FBI: Will not indict Clinton - Surprise, Surprise

[wnlight]

She was "extremely careless" but "did not know what she was doing. Brings to mind that meeting on the tarmac.

[avid]

The horror of 'handshaking' to save themselves is up-front now. She is guilty as ever, so why the protection of a vile, liar, murdering woman getting the backing of folk who are also rotten to the core?
Who funds this abberation of 'honesty'?
It is SO obvious now that dishonesty prevails during this 'fake election'. Was Trump there as controlled opposition?

[wnlight]

I just read that the Clinton camp is exhilarated by the news that the FBI recommends no indictment. Apparently there is no alarm over a presidential candidate that is "extremely careless" and "did not know what she was doing.

Actually, we suspect that she knew exactly what she was doing.

[Sean]

She sold classified information, essentially. Leaves top secret info on an completely unprotected server, enemy hackers get the info they want, then a "donation" to the Clinton Foundation is made.

High treason.

[sommervr]

I am astonished at the state of American politics right now. Blatant election rigging and rampant unchecked criminality all out in the open for all to see.

[Wind]

This psychopathic war criminal might become one of the (apparently) most influential political figures soon. It just shows you the massive ignorance, corruption and insanity of these times. We haven't seen true justice in a good while.

[Kryztian]

Here is the statement by FBI Director James Comey:


Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail 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 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.

The FBI also 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 found those additional e-mails 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 e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail 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 e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails 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 e-mails 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 e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails 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 e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, 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 e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, 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 e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails 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 e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail 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 e-mail 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 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).

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.

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.

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 e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail 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 e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails 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 e-mail 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 importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

[Bingo]

It is now quite apparent that the USA no longer has the rule of law. So not only are we financially bankrupt, our justice department is completely corrupt. Everyone involved in this should be in prison; instead they, not the law, rule us. We will now have our first female president supervising the destruction.

[Citizen No2]

I said it some time ago on here. Hillary will be President. My only reasoning for thinking that is that she would have been behind bars a while ago if she was not set for that position.

There are those out there that think that H is being blackmailed by an even more twisted, corrupt and psychotic group than the Clintons themselves. All this talk of e-mail servers sure has kept eyes away from the Clinton Foundation, that, to me, is the real scandal.

If you can imagine such a thing........... More psychotic than the Clintons. I met Bill Clinton once, only very briefly. That man sure has a unique energy about him, that's for sure.

Bingo wrote:


It is now quite apparent that the USA no longer has the rule of law. So not only are we financially bankrupt, our justice department is completely corrupt. Everyone involved in this should be in prison; instead they, not the law, rule us. We will now have our first female president supervising the destruction.

They are the law Bingo.......... In fact, the law, as we understand it, does not apply to the likes of the Clintons' et al. That is there for us, and the law is far, far removed from justice. Today's revelation is a perfect demonstration of how the law works.


Regards.

[Sean]

She was "extremely careless" but "did not know what she was doing. Brings to mind that meeting on the tarmac.

That meeting was Bill Clinton exercising raw power.

He was the one who appointed Loretta Lynch U.S. Atty.

I'd say the message he was sending was VERY clear.

[Franny]

I suppose it's time for wikileaks and others to release more of the emails they managed to pick up from her private unsecured server.

[Positive Vibe Merchant]

She was never ever going to get indicted. No matter how damning the evidence. Everyone knows the corruption. Just need to find a way, or a bunch of people to bring it down... have to think of it like an Al Capone situation find a different strategy.

[Sean]

She was never ever going to get indicted. No matter how damning the evidence. Everyone knows the corruption. Just need to find a way, or a bunch of people to bring it down... have to think of it like an Al Capone situation find a different strategy.

The problem with this is, there are no "untouchables" anymore. Everyone is corrupt. those who are not get their careers ended..or a bullet. the oligarchs rule, now.

[KiwiElf]

I got the distinct impression listening to Comey's overdone "speech" that it was a case of "thou protesteth too much". Those who think she was guilty and deserved indictment aren't likely to change their minds (as can be seen on Avalon). If anything, this charade has made the corrupt US Justice system and the "elites" even more visibly obvious to those who are paying attention.

The Clintons may be smug with this outcome, but the damage has been done for all to see... it ain't over yet... ;)

[wnlight]

My meditations tell me, and have told me for months, that Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the USA, but will not survive the term. I am now getting that she may not last more than eight months in office. I draw a blank on the why and how of it.

