EXTREMELY CARELESS
Posted on 07/05/2016 9:10:52 AM PDT by Don Hernando de Las Casas
Comey’s words…
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.
Interpretation: She’s guilty, but nobody would ever think of prosecuting her. Hey, Comey! This was NOT a slip up or mistake on hillary’s part—this was sop, all day every day for SIX LONG YEARS, this was an ongoing, continuous breaking of the law day in and day out, and she cannot be prosecuted?
The FBI had the gay night club shooter in its crosshairs. The FBI cut him loose. Pretty clearly Comey understood he would personally be the target of blame.
So, by Comeys own words, she comitted crimes.
Even though he recommends no prosecution, what is to stop President Trump from having a new AG do it?
If Loretta Lynch refuses to, does that mean it’s over?
And the crooked FBPraetorians worked for two long years to charge the Bundys out west with "felony trespassing" and "felony conspiracy to cr@p in a trench"...
Anyone who trusts ANY part of our...no...their government (except the military) should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
CW-II is most definitely coming.
Not if, but when.
I am too old to join, but promise to “not recall” any incidents directed at the D.C. vermin.
And, of course, Trump was right.
Again.
I would think it depend on the statue of limitation
Wonder if we’ll get another J Christian Adams type resign from ‘Injustice’ and speak out?
If Trump were to promise anything, it should be that his AG will appoint a special prosecutor.
There are, I assume, honorable hi level FBI agents who will help Trump’s Justice Department indict Comey for this joke of a decision
Why would the military be any more trustworthy?
If Trump wins in November Hillary will be pardoned in December (or January).
>>Anyone who trusts ANY part of our...no...their government (except the military) should be treated with the contempt they deserve.<<
What makes the deviates who control the military any different from the rest? Don’t trust any of them!
Adams should be the AG in the Trump administration.
DC swamp creatures plan on retiring aged 55 at full salary, then double-dipping as ‘consultants.’
They don’t dare rock the boat.
“there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
A liar's tell: "...this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) July 5, 2016
Yes, very serious ones which he specifically warns no one else better do because they will be prosecuted.
Even though he recommends no prosecution, what is to stop President Trump from having a new AG do it?
Nothing.
If Loretta Lynch refuses to, does that mean it’s over?
No. Her decision not to prosecute is hers alone. She tried to put it all on Comey, but even though he did not recommend prosecution, he put it back on her by saying Hillary did commit prosecutable crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.