Vikingwoman wrote: Markle wrote: Vikingwoman wrote: Markle wrote: 2seaoat wrote:There are no email crimes. [...]
[img]
The FBI’s investigation found “27 email chains containing classified information” on a laptop that “was never authorized for the storage or transmission of classified or national defense information,” according to the application for the warrant, which was partially redacted.[/i][/img]
Read this carefully Pinnochio.
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation determined that almost every email discovered in a laptop used primarily by the husband of an aide to Hillary Clinton was a duplicate of previously produced documents or personal emails, a person close to the case told Newsweek. As a result, FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress Sunday saying the new emails have not changed the bureau’s earlier decision that
no crime occurred with Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state."
Sorry my good friend, but the James Comey NEVER SAID that no crime occurred.
AGAIN, your desperation is duly noted.
This gets old Moron Markle. Why am I wasting my time correcting a known liar over and over again?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/fbi-director-comey-says-there-is-no-evidence-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/
Quotation from the speech by Comey from the far left publication, "Time".
"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."
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.
"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."http://time.com/4393372/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton-email-speech-transcript/
In other words, they found a way to bend the law in order to not prosecute Hillary Clinton.
From the far left Progressive site, Politico.
Democrats groan after Bill Clinton meets Loretta Lynch
The private meeting rekindles concerns about a possible conflict of interest while his wife is under federal investigation.By LOUIS NELSON, BURGESS EVERETT and NICK GASS 06/30/16 09:04 AM EDT Updated 06/30/16 12:45 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-224972
Lynch says tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was 'regrettable'http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/19/lynch-says-tarmac-meeting-with-bill-clinton-was-regrettable.html
Home