[ZooLife]

Politics, at least USA politics, remind me of the blue wall of silence within the ranks of police officers.

http://www.hireanillustrator.com/i/images/2015/04/ThinBlueLine_Resize.jpg

[onawah]

It may be because there were reports that some time ago when she was out of commission for awhile, reportedly "sick" that she had actually survived an assassination attempt, escaping with just a bullet wound. I don't remember if it was Fulford or other sources, but the report said that it was one of the Dragon Societies responsible, and they issued her a warning that if she became POTUS, they would kill her. I have wondered the same thing.

My meditations tell me, and have told me for months, that Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the USA, but will not survive the term. I am now getting that she may not last more than eight months in office. I draw a blank on the why and how of it.

[Chester]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gross+negligence

Gross Negligence

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.


"extreme carelessness" exceeds the lack of usage of reasonable care.

"extreme carelessness" = gross negligence


If anyone had an delusions about what's going on in the US (and much of the world), those delusions should have ended today.

"The fix is in?"

Nope, the fix has been in for decades if not centuries if not millennia.

[ghostrider]

Clinton nor trump could both be out of luck, obama could create a national emergency, remain in office for a third term and enact martial law then American has civil war... Hillary Clinton was never going to be charged with a crime...

[KiwiElf]

This is the backlash of what I meant with my earlier post:

Americans React With Fury: ‘If Hillary Doesn’t Follow the Law, Why Should I?’

http://www.prisonplanet.com/americans-react-with-fury-if-hillary-doesnt-follow-the-law-why-should-i.html

Anger as FBI recommends no charges for former Secretary of State

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
July 5, 2016

Many Americans reacted furiously to the FBI’s announcement that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges over her email scandal, with some asserting that since the former Secretary of State appears to be above the law, they would also now refuse to follow it.

“Why should we follow the law when our leaders don’t?” asked one respondent, adding, “This Clinton bull**** has sealed the deal for me. We are ruled by a corrupt cabal that is above the law.”

“If Clinton wins, I’m not paying taxes anymore or following federal laws,” wrote another, adding, “Simple as that. It’s over. They can jail or kill me, I don’t care. I’d rather live as a free American for a day, then spend a lifetime under criminals.”

“If Hillary Clinton is not indicted why should I ever follow another law? I’ve played by the rules my entire life. Every day,” wrote another enraged American.

Innumerable people on Twitter also asked why they should bother to follow the law given that it doesn’t even appear to apply to the nation’s highest elected representatives.

Twitter comments at link

----------------------------------------------------

This blogger may have it right...:

FBI Comey Just Put Final Nail in Hillary Coffin! The Witch Is Dead!
Tuesday, July 5, 2016 16:12

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/07/fbi-comey-just-put-final-nail-in-hillary-coffin-3380317.html
(Before It's News)

At first I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The first 15 min of the announcement he was laying out a strong case to indict Hillary and then in the last 2 minutes basically said he couldn’t because she’s above the law. I thought he was in the Clinton’s pocket (blackmailed or worse).

Then I realized what he really did was prosecute and convict Hillary in just 15 minutes. He was told by Obama, Bill, Hillary, and the rest of the power elite that even if he recommended an indictment, that it was never going to happen. Comey did’t rise to the level of FBI director unless he is extremely smart. I’m sure he has talked to Trump and others to figure out how best to counter the Clinton/elite corruption.

Hillary never expected him to do this, but he covered his ass and did like he was told by not going for an indictment. There are ties with Chris Chistie, Comey, and Trump. They all knew what was about to happen. So being frustrated he decided to layout all the details of her reckless and criminal behavior so that Trump could toast her.

Not only Trump, but the media, and voice of public opinion. People already don’t trust Hillary and after Trump starts pounding this out to the American people, Hillary is toast. He killed any chance of her getting elected and I think that was his plan. It solved several problems for Comey. He doesn’t get put in a position where he has to resign. He got all the damaging details out at once instead of having to leak them later.

He kept the Country from going into chaos because of what Hillary and Bill would have done as revenge. He ensured that Hillary doesn’t get elected so that AG Lynch will be removed. He knows Trump will appoint an AG that will throw Hillary and Bill in jail. He gave himself time to pursue the criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation and potentially take down both Bill and Hillary.

How satisfying would that be for a guy like Comey. It was a masterful play by Comey, but he will take a lot of heat!!

He didn’t have to give all those juicy details about how reckless Hillary is. Feeds right into Trumps talking points of corruption, bad decisions, and being above the law.

