Posted on 05/09/2016 9:38:21 AM PDT by tflabo
Clinton faces questioning over her handling of classified information in emails, as well as funds received by the Clinton Foundation while she was in high office, James Conway former FBI agent and Managing Director of Global Intel Strategies told RT.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
Doubly interesting because it showed up on RT (Russian TV). Why would the Putin network go after Hillary? Are they truly an independent news source? I don’t think so given the news readers who quit in protest previously.
Right Wing Conspiracy!!!!!!
Why did she want a private server? Simple answer is to conceal wrongdoing likely with corrupt donations to the phony Clinton Foundation. I don’t think she gave a rat’s posterior about the implications of secret government information being put at risk. It was all about covering up the graft and corruption pouring into the phony foundation
I can understand the email thing. She trusted no one, and one can only wonder how much her ineptness cost us, probably not much, but
The Clinton Foundation, is pure and total criminal acts. She prospered as did her husband handsomely as SOS, using her influence to get bet royalties for a book not written, speaking fees for her husband well into 6 figutes.
It was a slush fund, if there ever was one.
Last I heard (2 weeks ago maybe) was Comey saying he would announce results at the end of May. We shall see. Friday night before Memorial Day Weekend sounds good to me.
It is. I cited them above.
I re-read the other provisions, as it's been a couple of decades since I originally signed the same declaration as Clinton. This one jumped out at me as relevant, given new information:
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;
This sentence is a bit convoluted, but it basically says: if you receive information that you know should be classified from an person not cleared to have it, you are obligated to report it.
Clinton received email from Sid Blumenthal that apparently came from the highest levels of a national intelligence agency. She didn't report it, and even replied to the message (acknowledging receipt, and further subjecting it to compromise).
This constitutes another offense. Again, it doesn't require "intent". "Inaction" is sufficient for prosecution. Once you sign that SF-12 document, you have a lot of responsibility.
Here's the document:
Pay particular attention to this:
1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.
Not by much. :-)
Gosh.
There’s nothing I enjoy more than having a word debate on Free Republic.
Thank you for coming onto a thread of Hillary Clinton’s actions and trying to parse words with me about what “espionage” means.
Let’s see what the FBI comes up with.
As of now, no one can be sure that Hillary wasn’t a filthy spy selling us out to our enemies for money.
Spies using “drops” can also claim they were just throwing away paper or photos. Leaving our nation’s secrets on an unguarded computer system may be the same as running a “drop”.
Thanks again for your unsolicited and inaccurate comments.
And as of now, no one can be sure that you aren't a dog posting on the Internet. See how that works?
You won't win any arguments by making that claim. But, you can make the point that the law makes gross negligence a crime, and that Clinton signed a document agreeing she could be prosecuted for it.
There's prima facie evidence for negligence -- we don't have to wait for the FBI. There's circumstantial evidence for laundering bribes through the Clinton Foundation. But, there's no public evidence of espionage.
Nice story, but I’d hear a current FBI agent say this.
She needs to be charged NOW. But that won’t happen because we’re no longer a republic.
It's SF-312, not SF-12.
But, as a bonus, here is Clinton's executed SF-312:
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf
You can see it was signed on January 22, 2009 -- two days after Obama's inauguration.
But, there's an interesting typo: the form specifies the date should be in the form mm-dd-yyyy, but she apparently used dd-mm-yyyy (a European form). Knowing Clinton, she'll argue that invalidates the document.
>Our girl Hillary is in deep trouble.<
.
Wishful thinking.
Evil people are never in trouble in this country.
In the case of secret national security information, gross negligence is criminal.
In fact, there is no legal distinction between intentional espionage and gross negligence in the laws
We have no idea exactly what was on the server because much of what was on it is being withheld
The Dept of State does not even have all of the information because the FBI had to dredge it up off her server and is using the information as part of a criminal investigation
Correct, at least on the face of it. Unfortunately for our country, there is no doubt a back story involving a presidential pardon.
P.S. My recommendation is that you avoid spending time debating with folks who are unable to discern between dogs and humans. The former often rely heavily on assumptions; such as, if there is no public evidence there is no case.
and extreme arrogance!
Hillary Clinton demonstrated ‘gross negligence’——is that what we call selling out your country and being a traitor nowadays?
This C*** will kill your kids and lie to your face.
RIGHT ON!
All the networks and connections associated with the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative will take years to discover. I hope Judicial Watch, Trump, the new AG and DOJ along with investigative reporters keep working on this for the whole six year statute of limitations.
Emails From Hillary Clinton’s IT Director at State Department Appear to Be Missing
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.