Why is Donald Trump under investigation but Hillary Clinton isn’t?
For the Record: I despise Trump just as much as I despise Hillary Clinton and for very similar reasons which all tie bacteria to their ACTIONS.
Before I go any further we need to discuss the realities of this #RooshansDidIt manufactured outrage and Gaslighting which was being used by Democratic Party Brass, and is more recently being used by Republican Party Brass. The fact that it’s being alternately used by both “sides” of our duopoly should be a clue as to it’s validity. :^
I’m going to let Lee Camp, a well known Progressive take that bit:
Also, YES. Bush and Cheney ALSO belong in prison for the same damned thing. That they aren’t doesn’t mean Hillary should skate though here. Sorry.
Der Gropen Furer wasn’t under any serious, non gas lit, investigation because our entire political duopoly is a giant gas lit Three Card Monte Scam which is specifically designed to obfuscate the fact that we’re living in what is a corporate owned kleptocratic Kakistocracy instead of the Democratic Republic we’re supposed to have.
Corruption is Legal in America means that we have both sets of Party Brass gorging at the same hog troughs.
People keep saying that “Hillary wasn’t ever found guilty of anything!!” yet that’s absolutely NOT what Comey said in his findings.* In fact that claim of there being nothing found is the exact opposite of his actual words in his nationally televised statement on the investigation. *(Full Statement cited and linked below)
For The Record, Based upon the facts and the law BOTH Clinton and Trump belong in prison for life, though for slightly different particulars. That said, because we live in a corporate owned kleptocratic Kakistocracy neither will ever see a single day behind bars no matter how richly they both deserve it.
What Comey actually said was that they found LOTS of blatant evidence of crimes which she and her staff committed but which she wouldn’t be prosecuted for, and he also said that anyone else would have been prosecuted.
Here’s what one Federal Judge said about it… Judge says Hillary Clinton’s private emails violated policy
She violated the requirements of the Open Records Act which mandates that all job related communication be turned over to the National Archive upon departure.
She violated any number of a dozen laws regarding both intentional and unintentional releases of classified information.
Here’s just some of those laws:
For the ~30,000 emails that were supposedly “personal” and in fact were work related
Note carefully that only the knowledge of the classification and the act of removal from security (as with a civilian managed email server) retention is required. There’s not one word here which requires intent in order to prosecute.
Here are the actual words of Shitweasle Comey, with the actions which are crimes under these laws highlighted in bold italics.
Here’s a fun little song on the subject
This are the words straight from the Shitweasles’ mouth…
And my source for these words is straight from the FBI website.. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
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.
This is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
Which explicitly prohibits having classified information on an improperly secured device. Note that upon reading the law there’s nowhere in which “intent” matters as an element of the crime. ALL that’s required is to have control over a device which is insecure and has classified information on it.
It’s also a violation of this little gem which requires zero in the way of “intent” in order to be prosecuted for it.
It’s a 10 year felony Per Occurrence. (Aka: Per escaped from proper InfoSec procedures.. it doesn’t even have to get to a “bad actor” all that’s required is that you potentially exposed it to the possibility of a bad actor getting it)
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.
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.
This, in and of itself, IS A CRIME. It was a crime when the Democratic Party Brass went absolutely batshit hissy fits ballistic about Bush Jr. and Cheney doing it. It was a crime when Hillary was a Senator, and it was STILL A CRIME when she was Secretary of State. The Open Records Laws which make it a crime (a 2 year felony) have been in place since the late 1980s.
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.
*”Intent” in violating national security standards for handling InfoSec information has ZERO bearing on whether or not a person will be prosecuted. The rule of law here is that if you release any classified information, especially if that info is labeled Secret or Top Secret, you get prosecuted and are subject to prison regardless of any “intent.”
We’ve literally had sailors go to prison for simply taking pictures with their phone which they didn’t release to anyone; because it MIGHT compromise InfoSec. Intent doesn’t fucking matter in this Domaine of Law. Ever. To claim or imply that intent is an issue in handling of InfoSec material is a flat lie.
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).
This ONE issue would literally have put any sailor, soldier, or civilian in prison for a decade… in and of itself. 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
Here’s the particular section she violated in each of those 110 emails and 52 email chains.
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:
Here’s where his Shitweasle-Ness becomes apparent…
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.
This is a flat lie as there are dozens of cases where people have been prosecuted for simply having cameras ^which weren’t even used^ in secure areas.
What follows is him exposing his lies to CYA for Hillary. He’s basically saying “Yea, we found lots of crimes here but the laws don’t apply because she’s insanely wealthy and Protected.”
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.