[KiwiElf]

Judge Jeanine Pirro on Hannity - Comey Has ' Destroyed Reputation ' of FBI - 7/5/16

LAajnXYUi-U

60oyTT9Q_X0

C'mon Wikileaks... hurry up with the data dump on this ;)

[PurpleLama]

The Sorcha Faal report at the bottom of the previous page is interesting, KiwiElf. It may be that SF is no friend of the Clintons, as I had a similar thought myself, except I was adding the possible reason that Comey was protecting his own life and family in those last two minutes. Comey's speech was quite damning, the cognitive dissonance kicked hard at the end.

[KiwiElf]

The Sorcha Faal report at the bottom of the previous page is interesting, KiwiElf. It may be that SF is no friend of the Clintons, as I had a similar thought myself, except I was adding the possible reason that Comey was protecting his own life and family in those last two minutes. Comey's speech was quite damning, the cognitive dissonance kicked hard at the end.

@ PurpleLama

Sorry,... what Sorcha Faal Report???? :confused:

[PurpleLama]

Beforeitsnews is Sorcha Faal. (see post 26)

[Citizen No2]

Ahhhhhh,

this is just................ 16 seconds of everything you ever need to know about H.

zYWGVSZw8LA


Watch it and weep people, watch it and weep.


Regards.

[KiwiElf]

Beforeitsnews is Sorcha Faal.

I don't think so - while I'll agree that some articles/reports on BIN are dodgy, that's news to me - perhaps you're confusing Before It's News with WhatDoesItMean.Com ? :)


Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. There is a high chance that "Sorcha Faal" is actually David Booth, the owner/operator of the website, or someone collaborating with him.

The primary audience of Sorcha Faal's reports and the only ones who take them seriously are usually other conspiracy theorists, but in a few cases the site has been noticed outside of the fringe, such as in 2016 when a few Russian news sites reported Sorcha's inane speculation as a straight news story (see below).


:focus:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sorcha_Faal

[shaberon]

I really just had to laugh at this FBI bozo. Make a statement like that and, then of course you get a Wikileaks dump of her stuff. What I saw, was nothing we didn't already know, and I'm not reading a 1,000 of her mails. That she can maintain any kind of public support, whatsoever, almost makes me wish things against the public I'm not supposed to; much as with Bush's Iraq War speech, I thought he should have been shackled ten minutes into it, but everyone in the room was cheering.

If the mono-party politicians would for once, just say, we're a military empire who will attack anyone we want, then I could at least respect their integrity. But with that couched language they use, it's too spineless and slimy to be anything but a running joke, on us all.

[onawah]

Goodlatte Presses for Information on FBI’s Investigation into Hillary Clinton
https://judiciary.house.gov/press-release/goodlatte-presses-information-fbis-investigation-hillary-clinton/


Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today issued the following statement on the FBI’s decision to not recommend criminal charges against former State Department Secretary Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified information through private email servers and sent a letter to FBI Director Comey raising concerns about the Bureau’s decision.

“I am concerned that despite finding Secretary Clinton acted with extreme carelessness and there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, the FBI is recommending no criminal charges against former Secretary Hillary Clinton. This defies logic. The American people expect government officials to abide by the law just like everyone else. The fact that Secretary Clinton ignored the law and faces no consequences for doing so diminishes the American people’s trust in their government.

“I spoke with Director Comey today immediately following his announcement and raised several concerns. I asked several pointed questions about the Bureau’s conclusion and will push for answers. It is clear that Secretary Clinton possibly jeopardized the safety and security of our citizens and nation through her use of private email servers. None should be above the law and the American people need to know that federal law enforcement is taking this misconduct seriously.”

Chairman Goodlatte sent the following letter to Director Comey to memorialize the concerns he raised during their phone call today about the FBI’s investigation. The signed copy can be found here.

July 5, 2016

Honorable James B. Comey
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535

Dear Director Comey:

I am concerned that despite finding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acted with extreme carelessness and that evidence exists of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, the FBI is not recommending criminal charges against Secretary Clinton. Little solace is found in your detailed breakdown of the FBI’s findings that Secretary Clinton acted “extremely careless” in mishandling classified information. This raises many questions.

According to your statement made earlier today, out of the 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department by Secretary Clinton, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains contained 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 chains contained Secret information at the time and eight contained Confidential information. You also noted that separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential in that the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

During your remarks, you stated that “[a]lthough 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.” But since President Obama took office in 2009, the Department of Justice has prosecuted at least seven people under the Espionage Act. Five of these individuals — John Kiriakou, Shamai Leibowitz, Chelsea Manning, Jeffrey Sterling, and former State Department official Stephen Kim – were sentenced to terms of incarceration.

