Maj John Bell yeah I should have phrased that better so people dont get confused. I guess I will await the charges and sentencing of HRC.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The department of justice may have something about the state department's internal "findings". The state department cannot file charges or prosecute anyone. The DOJ can. If they do not, the precedent will be set on mishandling classified information others will use as a defense to get away with it in the future.
(2)
(0)
LTC Wayne Brandon
1SG (Join to see) - I hope you are correct in that assessment but I'm not holding my breath and even if found guilty will likely never spend two minutes behind bars.
(1)
(0)
LTC Wayne Brandon
I agree, Jeff - The State Department is not a part of the Judicial branch and has no binding authority over anything of a legal nature outside of its charter. Hence, their opinion is frankly that - an opinion and it carries no official weight.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Pretty sure the "lock her up" chant although in poor taste is not in reference to just her Email scandal and never was, it has to do with her entire history of scandal going back to even before white water. To say it is an unfair chant now because the State Department happened to clear her in her latest scandal.........ignores her entire political history and those of her close associates. We never would have had some of those large wiki-leaks Email dumps had for example John Podesta used a password other than "password" for his Email for example. Very arrogant and stupid man.....just a small example of Clinton Inc.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
As with any charge, it must be proven or it is entirely false. HRC has been cleared....until some evidences surfaces to say otherwise.....she is cleared. I will be the first one to say I am wrong if there is evidence out there. It's been years and nothing.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google