In 2014, Bronze Star recipient and combat veteran Chief Petty Officer Lyle White pleaded guilty to violating three military regulations for removing classified documents from his Naval office in Virginia and taking them home. He received a suspended 60-day sentence and a suspended $10,000 fine in return for his plea.

Bryan Nishimura, a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008, in his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, 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. He carried the classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. 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. Nishimura pleaded guilty in July of 2015 to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. He was fined $7,500 and ordered to surrender his security clearance.

Your public pronouncement today of the FBI’s decision to not recommend charges against Secretary Clinton raises a number of questions. I find the timing and manner of your announcement uniquely troubling in light of last week’s secret meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. I respectfully request that you respond to these questions in writing on or before close of business Monday, July 11, 2016.

What sets Secretary Clinton apart from the persons prosecuted for mishandling classified information described above? How does Secretary Clinton’s conduct differ from that of former General David Petraeus or former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger?
If the FBI found evidence of potential crimes related to mishandling of classified information by Secretary Clinton and her staff, why would the FBI pre-judge that “no reasonable prosecutor” would ever bring such a case for negligent mishandling of classified information? Is that not a decision that should be made by the Department of Justice? It strikes me as incredibly unorthodox for you to publicly announce that you are recommending that Secretary Clinton not be charged rather than refer the matter privately to the Department.
The espionage chapter, specifically, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), doesn’t require that a subject act “intentionally” or “knowingly,” but with “gross negligence.”
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.
Black’s Law defines gross negligence as “a lack of slight diligence or care” or as “a conscious, voluntary, act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party…” In your statement you said that Secretary Clinton handled classified email with “extreme carelessness.” How does that not constitute “gross negligence”?
Why was Secretary Clinton interviewed only once and only at the end of your investigation? Interviews with her at the early stages and throughout your investigation would have shed light on her conduct in this matter. Certainly, Mrs. Clinton’s position as Secretary of State, the non-disclosure agreement she signed as Secretary (and which all federal employees who have access to classified information sign), the painstaking steps she took to circumvent the use of the .gov email system, and her attempts to seek classified devices for use when working inside her State Department office – all clearly point to her knowledge that she handled classified information as Secretary, that she had a duty to do so according to the law, and that she went out of her way to not do so. She was not a rank and file employee with a security clearance. Did this inform your decision?
Section 1924 of title 18, United States Code, prohibits the unlawful removal of classified information and is the statute to which General Petraeus pleaded guilty in 2015.
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such 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.
Why does the setup of a private server – through which she received Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret classified information – and retention of such information on the private server – not constitute a violation of Section 1924?
Are you concerned that your recommendation that Secretary Clinton not be charged sends a message to the thousands – or millions – of government employees and contractors who possess security clearances (not to mention 535 Members of Congress and Senators) that they don’t need to follow the rules?
I am concerned that classified information on our military’s Special Access Programs and other Top Secret material that Secretary Clinton sent and received over her private server is now in the hands of adversaries who wish to do us harm. If any other American with a security clearance had placed such sensitive information at risk, is there nothing the FBI would have done to recommend sanctions against such person’s extreme carelessness?
What does your recommendation to DOJ that Secretary Clinton not be charged, despite extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information, mean for the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation?
I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte
Chairman

[Arcturian108]

Now, the day following the Comey announcement, I watched MSNBC "Morning Joe" program from 6 am and was very surprised to see both Joe Scarborough & Mika Brzezinski absolutely roast Hillary over and over for about 3 hours. I don't normally watch their show, but I expected that such a liberal station would have held back a bit on the attacks. It only made me think that the powers that be may have changed their collective minds about Hillary.

For more than 10 months I have felt that Trump would be the next president of the U.S. He has an angelic side that he hides well.

[wnlight]

The sad thing is that Hilary will be elected president by the elites. Whether by election fraud, MSM lies, or even by murder, Trump and the American people will lose. It's in the cards.

[Andre]

FBI Comey Just Put Final Nail in Hillary Coffin! The Witch Is Dead!
Tuesday, July 5, 2016 16:12
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/07/fbi-comey-just-put-final-nail-in-hillary-coffin-3380317.html
(Before It's News)

KiwiElf, thanks for posting the "Before its News" commentary item. I think that writer has nailed it. I would add that Comey looks like he would dearly love to prosecute, but makes it clear that no "reasonable" prosecutor would attempt it. Interesting choice of word there - "reasonable".